Raw Story: Cheney's role in outing of CIA agent... [story posted finally]

[grytpype]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_role_in_outing_of_CIA_1012.html

Cheney's role in outing of CIA agent under examination, sources close to prosecutor say

Jason Leopold

Cheney's role in CIA outing not known

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine whether Vice President Dick Cheney had a role in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson, people close to Fitzgerald have confirmed.

...

Fitzgerald’s examination centers on a group of players charged with not only selling the war, but according to sources familiar with the case, to discredit anyone who openly “disagreed with the official Iraq war” story.

...

Two officials close to Fitzgerald told RAW STORY they have seen documents obtained from the White House Iraq Group which state that Cheney was present at several of the group's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration “twisted” prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be.

Cheney was interviewed by the FBI surrounding the leak in 2004. According to the New York Times, Cheney was asked whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name Ms. Wilson.


Sources close to the investigation have also confirmed that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine Vice President Cheney's role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson, more specifically, if Cheney ordered the leak.

Those close to Fitzgerald say they have yet to uncover any evidence that suggests Cheney ordered the leak or played a role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson. Still, the sources said they are investigating claims that Cheney may have been involved based on his attendance at meetings of the Iraq group. Previous reports indicate Cheney was intimately involved with the framing of the Iraq war.

...

There you have it.

[Halliburton]

1. MEMO TO SCOOTER: PLEASE FLIP!!

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[Demobrat]

6. He doesn't even have to flip.

All he has to do is not commit perjury for the boss.

[hippiechick]

2. Duplicate thread ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1845654


:hi:

[Trajan]

7. THAT thread is locked and moved ...

to the original thread posted yesterday .... but that thread is MORIBUND ....

THIS thread should stay alive .... it finally fleshes out the story ....

[grytpype]

13. thanks for gettin my back

respek

[Straight Shooter]

3. One can give signals of clear direction without actually saying anything.

"Oh, who will rid me of this meddlesome priest," is one of those signals that comes to mind.

I'm sure Cheney was extremely crafty in his approach, but he may have been too clever by half.

[napi21]

4. Can't believe much or any of this crap.

I think it's an accepted fact that Fitz isn't leaking ANYTHING! So who are these "sources close to the prosecutor" and "sources close to the investigation"???

Looks to me like some in the MSM are desperate to be able to write SOMETHING, so this is what you get!

[dalloway]

9. yes, and those of us desparate for any sliver of info on this

fascinating tale eat it right up...

Refresh. Refresh. Refresh.

[hang a left]

18. And it doesn't really say Cheney is a target...

It is a bunch of speculation. Just like the rumor that Fitzgerald is going to ask for more time. Nobody knows shit.

[grytpype]

5. The bad news here is...

... the sources say they don't have anything on Cheney yet. And Fitz is just about done with his investigation. So there is no joy in Mudville.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

8. Yes but

If you throw the book at Rove and Libby, at some point down the line, before trial, one of them may crack (if they're not pardoned first).

[Lerkfish]

10. a trial balloon, perhaps? maybe an INTENTIONAL leak to make

Cheney think he's escaped and THEN nab him?

I think its odd to leak NOW, when he's played very well close to the vest thus far.

More likely, this is some sort of rovian subterfuge. meh! who knows anymore?

[grytpype]

14. Maybe, but it looks like Rove and Scooter are all we are going to get.

And some minor characters as well but it looks like only Rove and Scooter will be the big fish... That's pretty good though, if we had gotten Cheney too it would be almost too good.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. That's because he didn't leak and the story is utter bullshit

Get it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. LOL. If you can show us where Raw Story has been wrong in the past....

...point it out.

IMHO, they're much more credible than the MSM. They're also much more credible than those that are trying to discredit them on this board.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. I confess

It's a conspiracy against our good friends at Raw Story, posters on this very board, and I'm in on it. I'm working undercover for the BFEE, doncha know?

:eyes:

[Trajan]

30. Fallacy of Irrelevence

You misdirect for a purpose ....

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Of course

It's one of our oldest tricks, irrelevence (sic)...

[Trajan]

34. Who is 'our' ?

Explain yourself ....

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Check sarcastic confession post above

:sarcasm:

[havocmom]

11. How has the Ragin' Cajun been of late? I don't watch.

Wonder just how much trouble the Mrs is in.

[Virginian]

19. Haven't seen Carville anywhere

Has anybody?

[Pachamama]

41. He's spending some "quality time" with the Mrs. before she goes off to

prison....

Poor kids....guess Carville can just explain to them "see what happens that Mommy insisted on being a Republican and associating with that man Dick Cheney?"

