Scottie McC’s Chronology: October 4
I told you I was going to get into the guts of Scottie McC’s book. So far, I’ve shown that:
- Scottie McC hides the date when the White House learned of an investigation and ignores details that seemed to implicate Rove, thereby making Karl’s interventions look less suspicious
- Scottie McC falsely suggests Bush’s comments on Rove weren’t a reaction to the 1X2X6 story
- Someone appears to have told Condi to exonerate Rove–and Scottie McC doesn’t think he was the one who did so
- While Scottie McC’s representation of what he briefed on September 29 is mostly accurate, there are a few details that he still appears to be hiding, notably his refusal to say that Rove didn’t know of Plame’s identity, even though Rove had just said as much to him
All of this suggests that there were big reasons to doubt Rove’s claims that he wasn’t involved. And, given Scottie McC’s refusal to state that Rove didn’t know about Valerie Wilson’s identity when he spoke with Novak, it seems likely Scottie McC may have doubted those claims more than he lets on in his book.
So let’s turn to his treatment of Libby.
For some understandable narrative reasons, Scottie McC interrupts his treatment of the events of fall 2003 right in the middle. He ends chapter 10 with his September 29 mid-day briefing and then takes a full chapter to discuss events relating to Iraq leading all the way up to fall 2004. Then, in chapter 12, he returns to the CIA leak investigation, starting with DOJ’s notification on the evening of September 29 that it would conduct an investigation.
I understand the narrative logic behind such a split, with chapter 10 treating the pre-investigation events and chapter 12 treating the investigation events. But the effect is to heighten the false impression that the White House did not know of the investigation during the earlier events. It also creates an equally false impression that Scottie McC operated by different rules during the events that appear in chapter 10 and those that appear in chapter 12.
This has a dramatic effect in his treatment of his refusal to exonerate Scooter Libby.
Scottie pretends that he was first asked about Libby’s involvement on October 1–the morning after the White House’s employees (as distinct from Alberto Gonzales) received official notice of the investigation.
The next morning’s gaggle back at the White House signaled that the press was now turning toward a new rumored suspect in the leak, the vice president’s chief of staff–Scooter Libby.
Here’s how it started. Just as I was ending the gaggle, John Roberts, CBS News chief White House correspondent, said, "One more question. You said the other day, emphatically, that you had received assurances from Karl Rove that he had nothing to do with this. Have you since then received similar assurances from the vice president’s chief of staff?"
"John, I’m not going to go down–I made this clear the other day–I’m not going to go down a list of every single member of the staff in the White House," I said, as I started moving away from the podium.
…"now turning to a new rumored suspect" … "Here’s how it started" … Scottie McC goes to some length to suggest that this question–on October 1–was the first he received about Scooter Libby.
But that’s not true–as Scottie McC’s own reference to the earlier briefing makes clear.
When Scottie McC said, "I made this clear the other day," he appears to be referring to this exchange during the September 29 press briefing:
Q But I’m not asking what you said, I’m asking if the President has a factual basis for saying — for your statement that he knows Karl Rove —
MR. McCLELLAN: He’s aware of what I’ve said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.
Q Does he know whether or not the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby —
MR. McCLELLAN: If you have any specific information to bring to my attention — like I said, there has been nothing that’s been brought to our attention. You asked me earlier if we were looking into it, there is nothing that’s been brought to our attention beyond the media reports. But if someone did something like this, it needs to be looked at by the Department of Justice, they’re the appropriate agency charged with looking into matters like this —
A question Scottie McC refused to answer.
In fact, in addition to that question, Scottie was asked about Libby’s (and Dick’s) involvement twice more in that September 29 briefing.
Q You are also saying that, you know, for your knowledge, including the Vice President’ Office, no one divulged this kind of information. But with this assuredness, why do you think the husband came out and pointed fingers and said this?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, why what?
[snip]
Q Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can you categorically say that he was not involved in this?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’ve made it clear that there’s been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President’s office, as well. When I’m talking about the White House, I’m talking about the Vice President’s office as well.
So it is clearly false to suggest that the press corps was "turning to a new rumored suspect" on October 1. They already considered Libby, along with Rove, a suspect on September 29, the first briefing after the 1X2X6 article.
Curiously, the suggestion that the press corps didn’t start asking about Libby until after the investigation officially started gives Scottie McC a neat explanation for why he didn’t exonerate Libby immediately. He describes the following exchange as having occurred on October 1, after the gaggle.
As I entered the Oval staff area, I ran into Scooter Libby. He frequently represented the vice president in world leader meetings when Cheney did not attend, and we often sat next to each other. Since we were both early, I asked if I could talk to him for a minute. We both stepped back into the small entryway connecting the Oval support staff area with the waiting area in the hallway.
"You need to know," I said, "the press is starting to ask more questions about you and whether you might have leaked Plame’s name."
Scooter listened carefully. "I told them that I was not going to go down a list of White House staff and answer whether every staffer was involved in the leak," I continued. "I want you to know why. Now that there’s an investigation under way, I can’t put myself in that position. I want you to know I’m not trying to leave you hanging out there to dry."
Uh huh. Scottie McC describes himself telling Libby after the investigation formally began why he did not exonerate Libby–and he attributes it to the investigation. But that doesn’t explain why Scottie McC refused to say that Libby (and Dick) were not involved in the leak on September 29, at the time when the White House was pretending the investigation had not yet begun.
So here’s how Scottie McC–after some apparent reluctance to exonerate Libby and Dick–came to exonerate Libby publicly. Some of this is important new information contributing to the evidence that Libby and Dick went to Jackson, WY and worked up a cover story.
That Saturday, October 4, was a relaxed, casual morning for me as I lounged around my single-bedroom, downtown apartment reading the Washington Post and the New York Times.
[snip]
The call came from Andy Card around 8:30 A.M. "The president and vice president spoke this morning. They want you to give the press the same assurance for Scooter that you gave for Karl."
I am not a coffee drinker. I drink diet Coke for my morning caffeine fix. I was still sipping on one, but what Andy just said jolted me more than the soft drink did.
"Okay," I said, not really indicating my instinctive disinclination to do what he was directing me to do.
Let me interrupt to remind you that Andy Card was the guy signaling to Bush to shut up about Rove’s involvement in the leak on September 29, before the leak had officially begun. Yet here he was, after the White House received official notification of the investigation, hauling Scottie McC’s ass into work on a Sunday so he could call the press and tell them Libby wasn’t involved. If I’m not mistaken, Andy Card hasn’t yet come out to condemn Scottie McC–I wonder whether he’d be willing to explain how reluctant he was to force Scottie McC to exonerate Libby?
