Now THIS Is a Scoop
/in Press and Media, War /by emptywheelDavid Corn has posted the scoop that should have been the first teaser from his and Isikoff’s Hubris–a post detailing Valerie Plame’s role in the CIA. It turns out Plame managed the group tasked with studying Iraq’s WMDs, the Joint Iraq Task Force.
Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of theagency’s Joint Task Force on Iraq–part of the CounterproliferationDivision of the agency’s clandestine Directorate of Operations–werefrantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operationsto gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI wastrying to find evidence that would back up the White House’s assertionthat Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a careerundercover officer named Valerie Wilson.
[snip]
In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined theCounterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in withJoseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice:North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001,she was in the CPD’s modest Iraq branch. But that summer–before9/11–word came down from the brass: We’re ramping up on Iraq. Her unitwas expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placedin charge of its operations group.
Valerie Plame, Corn says, was in charge of the group that tried to develop assets who could tell them about Saddam’s WMD program.
What Tipped the Balance?
/8 Comments/in Foreign Policy, War /by emptywheelJohn Amato provides some perspective on the most ominous development of the week, when Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani announced that he can no longer restrain his followers. Sistani announced this in the last few days. But, as one of Amato’s readers pointed out, David Ignatius reported that Sistani was worried about this back in July.
David:.. the most important and powerful personality in Iraq issignaling the Bush administration this week that he is worried that thesituation in Iraq is spinning out of control. He is the crucial person.If he gives up on this effort-this effort is over…
So what happened in the interim? What tipped the balance?
Clearing the Air on Iran: Ledeen v. Cirincione
/in War /by emptywheelI’d like to recommend Teri Gross’ Fresh Air (Part One Part Two). She juxtaposed the Neocon crazyman Michael Ledeen with the sane Joseph Cirincione to show both sides in the battle over our next war, with Iran. But rather than simply expose Ledeen’s nuttiness, the juxtaposition served to show the holes in both the Neocon exhortations and the pragmatists’ rationality.
I knew it was going to be an intriguing program when I found myself almost immediately agreeing with Ledeen. He admitted that the tensions with Iran are not really about nuclear weapons. (Geez, I thought to myself, do you think maybe he could tell Bolton and the rest of the UN?) But then, predictably, I disagreed, this time when he explained we had been at war with Iran for 27 years. Ledeen, who calls himself a revolutionary, dates the start of our "war" with Iran to the moment when a bunch of revolutionaries overthrew an oppressive regime. Our oppressive regime.
When Teri challenged Ledeen to prove that we had been in a war with Iran for almost three decades, Ledeen at first named only four attacks (the hostage crisis in Iran, the Lebanese embassy bombing, the Marine barrack bombing, and the Khobar towers attack)–all but the one least verifiably tied to Iran occurring back when Ledeen was getting into trouble with Iran-Contra. Teri pointed out that was only four attacks, far in the past, so Ledeen grasped onto the insurgency in Iraq (including the largely discredited accusation that Iran is supplying the insurgents with IEDs) and the discredited claim that Iranian advisers were sitting besides the Hezbollah fighters as they shot rockets into Israel (thereby, betraying Ledeen’s belief that he sees Israel and the US as one and the same).
Who Decides If We Go to War?
/in Bush Administration, War /by emptywheelIn my post on Fred Fleitz’ Iran propaganda the other day, merciless asked how we can stop the Iran War. Which got me thinking of a different question–who decides if we go to war? There are a couple of factors playing into this that I think we’d all do well to suss out–because if we’re going to prevent this, we need to start working.
Chief among the factors is one I’ve been thinking about–and that Glenn Greenwald raises today. Does Bush believe he needs Congress’ agreement to go to war?
A somewhat overlooked part of President Bush’s Press Conferencethis week was his comments strongly suggesting that he believes only he– and not the Congress — has the power to decide when the war in Iraqends, as well as whether we will begin a new war with Iran. All of thedebates we are having about what to do about Iran and Iraq aremeaningless if the President believes (as he seems to) that all powerto decide these matters rests with him.
I agree with Greenwald. The Cheney Administration has probably already worked out the logic by which they go to war under the AUMF voted for Afghanistan. After all, going to war in Iran is just connecting the dots between war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq.
I’ve got a sliver of hope that Congress would take proactive action if they foresaw Bush doing this. Just a sliver, mind you. But if John Warner, Chair of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, starts pushing the notion that we need a new authorization to use force if our troops are to stay in Iraq in the middle of civil war, then it’s clear they have at least begun thinking about these things.
Jim Marcinkowski on the Latest Iran Propaganda
/in War /by emptywheelMany of you will recognize the name of Jim Marcinkowski. He’s Valerie Plame’s classmate from the CIA–the guy who reported she was the best shot in their class with an AK-47. Well, he’s running against Mike Rogers in MI-8. Rogers is the head of the House Intell Subcommittee that produced the Iran propaganda we’ve all been talking about–the one John Bolton’s buddy Fred Fleitz fluffed together?
Well, as you can imagine, Jim has a few things to say about Rogers’ commitment to keeping our country safe.