:eyes:

[MADem]

42. Remember George Clooney's HBO show K STREET?

They did a fictional story along these very lines, over this SAME ISSUE when Fitz was first named, where Mary had to go in to talk to the Special Prosecutor, she needed to hire lawyers big time, and they ended up closing their office and selling off the furniture because of it. All the while she protested her innocence.

Truth, stranger than fiction???

[WhiteTara]

112. life imitates art? n/t

[goforit]

61. Hmmmm.......this interesting. Mrs. Carvel in alot of heap. Ted Olson?

Loved to know where this dude is too.

[indypaul]

80. His spouse was on Imus

this morning dispensing the kool-aid as usual.

[DoYouEverWonder]

51. I hear Mary is on Imus this morning

should be sort of interesting.

[Roland99]

12. I wonder if Conyers has these documents? Add them to the DSM

and let's get the impeachment moving!!!

[Presstitutes]

16. PLEASE READ: There are questions about Jason Leopold's reporting

I've heard this from reliable sources. Take this report with a grain of salt. His credibility is suspect.

http://www.presstitutes.com/

[grytpype]

17. I'd be happy as a pig in shit if they had evidence on Cheney.

But who in the WHIG is going to turn on him? Because that's what it's going to take, if it's not in Scooter's notes.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. If one or more of the WHIG participants are facing five-to-life...

...for violations of the Espionage Act, they'll roll quicker than you can say "dead bug".

[lala_rawraw]

29. Interesting, please do post your findings

I love a good idotic theory.

[Presstitutes]

31. This is not a slam against Raw Story, a great site

but a legitimate question about one reporter. No need to be defensive.

[rawstory]

33. Fair concern -- here's our deal

We're confident with the story and it confirms multiple accounts we've heard about others who are working close to the story and the case. We're happy of course to correct any errors if they're found, but we don't feel a reporter's past should be held against them if they are providing accurate information. IN any event -- time will tell. It's been clear, really, that Cheney has been eyed in this investigation ever since he was questioned by the FBI and by virtue of the fact WHIG operated from his office (and of course, by the fact his chief of staff has been fingered in the case). The WHIG stuff was reported in the WSJ yesterday.

[grytpype]

39. What's your source for "there's no evidence against Cheney?"

Is that something you picked up from blogs?

[Presstitutes]

60. Point taken, and thanks for a great website

Just to correct one misunderstanding, this has nothing to do with Leopold's past. It's simply a tip we received about the quality of his recent reporting.

http://www.presstitutes.com

[lala_rawraw]

35. I generally don't like

it when a person's past, which is unrelated to their job, is brought in to question their job... many people have had drug problems in the past, that in no way changes the writers ethics and work... consider that my own byline is at the bottom of the piece, does my background as a former Soviet citizen somehow matter to this story?


it is not a fair concern unless there is a reason the story, in and of itself, is questionable based on evidence or errors. such concerns are valid and we would correct those of course, but to get into the background of a writer, his personal background is wholly unethical and unnecessary. in any case, if you trust Raw story, then trust us to do our homework on stories we run and leave it at that.

[Presstitutes]

58. Again, you misconstrued my point

I never said anything about Leopold's "past."

My quote was: "There are questions about Jason Leopold's reporting."

I was told by someone reliable that his recent reporting may not be totally credible. Raw Story is an excellent, important site and I know you take your work seriously. Take my comment for what it's worth: I have no beef with Leopold, I just posted something I heard which concerned me, and I didn't want members of this message board to get worked up about a story that may not be entirely realistic.

http://www.presstitutes.com

[lala_rawraw]

65. So based on a comment made to you

You post that "his recent reporting may not be totally credible"? I brought up "past" because there are people who have beef with him, but then again, outing Enron would earn anyone some enemies. I anticipated those said people to "make comments", but I did not expect anyone to post questions about a writer's credibility based on those comments without so much as a single supporting factor other than someone "reliable" mentioned it.

I respond the way I do to your several posts now because you imply, without saying so fully that:

1). Someone reliable questions a Raw Story writer's credibility would mean that Raw Story is not considered reliable, because if the latter were true, then your reliable source would not have compelled your post.

2). If you think that Raw Story takes its work seriously, then why would we run a story that is not credible?

3). "You don't want members of this message board to get worked up about a story that may not be realistic?" Again, if you feel that Raw Story does excellent work, why then would you state such a thing?

Frankly, I don't think the members of this message board require your services as they are capable of discerning shit from fact quite well on their own. I am sure they appreciate the gesture, but I don't think you pay any compliments to members of DU by assuming they require a mental chaperon, to Raw by assuming we cannot tell shit from fact ourselves (and yes, call Raw excellent if you wish, but then state we are running a less than credible article), and finally to independent journalists, who get paid little and work hard to get the facts out to people like you.