Anyway, back to Scottie McC, who explains again why he didn’t want to exonerate Libby.
Based on Andy’s comments, it was clear to me Scooter had enlisted the vice president to personally appeal to the president to have me publicly deny his involvement. Now that the investigation was fully under way, I didn’t like the idea of signaling out staff members to defend. Earlier in the week, I had spoken with Al [Gonzales] and David [Leitch, the Deputy WHCO], who’d advised me pretty strongly against commenting any further on matters pertaining to the investigation, including the names of individuals. I had already told the press I would not do it. And I knew if I opened the door for one, it would be virtually impossible to close it if other names started to surface. And the press would be curious why I’d asked Scooter about his involvement, and why the White House wasn’t asking every staff member the question.
What Scottie McC doesn’t admit–because he has spent so much effort trying to hide this fact earlier–is that it was widely suspected (and, at least in the case of Rove, presumably backed up by the SAO who sourced Mike Allen’s piece) that Rove and Libby were the "2" in 1X2X6.
Scottie McC makes clear, as he continues, that this was an order from Bush and Cheney.
But this was an order from on high. As a result, I was about to cross the line I’d drawn publicly once the investigation had gotten under way earlier in the week.
[snip]
I knew from Andy’s terse comments on the phone that what he was saying was not really up for debate, nor did I expect him to offer any additional information about the president’s telephone discussion with the vice president.
To this day, I do not know what the two discussed.
This is perhaps the appropriate time to recall that when Cheney wrote a note to support the exoneration of Libby, he wrote,
Has to happen today
Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl
Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy
the Presthat was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others –
In other words, since Cheney wrote a note saying "has to happen today," and what he wanted to happen did happen on that day (I’ll return to this, but Scottie McC records calling Newsweek, NYT, Mike Allen from WaPo, and the AP), it’s safe to say that the note reflects some of what Cheney said to Bush. "The pres [asked Libby] to stick his neck in a meat-grinder." You think perhaps Cheney raised the fact that he believed that Bush was the one who asked Libby to step up and take this on?
But Scottie McC–who is still protecting Bush–doesn’t see it that way.
I am confident from konwing the president and from our previous conversations that he did not have any knowledge about Libby, Rove, or anyone else involved in disclosing Plame’s identity to reporters. President Bush would not have deliberately misled me.
There’s a lot to say about this–beyond raising the meat grinder note or the fact that Libby recorded involvement from Bush on the day the OVP started its intensified campaign against the Wilsons. But I’ll leave it for a separate post.
While Scottie wants to protect Bush, he’s ready to throw Cheney over the side.
While I wish I could say the same about the vice president, I simply don’t know for sure. Information that would become public in future legal proceedings would raise questions about the vice president’s actions that he has never publicly addressed.
I expect John Conyers may want to pursue this on June 20.
I’ll end this post with a description of the conversation between Scottie McC and Libby that resulted in Scottie McC’s exoneration of Libby.
I told Andy I would make the same public statement about Scooter as I had for Karl, provided I received the same assurance from Scooter. Andy asked what statement I had given about Karl, and I told him I had said he was neither involved in leaking Plame’s identity, nor did he condone it. I told Andy that once I’d spoken with Scooter, I would call a few reporters to make sure it got out.
When I got back to my office, I called a White House operator to track down Scooter. As he often did, he was traveling with Cheney, who was spending the weekend at his place in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Oops. One last interjection. With this comment, Scottie McC makes clear that Libby and Cheney were in Jackson when they plotted Libby’s exoneration. Think of the timing that implies. Andy Card called Scottie McC at 8:30 AM. That suggests that either Cheney spoke to Bush before 6:30 his time (MST) to get him to exonerate Libby. Or he spoke to Bush about it the evening before, and Bush passed it on to Andy Card in a morning conversation. And I find it highly interesting that, not only did Libby tell Cheney he was going to claim he learned of Plame’s ID from Tim Russert, but they also plotted his exoneration while they were in Jackson together.
To finish:
The conversation was short. Scooter was never one for many words. [Except for that two hour meeting with Judy Judy Judy, I guess.] He knew why I was calling since he had instigated what I was being instructed to do. "Were you involved in the leak in any way?" I asked him.
"No, absolutely not," Scooter replied.
"All right," I said. "I plan to tell reporters that you did not leak the classified information, nor would you condone doing so. Is that correct?"
"Yes," he replied. Then we talked about which reporters I planned to call. Scooter hung up and I set about my disagreeable task.
Jeebus EW, somebody needs to get Andy Card on the witness stand and simultaneously hooked up to a Lie Detector. That boy has got fingerprints on a whole lot of felonies.
Here’s an interesting detail I’ve been puzzling.
Waxman has asked for the unredacted FBI reports of Rove, Libby, Scottie McC, Condi, and Cathie Martin’s interviews.
That suggests that’s the universe of FBI reports redacted because of some mention of Bush or Cheney exonerating Libby or Rove.
But we know that Andy Card testified to it–at the least, by February 6. (Frankly, Dan Bartlett’s 302 should be in there as well, since we know he told Addington that Cheney ordered Scottie McC to oder the exonerating statement.)
But I want to know why Waxman isn’t also asking for a redacted Andy Card 302?
Like I wrote earlier today, to coin a phrase, What did he know, and when did he know it?
And what price is being paid to keep all the Indians on the Reservation?
Bob in HI
A lie detector hookup on Scotty wouldn’t be a bad idea, either. I don’t know if Conyers would go along with it, though.
(I wonder how anyone can handle that kind of mental dissonance and still function. Or do they just tell themselves it’s for the good of The Team and keep lying?)
Kierkegaard would have called it a teleological suspension of the ethical. In other words, the end justifies the means. Scottie reached the threshold where for him the means could no longer justify the ends. Of course, the Bush-Cheney cabal has never given us peons a clear picture of what those ends are, most likely because they are not clear in their own minds beyond the accumulation and permanent capture of power.
Deadeye’s note:
And your question of:
Does not the combination of these two sentences also imply that Junya explicitly directed Turdblossom as one of the folks to
leakbetray Valerie Plame Wilson?Ayep
But I thought we had already kind of obliquely dealt with that.
That Turdblossom was in it up to his neck, was of course, a given. That Junya told Turdblossom to jump right on in, is kind of new to me. *g*
We all suspected as much, but I don’t think I found that dot so firmly connected until now.