Search and Replace: Q, N
/in War /by emptywheelSummary: In this post I look at the report released by the House Intelligence Committee. It serves two purposes, in my opinion: To present the first "case" against Iran, under the guise of calling for better intelligence on Iran. And to suggest that, since we don’t have good intelligence on Iran, we can’t negotiate with them, because we’d have no way of verifying any agreement.
I’ve been pondering two questions of late. First, why did the Neocons move Fred Fleitz to a staff position on the House Intelligence Committee. And second, how they hell do they plan to lie us into war in Iran when, this time, the public and the intelligence community have their guard up?
Fred Fleitz, as you’ll recall, was the guy John Bolton hand-picked to serve as his enforcer while Bolton was at State. He was instrumental in end-running the State Department’s INR, by insisting that WINPAC do the vetting that INR normally would have; as a result, he made it possible for Bolton to say all manner of inflammatory things that the intelligence community didn’t back. Fleitz was also involved in Bolton’s attempt to get those who didn’t back his hawkish views fired. There were accusations that Fleitz and Bolton’s other minions were breaking the rules regarding Secure Compartmentalized Intelligence (that is, they were circulating super-secret documents in ways they shouldn’t have), with who knows what aim. And Fleitz is an odds-on favorite to the be the source of Valerie Plame’s NOC identity for Dick and his minions when they outed Plame’s identity. Fleitz was moved to the House Intelligence Committee back in the spring, and I’ve wondered ever since whether it meant he was cooperating with Fitzgerald (and therefore needed a different job) or whether they had designs to bulldoze crappy intelligence through the House Intelligence Committee. It appears the latter is the correct guess (big surprise).
Why Didn't Judy Flog the Purported Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection?
/in Terrorism, War /by emptywheelPresident Bush’s claim the other day that no one ever claimed a connection between Iraq and 9/11 got me thinking. Judy Miller reported extensively on Al Qaeda before 9/11–both the previous World Trade Center bombing and on terrorist financing. We know she tried to report on imminent threats from Al Qaeda in summer 2001. She did some of the most celebrated reporting on Al Qaeda just after the attack. And even in fall 2002, she continued to report on Al Qaeda threats that had nothing to do with Iraq–the discovery of possible weapons lap in Kandahar and a report on Saudi financial ties to Al Qaeda. But she never made the claim of an Al Qaeda-Iraq link.
That’s particularly remarkable considering her famous September 8, 2002 article on aluminum tubes (actually her article co-author Michael Gordon apparently got the aluminum tube leak first) included every other complaint the US had against Iraq. That article describes Iraq’s purported nuclear program, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its missiles capabilities. In the article, she listed almost exactly the same things administration officials (Condi, Rummy, Dick, and Powell all appeared) did on the Sunday shows the morning her article appeared and almost exactly the Read more →
Chronological Jujitsu with the Bioweapons White Paper
/in Press and Media, War /by emptywheelBack in April, I speculated that Judy Miller had been leaked the CIA/DIA White Paper on the purported mobile bioweapons labs (MBL) to pre-empt the report of an expert team, the "Jefferson Team," sent to Iraq to investigate the trailers. Via Steve Aftergood and this report on the trailers (which I will follow-up with shortly and which lukery is busy working on as well), I found the White Paper itself. Based on the White Paper and a review of the evidence, I’m going to fine tune my theory.
Here’s the theory–this is speculative, but I wouldn’t even call it "outtamyarse" at this point, based on the evidence.
- For some reason (because they knew the trailers were crap?) they sat on the story of them for up to 2 weeks (mid to late April to May 11–it took them 4 days to review the trailer)
- They created the White Paper and briefed the White House on it–and leaked it to Judy–to pre-empt the Jefferson Team
- They re-issued the White Paper, now dated after the Jefferson Team report, to justify ongoing administration use of the claim
One thing appears to be clear, though. The SAO quoted in Judy’s "balanced" June article claims the objections raised about the trailers were considered and dismissed. They may have been. But they weren’t considered in the analysis of the White Paper. In other words, the SAO dismissing objections about the MBL claims may have lied about having considered those objections. Go figure.
I Wonder How Dick Annotated THIS Hersh Article?
/in War /by emptywheelWe know that Dick reads–and probably annotates–Sy Hersh’s articles. No lesser source than Patrick Fitzgerald suggested as much in his filing describing which newspaper articles he’ll submit as evidence during Libby’s trial. You remember–the filing where he showed us Dick’s annotated copy of Wilson’s op-ed? Well, in the same filing, he revealed that a copy of Sy Hersh’s famous Stovepipe article circulated around OVP, and Libby and "others" had annotated the article.
Finally, the government notes in the interest of completeness that it may offer annotated copies of an October 2003 article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker if it appears that the defendant will pursue the defense that he was too focused on other urgent national security matters to remember accurately what took place during his conversations with reporters. The government received from the OVP multiple copies of the same article bearing handwritten annotations, apparently by the defendant and others in his office. However, it is not the government’s present intention to offer those annotated copies.
Which leads me to wonder whether Dick and Libby Addington annotated this most recent Hersh article, describing Lebanon as a dry run for the bombing campaign against Iran.