So you can tell your reliable friend that he/she can contact me with valid concerns. Other than that, I feel you need not continue "protecting" DUers from possibly "not entirely realistic" what-not.

[Beetwasher]

73. Ouchie!

Someone's ass is red! :spank: :thumbsup:

[Presstitutes]

78. Beetwasher, do you know anything about this?

Are you familiar with the author in question?

[Beetwasher]

79. I Know You Got Spanked

And I know I trust lala_rawraw a lot more than you and your supposedly mysterious source who you trust.

Why should we take YOUR word over Rawstory's?? Because you say "trust me!"???

Think about what your doing. Your casting aspersion at Leopold, anonymously, and saying "trust me about it!". Why? Why should we trust you?

Personally, I take everything I read w/ a grain of salt anyway, including YOUR posts.

[Presstitutes]

82. If you take everything here with a grain of salt

why jump into this and suggest that lala_rawraw "spanked" me? You don't really know who I am and you don't know anything about the author. Sure, I'm anonymous - as are you - but I could just as well be right as wrong.

[Beetwasher]

83. And You Deserve To Be Lambasted

For coming in here and pushing this bullshit. Why jump in here? Why not? You sure did. You jumped in and starting slamming Leopold with unsubstantiated allegations that he's not to be trusted. You're getting slammed for doing so, and deservedly. Why should we trust you any more than Leopold? Because you say so?

[Presstitutes]

85. How did you determine that it's "bullsh*t?"

No one asked you to trust me. I posted what I knew. I said this was not an attack on Raw Story. I said that I heard this from someone I trust. I said that Raw Story is an excellent site and that they may not be fully aware of possible problems with Leopold.

And I "deserve to be lambasted" why exactly?

[Beetwasher]

86. I Already Told You Why

How do I determine that it's bullshit? Why, my trusted source told me that you are full of shit and not to be trusted, of course. :eyes:

[Presstitutes]

77. You're being MUCH too defensive here

I simply presumed that you weren't aware of the problem with Leopold. After all, look at the NYT with Jayson Blair.

I posted a quick comment based on what I believe is a credible warning about Leopold from someone I trust.

Don't take this so personally. You don't even run Raw Story, and the person who does is level-headed and responsible enough to know that every now and then something can get posted that may later prove to be less than fully credible.

Why are you taking this as an attack against what I've consistently said is a great site?

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

89. Jason Leopold has a checkered history in journalism

Summary here:

http://gnn.tv/articles/709/Media_Meltdown_The_Jason_Leopold_Saga

On October 9, GNN ran an article by a young reporter desperate to save his career. My Story – Shafted By The New York Times was the saga of 33-year-old freelance writer and former Wall Street Journal reporter Jason Leopold. According to Leopold’s emotional account, his reputation was deliberately sabotaged by Salon.com and The New York Times after Salon published what he called “the story of my career,” a hard-hitting investigation into current Army Secretary Thomas White. In the August 29 article, Leopold alleges White, while a top executive at Enron, instructed an underling to conceal Enron’s negative cash flow from investors. Leopold even had the smoking gun email to prove it.

The story was explosive. And in September, The New York Times’ financial columnist Paul Krugman cited Leopold’s reporting in one of his influential editorials, referring to White as a “corporate evildoer.” What followed is a bewildering tale of journalistic betrayal, prompted in part by Leopold’s own admitted indiscretions. Both Salon and the Times turned their back on the reporter, accusing him of one of journalism’s most deadly sins, and withdrawing their support for the validity of his most crucial piece of evidence – the “smoking gun email.” Leopold was left high and dry, his rep cooked, his future in mainstream media seemingly toast.

Was Leopold shafted? Or was he the victim of his own sloppy reporting? Getting at the truth in this story has proven murky. As Village Voice’s Cynthia Cotts wrote of Leopold’s plight, “The more mud that gets flung, the harder it is to see anything clearly.”

Read the whole thing.

[aquart]

40. I searched the site. The name Leopold wasn't mentioned.

Can you please provide a link or some other credible reason for disbelieving Mr. Leopold?

I did see that Presstitutes.com spoke of being very careful about believing anything about indictments since no decision has been made.

What is Leopold saying that's hard to swallow? That Cheney was present at WHIG? That Fitzgerald is working to see HOW present? He'd be a crap prosecutor if he didn't.

[susu369]

50. How dare you flippantly post such

Unfortunately, I do not have much time this morning to respond to your ugly (perhaps naive) post regarding Jason Leopold's credibility. I do simply suggest you do some basic research and read actual articles written by Mr. Leopold - and then come back here and post an apology.

Sorry, you have jumped on the wrong wagon - the one without a team to pull it. That useless wagon has been around for a long time, by the way.