My tinfoil hat is on – was the sealed vs. sealed fax possibly a presidential pardon for Rove?
Somewhere the other side of extremely doubtful i should think.
I’m still not 100% convinced that Bush was really involved. The whole thing looks like a Cheney operation to me. I think Bush’s involvement was probably limited to saying, “Whatever. Now watch this drive.” My general take is that Cheney ordered the leak, and Libby leaked to JudyJudyJudy. That didn’t work, so he leaked it to Novak. (Yes, I think Libby leaked to Novak, and they’re both lying their asses off on that point.) And THAT didn’t work, either, so he told Ari, assuming that Ari would spread it among the press that were traveling with the President, and even that didn’t get it out. (I think Ari really did tell Dickerson, but Ari is such an experienced bullshitter that Dickerson had no idea what Ari was telling him. Would love to hear David Gregory’s take on the conversation.) At some point, Cheney said to Scooter, “How fucking hard is it to pass a leak? Rove could do this in his sleep, and he’d throw in some lesbian story just to make sure it made the news.” So Rove got involved (either via Cheney or Scooter, probably Scooter), called up Novak, and said, “Douchebag, we really need to get this out.” He got ahead of himself when he leaked to Cooper, but he’s managed to cover that up thus far.
The big flaw in my version is that it assumes that Armitage’s multiple leaks were just Armitage having a really big mouth. I think it’s probably less coincidental than that. I think someone deliberately told Armitage that Joe and Valerie Wilson were married and that Valerie worked at the CIA, but I think they intentionally omitted the fact that she was covert, knowing that Armitage wouldn’t be able to keep his big mouth shut. I think this may have been the original plan, and Armitage leaked to Woodward and Novak, neither of whom ran with it at first. I think Scooter and Rove got involved because that plan didn’t work as fast as Cheney wanted it to.
I’m
cominghave arrived at the conclusion that Junya did get explicitly involved and that he sicc’d his Dirty Trickster Turdblossom on the task.I’m thinking that Deadeye’s note that EW is referencing is Deadeye complaining that it was Turdblossom (“incompetence of others”) that fucked up the
leakbetrayal of Valerie Plame Wilson.Remember, Turdblossom was the first and obvious suspect in all the media questioning.
This may also show how Deadeye was able to twist Junya’s arm on commuting Scooter’s sentence. He knew that Turdblossom was the lead Judas, and Junya did too.
I see two separate disjointed and screwed up efforts underway here to betray Valerie Plame Wilson. It started as one effort, but rapidly got out of control as Turdblossom went off the reservation his way, and Deadeye had Scooter screw it up his way.
We’ve always made fun of Junya, the Clown Prince, but there are also many documented instances over the course of his career where Deadeye has been shown to make a total mockery of the conventional MSM wisdom of the “wise, elder statesman”.
Imagine that, two different screwups, occupying the top two positions of our government. A match made in…I’m not sure quite where, but certainly not in heaven.
Yes, but also remember that their entire strategy was built on Watergate-based expectations that reporters would never, ever reveal their sources.
And that ‘plausible deniability’ meant they could parse, prevaricate, and simply cut people out of the loop in order to avoid legal consequences.
As Bill Maher says, “New Rules” change outcomes.
Frank, I’m thinking you’ve run the vodoo down with this observation:
The big flaw in my version is that it assumes that Armitage’s multiple leaks were just Armitage having a really big mouth. I think it’s probably less coincidental than that. I think someone deliberately told Armitage that Joe and Valerie Wilson were married and that Valerie worked at the CIA, but I think they intentionally omitted the fact that she was covert, knowing that Armitage wouldn’t be able to keep his big mouth shut. I think this may have been the original plan, and Armitage leaked to Woodward and Novak, neither of whom ran with it at first. I think Scooter and Rove got involved because that plan didn’t work as fast as Cheney wanted it to.
Yep. They set up the fat guy first. He didn’t make it all happen fast enough, so they went to plan B: Scooter & Karl. Big question is: who fed Armitage? Dick directly?
Dunno. But he was either set up REALLY well (my bet), or he was in on the whole thing from the beginning (less likely, but the fact that he ‘forgot’ his conversation with Woodward is a red flag). The tape of his conversation with Woodward was an eye-opener for me. He didn’t just drop the fact that “Wilson’s wife” worked at the CIA; he pretty much beat Woodward over the head with it. And then he got frustrated when Woodward didn’t think it was a big deal. I had the impression that he was either feeding the info to Woodward (unlikely, since most people aren’t going to commit treason with a tape recorder running), or he had just been in a big “locker-room”-type talk involving the Wilsons, complete with sexist comments about who wears the pants in the family, etc. And then someone made sure that Bob Novak went to talk to him about Joe Wilson.
I continue to think it’s possible that one reason this whole investigation got kicked off is that Armitage told investigators that he thought he’d been set up. I’m hoping his memoir will be even more explosive than Scottie’s.
I don’t mean to dis others who’ve already posted on this, but I’m in with those who figure Armitage was only too conscious of Woodward’s special status from Deep Throat & already one peon on Bushiocracy in Mr Cheerleader Goes To War Sort Of, so his pushing a bit of gossip onto the Great Slow Pander Bear would not seem untoward or sinister – especially for a coupla dudes shootin’ the breeze again years after the fun times of Iran-contra. I would be loathe to accept that Armi knew Plame was covert, but he had to have been anxious to do what he could to try help out his buddy Powell who he knew right from 9/12 was in a tight spot [as Richard Clarke portrays so well], but the failure to apply his brain to that possibility probably speaks to his faith in his source. Now who in this putrid tale was capable to impressing a tank like Armitage of having any “good faith”? Well, how about the guy who went to bat for him & stuck his neck out over the chopping block in his hour of need when he was trying to get Senate approval for an appointment? A certain well-connected “national security” specialist lawyer perhaps?
As to the blab to Novak, I’m sticking with the idea that by this point Armitage was in no mood to volunteer, given the somewhat shall we say contrasting reputations of Woodward & Novak in WDC & Novak’s snarky disrespect for genuine effort; but Novak’s writing style betrays familiarity with enumerable cheap reporter-like pyrotechnic devices & conceits, & I note that in one of Novak’s versions he said in essence “It was HANDED to me” [which I think refers to someone or ones other than Armi ] & that in at least one of the others, including if memory serves his witness-like testy-money at the Libby trial, the impression was more like he pulled it from the depths of the old soldier’s guileless trust. I think it’s possible that all that happened was Novak said something to the effect of “We both know why I’m here” & Armi something like: “Just like Winston Churchill to that snooty high society broad” & Novak replied: “Well, lets just say you confirmed to me that Joe Wilson’s wife works in Langley & I can get out of here in time to try to make a story out of this crap & you can get to the gym before it closes” & Armi said: “Fine by me – this smell of sulphur in this room is starting to get to me” & that was that.