[Presstitutes]

57. How did you determine that I posted "flippantly"

Are you psychic?

I said that I was told by a reliable source that Leopold's reporting my lack credibility. You can choose not to believe me, but you can also refrain from using words like "ugly" "naive" or "flippant" without the slightest knowledge of who I am.

Unless you happen to be Mr. Leopold himself.

http://www.presstitutes.com

[Bridget Burke]

71. No "Jason Leopold" on that page...

Perhaps you could summarize? And please supply supporting data. Links to your own blog--even links that work--are not enough.

I take everything with a grain of salt!

[autorank]

72. Raw Story elucidated it's story; why don't you do the same.

I was glad to find your site a few weeks ago since I've longed for my favorite internet political site of all time MediaWhoresOnline (are you that person? if not what happened to him/her?).

With regard to "suspect" credibility, I'm confused. If there is reason to suspect a person's credibility why not put it out there. This is an important moment in our history and this story is a link in the chain of events, maybe important, maybe just a footnote.

With regard to "recent" credibility, why not talk about it. This is to "dishy" to take seriously and too devastating, if you're Raw or the reporter, to handle without support.

Those of us who take strong stands on this forum on particular issues notice that "visitors" show up and question our credibility. They work into it but then it pops out. Of course, this is hilarious since it's anonymous here but it happens nonetheless. As such, we may be acutely aware of what it means to see this sort of comment.

I find Raw Story to be a cause for rejoicing. It distills the hot items and goes to territory that others fear (election issues). It makes my day, many days. It has not been easy for them, I suspect, to get going, just as you may experience those growing pains if this is your main business. Its important to either put up with more than "hints" or correct the situation by acknowledging that there isn't enough to go on.

Good luck with your endeavor and Raw Story, thanks for being one of the few journalistic organizations to get thereal story again and again at some considerable risk!

[Presstitutes]

76. Thanks for the good words about my site

I'm a Raw Story fan and reader. I received a tip from someone I trust that Leopold may be less than credible in some of his recent reporting. As you may know, I was the first to report rumors of indictments in the Plame case, but I was extremely cautious about overhyping what I'd heard. In this case, I was simply letting Democratic Underground readers know that there may be an issue with this particular writer's claims, not with Raw Story as a whole.

[stop the bleeding]

20. There are several UNKNOWN players that we have

no idea about. I've heard of Ari and Powell flipping and heard just about everything else.

two things are for sure.

1 - this is driving me nuts

2 - we're just gonna have to do what we always do



WAIT

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. I'm concerned about all this sudden leaking of Fitz's supposed plans.

The cards have been held closely - and now we seem to have these suddenly loose lips. Either this is a disturbing change in procedure or the story is questionable - some earlier posts in this thread suggest the latter.

[DearAbby]

23. Tell me since Cheney had been to more than one meeting of the

WHIG's Could he be charged with conspiracy? Would be a whole lot better if there were proof that he ordered the outing of Plame. Seeing this penalty for the crime of Treason at time of war...why isn't someone flipping at this point?


Oh what tangled web they weave...:popcorn:

[grytpype]

26. Conspiracy maybe.

What I figure happened is that Scooter's notes of the WHIG meetings said something like "Wilson discussed, we agreed to discredit him by using his wife, me and Rove to take point on that" or something like that. That would tend to show a conspiracy and if Cheney was there, he's part of it too.

But I'm convinced that Cheney gave orders to discredit Wilson and specifically said to use his wife against him. Trouble is according to this article there is no evidence yet and Fitz is done with his investigation.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

37. Don't ya think it just may be deduction from observers watching

the entrance and exit door at the courthouse?

[cassiepriam]

48. Ftiz is smart, could the leaks be to put some pressure on?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Pass the damn popcorn

this is getting oh so much Worst than Watergate...

:popcorn:

[PuraVidaDreamin]

38. What will the book be named seeing Worse than H2O Gate is already taken?

[TacticalPeek]

27. Beware of being stratagemmed, of course, always.

"We could get her outed. . .

We could get her outed, big-time. . .
I know where we could out her, in print.

I know where she could get outed. (leans toward lampshade)
. . . but it would be wrong."

- Pork Chop Boy

[freeplessinseattle]

43. Plus remember all his visits to CIA headquarters

the number of visits was unusual, wonder what he was doing there?

[savemefromdumbya]

84. make sure that they didn't tell on him

about 9/11

[Peace Patriot]

44. Why would Cheney send Wilson or the CIA on a wild goose to Niger,

to investigate an allegation that Cheney and other Bushites knew was a bogus, and based on forged documents?

Why would a discredited allegation based on crudely forged documents be placed in Bush's SOTU speech, after it had been taken out of a previous speech because it was known to be false?