As to “forgetting” Woodward, well…Bobby knows his rep is all about Deep Throat, so until he showed Armi he was willing to ‘help him out’ Armi was just going to keep forgetting. The part I don’t have is what would possess Bobby to say he passed the tip on to Pincus. Pincus! who didn’t put it all together until he was on the stand – & who I note now has actually taken to penning some commentary on things Plame & simple. I don’t think Bobby told anyone – other than Libby of course.
digg
Anybody else get the sense that we are seeing the Official kickoff of the Democratic 2008 Presidential campaign strategy?
Such as a deliberate strategy of:
1. Nancy Pelosi finally gives her permission for Kucinich to take off the impeachment gloves:
2. Scottie McC’s HJC testimony on June 20th in which we are sure to see Turdblossom sausage in the making.
3. And perhaps other goodies like the US Attorney Firings/Siegleman hearings.
Perhaps the reason that “impeachment is off the table” was that the realization that yes, the votes weren’t there, but more importantly, that the very best time to conduct the theater of impeachment was in the 6 months preceeding the November 2008 election.
This has the benefit of providing a very enjoyable TV spectacle for the citizenry during the summer broadcast network re-runs, as well as a very effective counterweight to the expected usual Repug campaign of trying to portray the Democrats as in bed with terrorists, marrying members of the same sex, taxing the poor ol’ rich folks, etc.
Tell me that the Repugs will get any traction for their campaign propaganda when the American public can instead enjoy a star-studded soap opera pinning all the Repug butterflys to the mat.
I see lots of Repug deer in the headlights, and nowhere to run, nowhere hide coming to your favorite MSM outlet soon.
Boy, do I hope you’re right.
Bob in HI
Marci, you know it’s going to be hard waiting on your next book, don’t you?
We’re reading the first drafts right now.
One thing that has always nagged at me about that Cheney note was just who he was referring to when he says “because of the incompetence of others”. Just who do we suspect are these “incompetent others”?
HEY! Who let the MadDogs in? Who Who? Thought we put a lock on that doggie door…..
If you missed it, I raised my paw in salute to you and RBG last thread.
And to repeat myself, thank doG for such good chums!
I saw it, and am glad you are back. RBG is the guy, all I did was pass the word to him.
Now, as to the big Kucinich gig. Isn’t this basically basically the “free talk” or open floor time or whatever they call it where Reps can take the floor and say whatever they want? I kind of doubt that Pelosi has reset the table. This will probably go about as far as his last presentation of AofI did, which was not very far. Hope i am wrong.
It is awe inspiring to read about tough little Scottie listening to all the President’s men, and apparently the president, lie to him about their non-involvement in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, then demand that Scottie publicly acclaim their “innocence”.
Scottie, writing his book obviously after the fact, seems unable to wrestle with that. He was played a fool, willingly it seems. His repetitive use of the passive voice makes clear he’s dancing on a pin. “No one” — who, a perp, the press, the president — “has brought to our attention”….
Apart from the passive, “Who, me?” voice, it’s not the press’ job to tell Scottie about internal White House goings on. It’s Scottie’s job to tell the press about them, not news to Scottie, which suggests he affirmatively knows awkward things and doesn’t want to disclose them, but isn’t willing to blatantly lie about them.
But why would even this press corpse allow Scottie to get away with that role reversal rhetorical device when they knew something good was cookin’ about the White House’s outing of Plame? Who were Rove and his team calling at the major newspapers to keep them from focusing on the real story and why were those calls so effective?
Great insight earl.
In the last sentence you ask this:
“Who were Rove and his team calling at the major newspapers to keep them from focusing on the real story and why were those calls so effective? (endquote)
The press – owners – are big big players in this scam. That in itself answers your question, regardless of personal feelings of individual reporters, who know when to shut up when a paycheck is at stake.
On Scottie; I have wondered all along why/when/how one of the insiders will step out of hiding with all the incriminating details. It seemed inevitable to me that it would eventually happen. This may not be it but we’re getting there, and faster now.
Well, you can’t say I’m not trying. My comment, to accompany my digg of this thread:
If I follow what you are saying, there is potential to also bring up new, “other” charges against Libby correct?
i’ll need to come back tomorrow
to catch-up here — i am a full
six says behind EW in even reading
all the scottie mcCee goodness she
is delivering. . .
but i took a minute out to do
some small justice to the sinister
and slime-oozing FOX coverage of
barack obama’s “dap” with his wife. . .
all in only 45 seconds of running
video, tonight — i guess athletes,
while playing on the fox — may do
it, but not presidential african-
americans. funny that we heard nothing
about it when tom brady did it. odd.
sheesh.
and namaste!
Night all pumpkin hr. has arrived. Hats off to all of you for delightful posts.
Not Wittenberg, but close
The Revolution has begun
Kucinich nails his 35 Articles to the Chamber Doors.
Bush vacations in Europe.
We rejoice
not a peep from any of the MSM about this….hate to think that I should depend on them for news. Just think what it would have been like if it had been a Democrat!Even MSMBC ignored it totally as far as I can tell.
I forgot to write in my comment above something important…
Thank you EW for this series. Absolutely spectacular connecting the dots!
Here are MSM links on coverage of Kucinich’s Articles of impeachment:
http://ap.google.com/article/A…..QD916SHJ01
http://www.reuters.com/article…..SN09301988
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.co….._impe.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25068635/
Most of the coverage has been typical in lacking content…My favorite write up (snark) stated that over two dozen articles of impeachment were introduced (clear my throat). Guess they missed the OTHER 11, making it just shy of three dozen articles…but who is counting…it’s the MSM after all.
One of my reasons for thinking that Bush was involved is because it was handled so incompetently. Cheney has his incompetent moments but if you think about his history in washington, and all the evil doings his little hands have been involved in, he’s pretty superior at covering his own ass. He runs a tight evil ship.
Bush, has made many public mistakes and gaffes, it is part of his personality. (it’s why people trusted him in the beginning…he seemed so darn “human”.) I think that wherever there have been holes in this, they can be attributed to Rove and Bush himself. (his arrogance)
For me, the incompetence was the dead give away that mr. “I choked on a pretzel, wrecked my bike, hit a cop with my bike, hit the pavement with my face twice, and still don’t know my geography”…bush had some part. Cheney doesn’t seem to make these types of errors. And while Cheney is often “in charge” I know enough about the disease of alcoholism and the personality of an alcoholic to know that you don’t tell Bush what to do. He does what he wants. Where he is emotionally involved he will likely follow his emotion. (not reasoning)
That’s just my opinion, boy! this is getting juicy.
I wondered if Pelosi took it off the table to force people to gather more facts and info until she was “forced” to allow it. And maybe so it could occur at the time of the elections. I always had the feeling that she wanted to say no but mean “yes”. But I’ve lost a few good nails and cussed her under my breath many times and feared she was working for “the other side”.
After reading your bit here, I had to wonder…
Was one of the prerequisites to setting the table the need for a single, non-Clinton candidate to be the nominee?
If Clinton had been the nominee, would she have been prone to pressure from the right to stop any effort at impeachment before the election?
I was never one of those people that thought the Clintons would NOT go after the GOP.
I realize that we could draw some lines (like in regard to fisa and even torture) that might have prevented the Clintons from digging into all of that. However, the 9/11 commission was pretty clear on the fact that Clinton made mistakes in regard to 9/11 and that he was forth coming about them.
I could not imagine the Clintons allowing the right wing to continue their dirty deeds. My other reason is that Bill Wilson was supporting Hillary. I don’t think he would support her if he really thought she would let all of this stuff drop. That’s just my opinion. I am not one of those that believe the Clintons are evil. I do worry very much about what Obama is going to look like when the right wing is done with him. (however, impeachment would go along way toward discrediting any attacks from them for a long time!!) Yippeeeeeeee!! I hope the right wing attack machine is gone for a long time. (and politicians can go back to being human beings with strengths and weaknesses.)
My point about the candidates is that I believe one of them to be more influenced by donors who supported this war — the same ones that supported Lieberman’s win over Lamont in CT. There are quid pro quos that certain kinds of donors make, and moving on without full prosecution of the misdeeds of this administration might have been one such quid pro quo.
Bill may not ever forgive the right-wingers for crucifying him, but he’s damned pragmatic — his relationship with Bush Sr. is one such example.
Rethink the policy statement by DNC and Obama campaign about lobbyists’ money under this light.
I admired Bill’s relationship with Bush Sr. This is a quality that Obama has that I admire as well. His relationships with people like Rezko and Wright, (while maintaining his own values) is admirable as far as I am concerned. This is the same quality that would allow some folks to have a different relationship with lobbyists. I think some politicians feel more beholden to their lobbyists than others…and that this behavior is more on a continuum politically.
Obama’s move was courageous and is the best way to take the leeway out of the lobbyist/politico relationships. I am fully behind Obama but do not and will likely never see the Clintons in black and white terms. Time will likely give us a similar view of Obama. It is likely he will have strengths and weakenesses. I just think that we have had so few democrats in power over the last 50 years that we have lost perspective about the fact that leaders are human and likely to not be able to please all of us fully.
“Rove’s involvement in the leak on September 29, before the leak had officially begun.”
Needs revision
Way OT but a great McClatchy article re gas prices:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40360.html
Watching McC last night on Countdown, his opinion of Rove seeped out continually in the tone of his replies. IMO inside Scottie there’s a real need to air the dirty truth about Rove- an opportunity to “tell all” on Unca Karl’s part in Plamegate in front of the HJC seems to be something he is relishing. Note the rapidity of his reply to Conyers’ request.
May I suggest another motivation for McC’s writing the book, standing firmly behind it (so far), & agreeing to testify before the HJC- Redemption. Whatever that concept means for him personally, & redemption for the ideals he seems to have carried from Texas w/him into the Bush WH. He watched as those ideals were turned into lies. Man w/a conscience (!) seeking to unburden himself of a heavy load of misdeeds & his enabling of those misdeeds-the load not of his own making, having been placed on his back by the likes of Rove, Card, Libby, etc etc…Must admit, though, McC’s continually relying in interviews on the “permanent campaign” meme as a blanket explanation for tenor of the Bush WH is starting to grate.
Large question on HJC hearing, though- will Conyers seize the reins & really organize the questioning or will ew’s fears be realized & the hearing dissolve into ego stroking/fighting/ wasted 5 min. sound bites? Can’t help but wish it was the SJC holding this hearing (Whitehouse & Co would get to the meat of it, HJC may just gnaw around on the bones).
I fell asleep last night to Kucinich reading the 35th article of impeachment…best night’s sleep I’ve had in eight years.
Beautiful morning in Missouri..knock ‘em out with your timelines, Marcy!
OT- just a heads up- SJC hearing just started on “Coercive Interrogation Techniques: Do They Work, Are They Reliable, and What Did the FBI Know About Them? ” Hearing not televised, but link to live webcast available here. Witnesses include:
Panel I:
The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Valerie Caproni
General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC
Panel II:
Jack Cloonan
Former FBI Special Agent
West Caldwell, NJ
Philippe Sands QC
Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals
University College London
Philip B. Heymann
James Barr Ames Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA
Thanks very much, Marie.
Very welcome. CHS is live blogging this hearing over @ FDL mothership.
Great session so far. Whitehouse gave Caproni a bit of a scolding on first round, but even she rose to the challenge as the first panel (Fine and Caproni) went along.
In a way, what has mattered from the sharpest questioners is their own statements and the focus and background they give their questions — Fine and Caproni can be competent, but there is still so much that the report can’t and doesn’t answer, and all the senators there today clearly get that and put many of the questions still to be answered into the record.
The second panel were introduced and Cloonan got most of the way through his excellent intro statement, but Feinstein had to adjourn until 2 p.m.
I would have followed along with Christy except I just wanted to watch — now I’ll bop over to read her.
Thanks for the report. I ended up having to help out my elderly neighbor w/something before going to work, so managed to miss the entire morning session. I know selise is ripping an audio we can download later. Great thanks going out to you, selise, for all yr. hard work on these hearings.
Me? Work? Hard? No way.
I just watched. Compared to Christy and the commenters at FDL, I’m pretty bland, although that’s partly because I’m aware of being a guest and I don’t like to cut loose too much on your electoral politics or guys like Fine, who at least does not sound or behave like one of the pod people. But I can’t roll out the tough hard facts as fast as, say, Mary can. I’m always grateful for her blasts of the trumpet, but that’s beyond me in the chain of command and above my pay-grade, as Caproni would put it (did put it in answers to Whitehouse, unfortunately, although she caught up a little later). Actually, it was klynn @ 49 on Christy’s thread who caught that:
Or basic human decency — which is also supposed to be law, international law.