Why, when Wilson called Condi Rice, to get the regime to back off of the Niger allegation, did she say, through intermediaries, that she was not interested in his information, but, if he was so concerned about the matter, why didn't he publish it? (Wilson interview.)

Why--given that she said this--does the reaction to the expected article seem so panicked and rushed, with Bushites contacting at least SIX reporters (six journalist witnesses to treason), circulating a top secret memo on AF-1 for all eyes to see, and putting many top Bushites, if not the whole regime, at great risk of treason charges, in order to "punish" Wilson for the EXPECTED article, by outing his CIA wife within a week of the article's publication, and then, four days later, outing, disabling and destroying the entire CIA weapons monitoring program (Brewster/Jennings), putting all of its covert agents and contacts at great risk of getting killed?

Why the full court press to do this? Why not just ignore Wilson's article, as they had all other dissent--for instance? Or just quietly destroy his bank credit, or something? What did they have to fear from the lapdog press anyway? Why not let it fade into the short-attention-span newstream? Why risk the entire regime over an article?

And why, after destroying his wife's career and putting her at great risk, compound the risk of treason charges by outing the entire CIA weapons monitoring program?

Why was there such a stupid cover story for all this--put out by Rove--that Wilson being married to a CIA covert weapons expert somehow discredits Wilson, in undertaking a weapons mission to Niger, when, in truth, it would seem to do the opposite--it would seem enhance his ability to carry out the mission? Did this cover story get garbled in the translation (because it went through so many people)? Were its purposes confused, hastily cobbled together--say, to point away from Cheney as the instigator of the Niger mission, and at the same time taint Wilson in some way? (--but how it taints Wilson is beyond me.)

Isn't this "master of P.R.," Karl Rove, capable of a better cover story than this?

Why were Judith Miller and Scooter Libby meeting about Wilson back in June 2003, before he published his article, in addition to their meetings on July 8 and 12? (Wilson article published July 6.)

Why did the Bushites prime the public to expect a find of WMDs in Iraq, and why did Donald Rumsfeld personally sign Judith Miller's "embed" contract to accompany the U.S. troops who were hunting for WMDs in Iraq--if they all knew there no WMDs in Iraq? Were they simply hoping that she might find some by chance?

What was Tony Blair informed of, on July 7, 2003, when those who had interrogated David Kelly (the Brits chief WMD expert) told Blair that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things"? What were the "uncomfortable things" that Kelly "COULD say"? What ELSE did Kelly know beyond what he had been whistleblowing to the BBC about (the Brits "sexed up" Iraq WMD intel)? What caused such a panic among the Blairites, that they hunted him down within government, held him at a "safe house" and interrogated him for days, and then outed his name to the press, amidst a press frenzy, and sent him home without protection?

Why didn't Kelly's bosses or the Blairites provide Kelly with protection or surveillance, and, if they were watching him, after they sent him home, what was that surveillance doing while he bled to death all night out in the rain, near his home, from one slit wrist?

Is it just a coincidence that Kelly was found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after Plame was outed--or are the two events related?

Is it just a coincidence that Blair was told that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" on July 7, 2003, that the Plame memo got onto AF-1 and Miller met with Libby the next day (July 8), that Plame would be outed a week later, on July 14, that Kelly was found dead four days later, on July 18, and that, four days after that, the Bushites then outed the entire CIA WMD operation?

Busy couple of weeks in the skulduggery world.

Is it just a coincidence that Judith Miller, who was thickly involved in outing Plame, was also the person to whom David Kelly sent his last email, on the day he died, warning of the "many dark actors play games"?

Is it just happenstance that Miller, in writing Kelly's obit for the NYT, on July 21, 2003, failed to disclose her close connections to Kelly (she'd written a book with him--"Germs") and his rather newsworthy email? What "dark actors"? What did he mean? What was going on? (Not a clue from Judith.)

To answer all of these questions, think about this: The Bushites were trying to plant WMDs in Iraq, to be "found" by Judith Miller--a "find" that would make the CIA (who had objected to the Niger forgeries, and the war) look like fools--discredit them, and make them more vulnerable to purges by the Cheney/Rumsfeld neocons; a "find" that would justify the war, save Bush's and Blair's political skins, and rehabilitate Miller's journalism career with a triumphant "scoop" that would "prove" her right about Saddam's weapons.