Me? Work? Hard? No way.
I just watched.
You can’t kid me, I read pogge.ca all the time.
Oops. Have to correct myself: that was Caproni in an exchange with Durbin, not Whitehouse, as perris tells us on the next thread.
here’s what I remmeber;
I remember specifically, cheney went on the TEEvee, I forget who interviewed him, and his only intention on that interview was to innoculate himself from his hand in exposing our covert assets
I remember specifically, cheney said, “in a presidential order I have been given authority to declassify on the fly”
I said at the time over at the lake that right there he was admitting he was the one and trying to lay claim to the ability to do it
in essence, “if the vice president exoses classified infromation that means it is NOT classified information”
EW, quick question about the Jackson trip. IIRC at some point Libby wrote cryptically to Judy asking her to recall when the leaves were turning on the aspens. Was Judy in Jackson with Cheney and Libby during the Oct. 4th trip or was it another occasion?
Also, fwiw, McC might not have been ready to turn on Bush in his book, but he knew Bush had personally betrayed him when Bush commuted Libby’s sentence… And all of a sudden McC put pen to paper…
phred
Agree about the book timing. But I think he still wants to bring Cheney
As to the Jackson trip–I’m still not convinced Judy was telling the truth with her claim about a Jackson trip. It’s the one question I asked her (I asked if she had also seen Cheney there) that she refused to answer. But also, I’ve been wondering if the reference was to a meeting at Camp David. The chief lodge there is called Aspen. And I suspect Judy may have been there the weekend of September 7-8 2002, right before she and Michael Gordon wrote their aluminum tubes article.
But if you buy her story, it would have been August 2003–still a significant time period, of course, as Libby and Cheney ahd been alerted by that point to the problems of outing her.
Thanks EW! I appreciate you clearing up the Judy angle for me. FWIW, I don’t believe her much at all, and in any event leaves don’t “turn” in August in any temperate zone that I know of, so I like your Camp David suggestion instead. And I agree, that McC is after Cheney first and foremost, but then even back in 2003 McC didn’t seem to be a fan of the Libby/Cheney faction given his reluctance to bail them out, when he happily went along with protecting Rove/Bush.
Aspens turn third/ fourth week in Sept.
Yep, although a bit sooner at higher altitude, which is why I agree with EW that if the story is to be believed, Aspen is referring to a place not a tree, and turning leaves would then also likely be a metaphor. Personally, I would take is as a metaphor for betrayal (such as turncoats instead of turn-leaves), but I am certain Libby would have meant it differently ; )
OT: Considering that there’s virtually zero MSM coverage of Rep. Kucinich’s introduction of a bill of impeachment last night, I wrote C-Span asking them to schedule a rebroadcast of the affair. The main reason I’m doing this is so I can provide a link that various alternative media can pass on to their reader/viewers. The more requests they get, the more likely C-Span is likely to take notice. So, here’s the email address:
Thanks
OT-I also knocked on cspan’s door to replay Kucinich’s speech.
Also, Amy Goodman is having Scottie on Democracy Now tomorrow.
OT, but administration-atmosphere germane with respect to chronicity, September 2003 Rumsfeld approved 29 new tortures. In October 2003 Rumsfeld trimmed the list and added more oversight. By early summer 2004 there were further restrictions. GFine’s OIGcentric look at FBI involvement or dissociation traces these shifts in policy and practice in the Baghdad prison, and in Cuba, and mentions relief organizations trying to find some prisoners whose whereabouts and identities were kept secret by nonFBI agencies and their contractors. Evidently the hidden prisoners were spirited in for 3-5 month torture sessions at various military operated sites, then surreptitiously removed.
Has McClellan shed any light in this book or on telly on the relationship between Sibel Edmonds, nuke component dealers, Plame, and Darth Cheney?
Can’t you just imagine Cheney and Scooter in Jackson, decked out in the wannabecowboy regalia, plotting away?
OT – but Lederman has a very good post up at balkinization on the FISA dispute.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/200…..about.html
OK – I like it bc it pretty much summarizes what I’ve believed for a long time. And I think for anyone with the time to listen to the podcast or watch the video, this ABA panel discussion from March 3, involving Wainstein and Baker, pretty much makes it clear that that Lederman is correct on the actual “gap” issue (being emails were there is no probable cause whatsoever that the target is an agent of a foreign power, but instead is only “foreign” and where masses of US communications get scooped too – communications of US citizens on US soil for whom there is no probable cause to believe that they are in communication with the agent of a foreign power).
I also think that what Lederma puts out as his speculation/summary is very spelled out by statute and is pretty much admitted in the ABA panel discussion by Wainstein, among other.
If you want to listen after you read Lederman’s post, go to
http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/
and scroll down to the March 3 event and there are links for a podcast or the cspan video. Wainstein and Baker are more direct than in any of the Congressional hearings (Baker being more of a free agent at this instance) and the audience questions are much better as well to get to the process issues.
I see you have an admirer over there (okay, may not much of an admirer) whupping out Article II on you. How could you not have realized that??? Tee Hee Heh heh.
Just don’t say his name. He’s sorta like Hastur and we don’t want him showing up over here.
Heh. Why do you think you never see me comment there? I like our village, and it’s occupants, here.
ew,
I think you are giving McClellan too much and too little credit. You give him too much credit by imputing a conscious design in his omissions. Based on the interviews I’ve seen, it’s more likely that he’s telling the story as he remembers it. He clearly doesn’t have the grasp on the chronology that you do. I think your analysis would be more interesting by drawing conclusions about what McClellan was still blocking emotionally when he wrote the book that he might be willing to acknowledge when he testifies.
You give him too little credit for how far he’s come. The WH crew underestimated McClellan by assuming he was just a stooge. He’s not stupid, but he is a poor judge of character (for us D&D nerds, it’s not his Int that’s low, it’s his Wis). He’s still working through a lot of deductive reasoning that conflicts with his assumptions of who the people he worked with were. In his interview last night with Olbermann, he was much farther down the path than he was in his first interview.
Still seems to be protecting 43
I agree. That will be the most difficult thing for McClellan to overcome.
I agree with you on all parts–I think I just didn’t explain what I was doing or how I think humans narrativize things.
Scottie McC risks severe cognitive dissonance if he has to question his admiration for Bush. So it is entirely understandable that he would remember these events in teh way he does. And frankly, there are details that he is remarkably ignorant of–as I’ll show shortly.
What I’m trying to do, though, is trace those areas where his narrativization have protected him from cognitive dissonance, because I think they’re ripe for questioning.
Wm O, I think this wise, compassionate, and astute:
Scott McClellan’s brain is ‘rewiring’: some synapses are becoming stronger, new dendrites are forming on specific neurons in specific neural networks. In turn, those newly formed dendrites then create synaptic connections with other other neurons. At the level of the cells involved, this requires a fair amount of metabolic energy, and as with any biological process it requires time. It’s not a linear progression: it involves progress, regression, more progress… all of that takes a lot of energy and time for adaptation.
Whenever I misunderstand something, I figure that I have a bunch of ‘weedy dendrites’ that need pruning somewhere inside my brain. Scott McClellan is still ‘weeding’ out old habits, confused thoughts. A weedy garden is an apt analogy in this instance; he’s pruning and that takes time.
IIRC, the brain takes up only about 2% of the body’s weight, but is thought to use as much as 20% of our biological energy. Assuming that ratio to be roughly correct helps explain why so few people are able to really make important changes – learning, growing and changing can be exhausting because they require so much metabolic energy. The kinds of changes we’re seeing McClellan make are very difficult (because they involve so many difficult emotions). The changes he’s making require a lot of emotional, and intellectual energy, but that is based on metabolism (and probably related to depth of motivation).
Anyone who’s had to learn a new, complex task knows this — you need extra sleep, and some exercise to keep enough oxygen flowing to your brain. McClellan must be a fairly self-disciplined person to have been able to organize his time and stay focused enough to find the energy that he needed to make the kinds of changes we are observing.
In addition, the fact that both KO and Jon Stewart had read his book carefully and thoughtfully has produced some really good interviews.
Another factor, I suspect, is what I call ‘the POWER of forgiveness’.
It must have taken a great deal for McClellan to admit his own role in damaging Richard Clarke’s reputation several years ago, and then experience being ashamed, and then ask for forgiveness. That is actually a fairly complex set of interactions, and it doesn’t sound like anyone’s idea of a good time.
And for Clarke to be a big enough person to forgive appears to have had some kind of healing, energizing effect on McClellan.
Change requires a lot more biological energy and time than we tend to respect or acknowledge.
I think Wm O has really hit the bulls-eye here.
It would be fascinating to get a good sports psychologist’s perspective on McClellan, because he sure appears to be exhibiting facets of what is sometimes described as ‘high performance’ — making a difference by managing his time and energy so he can achieve his objectives. It’s actually a fairly complicated set of behaviors, and it’s inspiring to see it in the political realm. Really admirable, IMHO.
But it’s also a ‘group effort’ in the sense that interviewers who are well prepared and care about the toxicity in American politics are really asking some good questions, and there’s a genuine conversation starting to happen this week that really wasn’t present a short two weeks ago.
===========
BTW: At the level of 35,000 feet looking down on this mess, all the poor decisions this WH has made, the lack of attention on climate change is coming home to roost in very odd ways. Snow on the Cascade Passes in Washington State — might be melted before readers click on this link, but as I post the link the June snow is still visible: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Traffic/passes/snoqualmie/
We had eight inches of snow last Thursday morning in the Sangre de Cristo up over Taos.
I appreciate this comment. Change is difficult and the humane lessons that are symbolized in various institutions and precedents must be relearned by each generation though the time binding effects of language and a good educations can sometimes ease this process. What with EW’s attention to textual detail and the “personal narrative”/”cognitive dissonance” framework she outlines and your neurological modeling and sensitivity to denial/addiction cycles I might yet learn somethings about the nature of political communication. And to think that mere decades ago we were stuck in the ruts of selective LSD therapy under the guidance of Freudian analyst and Reichian bio-energetic principles to push ahead into insight.
In any event I find it odd that its not only the so-called MSM who are failing to give Kucinich much attention but neither the Huffington Post or TPM, for instance, seem to make even passing mention to Kucinich’s articles of impeachment either. I understand the overriding political view that often sees Kucinich as “marginal.” But this too might be part part of a denial/acceptance cycle, with Kucinich having fearlessly inventoried even as a lone voice on the institutional level, the truth about the Bush administration and implicating the larger failings of the general dominant political culture including the underlying patent disdain for truth, due process, justice and Congress as well as the dependency of these movements upon the usurpation of multi-national corporations as a principle constituency in lieu of the “people.” Its almost too much to handle cognitively in the face of the national mythos of “democracy,” “freedom” and “justice”. Still Kucinich should be praised for diligently outlining and characterizing the facts of these deviant movements and advancing these elements in the institutional context. If history is any teacher, it is narrative which in the end will not suffer impunity.
This is probably a stupid question, but what has always bothered me about Cheney’s scribblings is this:
“was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others”
He was asked to do this “because of”…
Who were the “others” that were incompetent? Incompetent about what? Was that addressed in the trial?
Thanks for all of your work Ew.
bmaz – I think he’s more a fan of Martha Stewart. Maybe if I could learn how to crochet doilies while using a glue gun and gilt to manufacture a shiney fantasyworld …
LOL — I’m gonna spend the rest of the day picturing you crocheting doilies while holding a glue gun ; ) That is hilarious, thanks for the laugh ; )
62 – I think that there’s just too much underestimation, too, of the personal cult issues re: Bush. There have been more seeming “man-crushes” on him than anyone I can think of, except if you go back to junior high/highschool type settings.
You’ve got that right. I’ve never understood it either. I always saw Bush as one of the biggest phonies ever, even when he was our Governor. In retrospect, I think the sadistic macho cruelty that seemed the most cartoonish and unbelievable aspect of his image was the only real thing about his public persona and the source of all the “man-crushes”.
Cheney is Bush’s sherpa…
McC seems authentic… but has not grasped Bush’s ego/evil.
Andy Card is the one that bothers me, maybe cuz he is from Massachusetts,
and a fucking loyalist to the Bush Regime. He outta know better.
I realize she gets way too much praise for her extra big brain, but can I just say to Ms E Wheel in front of all these witnesses what a distinct pleasure it is to read your take downs on these refugees from decency?
I suspect when we read & participate here on this & other topics as well of course [tho without the sordid pleasure] we catch something like the vibe that Prof Foland & Cheryl Rofer & those aptly named Arms Control Wonks get when they can see enough to count the widths of aluminum tubes & speculate on how the safety margins between stations betrays 22 handicap amateur time.