And consider this, also, on spec: Their dirty, massively deceitful scheme to take the weapons into Iraq to be "found" got foiled. (Several news reports in Pakistan and Iran about this in March 2003--covert U.S. arms unloaded at Basra; covert U.S. arms convoy hit by '"friendly fire"). David Kelly found out about the Bushite plot to plant WMDs in Iraq (he was an experienced hand in Iraq), possibly supported foiling the plot, and/or knew something about CIA involvement in foiling it. (The CIA's B/J had a worldwide network of covert eyes and ears upon WMDs, 20 years in the making.) He did not intend to disclose it (several items of evidence on this point), but he couldn't be trusted; he was already whistleblowing. And it was so explosive, so dangerous, to the Bushites and the Blairites, that all the top Bushites got involved in immediately silencing, disabling and punishing Plame--taking careless, panicky, highly risky actions to do so---and, when they got corroboration of B/J/CIA involvement in foiling their plot (possibly from the search of Kelly's office and computers after his death), they silenced, disabled and punished the entire covert B/J network (some of them likely forever).

The set up of Wilson/CIA (with the Niger forgeries, and the wild goose chase to Niger) intersected with the Kelly story on July 7, probably with a phone call from Blair to Bush (on AF-1) warning the Bushites that Kelly knew. They had intended to tie Wilson to the CIA and prove the CIA to be fools and useless, when the planted weapons were "found." Now the opposite was happening--THEY were going to be the fools (not to mention criminal falsifiers), if this ever came out.

It had to be stopped. That's why the rush and panic, the cobbled together cover stories, the risks taken, the involvement of top people, and the seemingly cavalier attitude about treason (or getting charged with it--not that they would care about it on principle or out of patriotism). They were desperate--even possibly to the point of ordering the murder of an insider white guy--Kelly.

This wasn't just about punishing an ex-diplomat for his dissenting article, nor about Kelly's rather mild statements to the BBC. This was about something far worse. And the WMD-planting theory is a very good guess as to what it was, and solves many mysteries about Treasongate (or points to their solution).

[McKenzie]

45. bullseye Peace Patriot

what you have said here fits with what is almost certainly the real deal. A few people have sussed this but most haven't joined the dots. Either that or people refuse to believe something so orchestrated could underpin the current mess that we are in. It does and if people ever find out expect some pretty desperate measures in response by those who are behind all of the subterfuge; the stakes are as high as they could possibly be.

Copied your post because it joins a lot of dots.

<edit> grammar

[OKNancy]

46. I think you should post this as a separate thread

in General Discussion. I think a lot of the conspiracy theories here are DU are dubious, but the way you lay this out is certainly more logical than any I've seen. Even if one only reads the first part of your post, and the way you lay out those questions, makes it really worth notice. I don't know if your conclusion is correct, but it sure makes a person think!

[CantGetFooledAgain]

55. I second that. Please post as its own thread!

And, people should be blogging this theory in as many places as possible. It needs to be discussed and analyzed, and it needs to somehow make its way to the CM. And from there, it needs to get into Fitzgerald's head (if not there already).

It does explain so very many things, doesn't it?

[stop the bleeding]

59. Kicking this - cause this does needs to be discussed in detail

there are some very interesting points here. But until this idea gets chewed inside and out it will just remain a theory.

There are a lot of connections between our crooks in DC and the Parliament Crooks both current and retired over in the UK.

It has always struck me as odd that a country like the UK would be so steadfast at following us in this Messopotamia called Iraq even when the public over there knows better including their leaders. Somwthing is rotten and this theory gives something for all of us to think about.

[EuroObserver]

47. The Kelly 'loose cannon'

See Peace Patriot's theory and some further data and discussion also in this thread from yeterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5039448#5046565

[leftchick]

49. I agree with OKNancy Peace Patriot!!!

This is one fantastic post and should a Thread on its own! Please?

Wonderful Job!

[boston bean]

53. Wow, just wow! thanks for the post!

[Francine Frensky]

54. I think you're trying too hard to connect dots that aren't related

The first part of your post raises some interesting questions, but just asking why 50 times doesn't knock down the current thinking on Plame. You could answer any of those why's by saying Rove was sloppy or overconfident, or that this is only coming to light because someone finally cared to investigate. Think how many evil things we could find if we were allowed to look at everything Rove has done over the past five years.

I think the Kelly comments were pretty well investigated and you would need a super size tinfoil hat to place over all of America if you wanted your theory to stick. I'm not going to argue with you on the details of your claim, but I'm saying you don't have any solid evidence, and your theory is waaaay too hard to prove, so it's essentially useless even if it did happen.

[Tight_rope]

74. You say, "you're trying too hard to connect dots"...

And you are so quick to say to us "Don't believe the hype". However, were is your explanation of Who, What, Where and When surrounds Valarie Plame, David Kelly, Joe Wilson, the "Bushites", the "Blairites" and the WMD.

I don't believe anyone here has said, "Oh! Peace Patriot...You've solved the puzzle"!

Where are your dots? I'm sure many would love to read about another way of connecting the dots.

[H2O Man]

56. Well said!

This should be the OP of its own thread. Really well thought-out and well said! Thank you for this wonderful post.

[burythehatchet]

62. helps to explain the reports that Judy was behaving like she

was in charge of the unit in which she was embedded.

Our own Mata Hari.

[emald]

63. without a doubt there is more than meets the eye here

and your thesis is indeed a very probable one, it seems to me. Congratulations, you just helped me clear this whole episode up. Now the pieces make sense. Bunch of ugly criminals who will probably never get what they deserve. My own hope fades fast as to anyone ever being held responsible in this administration. * is destroying, on purpose, this country.

[stop the bleeding]

64. Please put this on its own thread

n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. I've always felt this was about Brewster-Jennings, not Plame

great post!

[Enraged_Ape]

67. Please post this in GD as its own thread; I will nominate it for greatest

I have long suspected the same exact thing. You spelled it out perfectly and even filled in some gaps.

Most treasonous act in US history. Maybe even world history.

[stop the bleeding]

68. I started a thread on the GD board - here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5049555

[leveymg]

69. If what you said was true, then someone w/in CIA would have leaked it

before you "connected the dots." I admire the scope of your imagination and your hard work, but this is just conjecture. There's no solid fiber to keep the hard bones of fact that you work with (yes, this assembly of facts is possible), together.

Now, if you could provide an authoritative statement, report, or circumstantial evidence to show that the White House or Downing Street were trying to introduce WMDs into Iraq, then I would be the first to shout, "Eureka!." But, aside from reference to "Several news reports in Pakistan and Iran about this in March 2003--covert U.S. arms unloaded at Basra; covert U.S. arms convoy hit by 'friendly fire')", you don't give us anything with which to make up our own minds. I would urge you to write an in-depth analysis about those reports, link them, and explain why you think they're credible.

Finally, as I said above, if it were true that the Bushites and Blairites were trying to destroy the CIA so they could plant WMDs in Iraq, we would have heard about it from within the Agency or one of its many recently "retired" officers.

By the way, I do think WHIG and OSP were quite happy to blow Brewster Jennings cover, but not for the reason you surmise. The mere fact that BJ, along with WMD analysts in several USG agencies, were resisting the Administration's headlong rush into a wider war against Iraq and Iran was deemed sufficient cause to make an example of Plame.

[NVMojo]

52. ...this makes to much sense ...that bastard was in our armpit town

last year ...what a hateful looking sob ...flying around the country acting like he gives a shit ...

[Beetwasher]

70. Here's The Thing: What If They Are Not Really Going After Cheney Now

for outing Plame, but rather for OTHER crimes?

IOW, what if this leak about them being hot for Cheney as the leaker is a bit of misdirection? Rove comes in thinking he has to tailor his lies in this direction and with the idea that they are after Cheney as the Plame leaker, but they are really after something else now?

[Tight_rope]

75. That's what my tinfoil hat leads me to believe!

:tinfoilhat: :shrug:

[Patsy Stone]

81. I'm gonna go out on a limb here

and say, YES! Of course Cheney was involved. Follow the money.

Go, Pat, Go!

[lovuian]

87. Framing of the Iraq War...or Framing of Wilson isn't that connected

I think so and thats the Big Hint there!!! Cause the Vice Prez Participated in the WMD joke for Iraq!!!

[hiabrill]

88. How can anyone dare to discredit Jason Leopold....!?

Seems like an attempt to discredit the truth in the article and distance Cheney..! Once Cheney is implicated we're that much closer to Bush.

At the end of PalmeGate, if Bush gets home dry, I'll be extremely disappointed! It'll all be for nothing........


My theory is this:

Before the outing, a report surfaced that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger. This infuriated Bush because since the White House knew the story was forged, it was a stupid thing for Cheney to do..! Bush accuses Cheney of undermining his "perception" of authority and making look like the fool he truly is.

To counter the article that falsely names Cheney as the person that sent Wilson to Niger, Cheney orders his staff to expose the CIA agent that was in fact responsible.

[BeHereNow]

90. Welcome to DU hiabrill...

Interesting theory.
BHN:toast:

[OKNancy]

91. Kick

[IChing]

92. Vice President's role in outing of CIA agent under examination

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine whether Vice President Dick Cheney had a role in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson, individuals close to Fitzgerald say. Plame’s husband was a vocal critic of prewar intelligence used by President George W. Bush to build support for the Iraq war.

The investigation into who leaked the officer's name to reporters has now turned toward a little known cabal of administration hawks known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which came together in August 2002 to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. WHIG was founded by Bush chief of staff Andrew Card and operated out of the Vice President’s office.

Fitzgerald’s examination centers on a group of players charged with not only selling the war, but according to sources familiar with the case, to discredit anyone who openly “disagreed with the official Iraq war” story.