Plus style. I mean, I have a lot of time for John Dean who sort of works the same patch of earth, not least due to having watched live his extraordinary 15 minutes – okay 6 hours & 15 minutes [Hertzberg timed it.] & havng seen his consistently evident repentence on Olberman. He’s got the mind but not the jazz – poor analogy I know but it sort of reminds me of once having witnessed about 3 hours of heaven from the stolid looking straight up seeming Charlie Hayden on base fronting for the extraordinary Gonsalo Rubalcaba on piano. I expect you’ve read his works on the disease of American authoritarianism, tho of course derivative of the salt mine slaves in your nominal racket; I wonder if he’s read you? If not, then like all in that impoverished category, I envy only their ignorance.
Did Rove have anything to do with the Texas GOP not choosing Scottie’s mom to run for Governor some years ago? Are there any “the Bushes supported mom until Rove came along” feelings from Scottie?
E-mail from Wex on impeachment…
Our effort to hold the Bush/Cheney Administration accountable has taken another dramatic step forward. Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the first Articles of Impeachment ever to be introduced against President Bush. It includes, in total, thirty-five Articles detailing this Administration’s blatant abuse of power. Today, I enthusiastically co-sponsored this vitally important bill.
I am grateful for Dennis’ leadership on this issue and for the steadfast support that countless Americans have given to both of our efforts to redeem our government and expose the crimes of Bush and Cheney.
I will now expand my efforts to secure impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee for these new Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.
Many of the charges against President Bush are well known – and would shock the conscience of everyday Americans if only the national media would be willing to report on these stark facts.
The Articles present a stunning narrative of offenses that have go well beyond previous crimes committed by any US chief executive. In fact no President or Vice President in history has done more to undermine our constitution.
These charges are broad, with 35 separate allegations including the deliberate lies regarding WMDs that led us to war and the approval of illegal wiretapping of American citizens. The Articles also include new allegations of high crimes – including the explicit approval for high Administration officials to violate treaties and US law banning the use of torture.
The Democratic Party gained a majority in the House and Senate due in large part to our promises to end the corruption of the Republican majority and to hold the Administration accountable to the law. This courageous bill is a crucial step towards fulfilling this promise, but – like the Articles against Cheney – they require your support to convince Democrats and open-minded Republicans to support this bold but necessary action.
Time is running out so we must work together to spread the message and apply pressure.
First, please encourage your friends and family members to sign up at WexlerWantsHearings.com – as it will allow us to keep in touch with you and speak to a wider audience. If you haven’t yet put in your phone and address, please sign up again, as we will be doing telephone town halls in the near future.
Second, call your representative and urge them to support Impeachment hearings.
Finally, contact newspapers, news stations, and your favorite bloggers and urge them to report on this movement. We need to keep Impeachment a significant news story until the Democratic leadership sees the value in it.
McClellan Agrees to Testify:
I was pleased to inform you yesterday that Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers met my call to have Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testify under oath. I am thrilled to inform you that McClellan has agreed to testify on June 20th at 10AM. This will be the first step in what we hope will be ongoing and deepening examinations of the stark evidence and charges against both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Thank you for your continued passion and advocacy. Your support means so much to me.
Sincerely,
Congressman Robert Wexler
Didn’t I hear Scottie say in his first interview with Olbermann that he is intrigued by Obama. I agree with all here who believe that Scottie might be on a changing path. The first stage of change is willingness to consider the problem at hand and willingness to collect information about it. He seems to be in what some might call “contemplative” change. He’s willing to consider other possibilities and is listening to new info. This has been demonstrated. We might just make a dem out of him yet. Let’s be real nice to him.
I think his final behavior that will make his “changeover” complete would be to aknowledge that the pres was flawed. I agree with the statement about “man crush” because he didn’t have a strong father figure. Hell, even Dr. Pill thought Bush was a “better” father than Kerry. I suspect that Dr. Pill and McC have similar father issues. Folks without fathers are often drawn to the authoritarian types. Bush did a lot of “fatherly patting” of scottie as he was leaving. I kept thinking “awe” and then “ewww”.
Also, I still believe that the reference to aspens has to do with the neo con “plan” (tin foil hats, please) and that the branches represent the members of the conspiracy. They all shared a plan (otherwise known as a tree trunk and roots) and it was “the war with Iraq”.
Just my humble opinion but a group of people were acting in unison to lie us into war. Why is it so far fetched that like the mafia, when they saw a threat to “the plan” they decided to “off” the threat?? Each of them participated in this lie and had at the very least some culpability in sending our nation into an unneccessary war. Wouldn’t they all have motivation to keep the opposition quiet?
Therefore, even Colin Powell found himself in the unenviable position of having to defend himself. (at least for a period of time) That’s a big weight on the old shoulders from my humble opinion. It certainly would give motive for all of them to maintain the story and not break rank. We actually have some facts that support that quite a few people knew about this. What if it was more like a 2 x 6 operation. Bush/cheney says “let’s make this happen and spreads it to several people over the course of several days (let’s just call them branches) and they spread out from there?
Are there facts that would make this implausible or impossible? Am I totally nuts here? Should I put this thought totally to bed?
‘a group of people were acting in unison to lie us into war’ = WHIG Group
Suggest you read Sy Hersh’s New Yorker article (available online) at newyorker.com, from March 2007: http://www.newyorker.com/repor…..fact_hersh
Near the end, Hersh reports:
It’s reasonable to say that ‘the Aspens’ learned and applied their lessons well. They may have been a strong virus back in Iran-Contra; this time around they’re like a Superbug and our previous methods of dealing with evil this dangerous no longer work.
Aspens probably involves the media, political, corporate, military mix that attends conferences there; international interests much larger than ‘daddy issues’ of Scott McClellen are involved.
Scott McClellan’s one piece of a huge puzzle, but let’s hope he’s an important one. You are not nuts; this is an organized operation that has probably taken years to plan and build.
The biologist Lewis Thomas once pointed out that most really deadly organisms are able to create damage because the body doesn’t recognize them — they’re familiar enough so that the immune system doesn’t whack them. Thus disguised, they are able to escape detection and that’s how they are able to wreak havoc.
Same with political toxins.
You are not nuts. We’ve been overtaken from within.
Whether Congress has the political will, whether the FBI has enough committed resources, and whether the media can explain it simply and clearly enough to the public remain in serious doubt.
OT-Kucinich on floor last night reading 35 articles of impeachment
oops- http://www.c-spanarchives.org/…..id=8583196