The group’s members included Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, Bush advisor Karen Hughes, Senior Advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, Deputy Director of Communications James Wilkinson, Assistant to the President and Legislative Liaison Nicholas Calio, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby - Chief of Staff to the Vice President and co-author of the Administration's pre-emptive strike policy.>>>>>snip

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_role_in_outing_of_CIA_1012.html

[Bassic]

93. Good luck pinning that one on him though

I wish rich people were subject to the same justice system as the rest of us.

[IChing]

94. dupe n/t--self delete

[IChing]

95. The stench will not wash off though

Two officials close to Fitzgerald told RAW STORY they have seen documents obtained from the White House Iraq Group which state that Cheney was present at several of the group's meetings. They say Cheney personally discussed with individuals in attendance at least two interviews in May and June of 2003 Wilson gave to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, in which he claimed the administration “twisted” prewar intelligence and what the response from the administration should be.

Cheney was interviewed by the FBI surrounding the leak in 2004. According to the New York Times, Cheney was asked whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name Ms. Wilson.

[rodeodance]

104. and the article does not give a hint at what cheney said.

[rodeodance]

98. Someone at the meeting would have to squeal on Cheney for this to

happen. then it would be I said, he said situation.

[Bassic]

103. Exactly

That's why I'm not holding my breath

[rodeodance]

106. me either.

[HereSince1628]

96. Wasn't this published on Wed?

[rodeodance]

97. the article talks of something (below) that happened on Wednesday. No

date on this article.

.....Sources close to the investigation have also confirmed that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine Vice President Cheney's role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson, more specifically, if Cheney ordered the leak.

Those close to Fitzgerald say they have yet to uncover any evidence that suggests Cheney ordered the leak or played a role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson. Still, the sources said they are investigating claims that Cheney may have been involved based on his attendance at meetings of the Iraq group. Previous reports indicate Cheney was intimately involved with the framing of the Iraq war.

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal confirmed that the Iraq group was under scrutiny.

“Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion,” the Journal reported. “The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Wilson's claims” that the Bush administration twisted intelligence when it said Iraq tried to acquire yellow-cake uranium from Africa.

[H2O Man]

99. It is interesting

to speculate on the chances that Karl Rove is planning to point a finger in Dick's direction this morning. (In fact, I started a thread with this and two other questions on GD.)

[rodeodance]

102. I think rove is too loyal to Jr to turn on cheney. Squealing on Cheney

would be a cut on Bush. I do not see it happening.

[H2O Man]

108. You may be right.

However, frequently those in power are done in by those close to them. Only one's friends can betray them. And self-preservation is a powerful instinct.

[rodeodance]

100. says Rove 'chaired' the WHIG meeting.

.....Background

The White House Iraq Group operated virtually unknown until January 2004, when Fitzgerald subpoenaed for notes, email and attendance records. Bush Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. created the group in August of 2002.

“A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities," according to an Aug. 10, 2003, Washington Post investigative report on the group’s inner workings.

Senior Bush adviser Karl Rove chaired meetings of the group.

The group relied heavily on New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who, after meeting with several of the organization’s members in August 2002, wrote an explosive story that many critics of the war believe laid the groundwork for military action against Iraq.

[HereSince1628]

109. it says "Originally published on Wednesday October 12, 2005."

way down at the bottom after the advertising.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman]

105. Cheney probably was involved

but who in the WHIG will sell him out? Colin Powell wasn't even a part of the group so I doubt he has info to nail Cheney directly.

[rodeodance]

107. I do not see much happening with the war without Cheney support.

[Imagevision]

110. if Cheney ordered the leak? Bush & Cheney knew

no one in that administration makes a move without Cheney --especially Bush,Rove and Libby!

[peacetalksforall]

111. Triafficking and planting - motives and authority.

1. Who believes that Libby and Rove had total authority to pull off the operation against the CIA, Brewster-Jennings, and Plame (independent of Cheney and George)?

Not me.

2. Who believes that PNAC and DOD cabal were NOT trying to move intelligence operations FROM the CIA TO the DOD?

Not me.

3. Who believes that political capital for the regime did NOT include finding wmd in Iraq? And who believes that they never intended to plant wmd in Iraq?

Not me. Not me.

4. Who believes that Cheney and PNAC were NOT involved in wmd and nuclear parts and technology trafficking with Khan and an international pool of wmd and nuclear traffickers?

Not me.

For months we've been hung up on just 1/4 of the picture. The Rove-Plame part.

This is a Cheney operation. George's part probably involves the revenge on the Wilson's, since revenge is his forte.

I say, think Cheney. Cheney is the de facto head of PNAC. Their group is in charge of executing the cabal agenda (on behalf of those in authority over PNAC).