Newsweek and HuffPo: "Secrets, Evasions and Classified Reports"

[understandinglife]

Secrets, Evasions and Classified Reports

The CIA leak case isn’t just about whether top officials will be indicted. A larger issue is what Judith Miller’s evidence says about White House manipulation of the media.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek
Updated: 11:54 a.m. ET Oct. 21, 2005

The lengthy account by New York Times reporter Judy Miller about her grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case inadvertently provides a revealing window into how the Bush administration manipulated journalists about intelligence on Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

<clip>

More at the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9756141/site/newsweek

And, this morning Mr Isikoff blogs the following at Huffington Post

Save for the estimable David Corn of the Nation, nobody has picked up on this. But it's huge. At a time when questions about the Bush administration's case for war were beginning to mount, Libby assured Miller: Don't worry, there's still secret stuff out there that will prove we were right all along. As a Washington reporter who frequently writes about intelligence matters, I can assure you, this is the way it always works: "Trust me," the high level government official will tell you, "if you knew what I knew-- if you could read the top secret reports I've read-- you'd know why we're doing this." Only in this case, we know what Libby told Miller at their two hour breakfast at the Ritz Carleton Hotel on July 8, 2003, wasn't true: "Mr. Libby," Miller wrote in last Sunday's New York Times account, "said little more than that the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version."

Unfortunately for Libby, and perhaps for Miller, excerpts of the classified NIE were released just ten days later. It didn't show that the pre-war intelligence was "stronger" than had been publicly released to date. It showed that the intelligence community was riddled with doubts -- especially about the claims (primarily by Vice President Dick Cheney) that Iraq was close to getting a nuclear bomb.

Link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-isikoff/trusting-scooter_b_9261.html

Not news to many here, but definitely news to many of our fellow Americans.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

1. Will help folk understand why what Rep Nadler requested yesterday ...

... really matters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5117143


Peace.

[hang a left]

2. Another fine post as usual.

K and R

[ewagner]

3. Hehehehe

on the same picture under a story entitled:

The Exorcism of the New York Times

the sub-title says, it's time for the newspaper to cast out "unclean spirits" and look what's next to it.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Village Idiot]

5. Perhaps "The Enema of the New York Times"

would be a little closer to the mark. No unclean spirits, just a heck of a lot of Bull$hit...

[hvn_nbr_2]

26. What do you get if you give Karl Rove an enema?

The New York Times.

[bleever]

4. Yet another example of how they sought to game the system.

For them (starting at the top with Cheney and *), the game is not to be played fairly, depending on their own strengths and virtues. It's about choosing an outcome and rigging the system to achieve it.

Likewise, the concept of democracy, with its checks and balances and rigorous, open debate among sincere parties is just another game to be rigged. True democracy, true openness, was their number one enemy.

But it looks like they underestimated their enemy.

:)

[understandinglife]

6. "A Tale of Two Intelligence Estimates" -- MARCH, 2004

Most DUers are familiar with this excellent report, released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in MARCH 2004.

But now might be a good time to dust off your copy and prepare to explain to those less aware fellow Citizens that way before November, 2004, we had lots and lots of evidence why Bush and the neoconsters should be standing before a tribunal. And, we had more than enough reason to bankrupt the bulk of the corporate media for being nothing but a propaganda conduit. Why would anyone want to pay for propaganda that merely gets in the way of even sports, sex, Michael Jackson, and home repair shows (at least I think these are the priorities but I'm not an expert since I stopped watching TV ~ 15 years ago).

A Tale of Two Intelligence Estimates

By Jessica Mathews and Jeff Miller

March 2004

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq is frequently portrayed as the result of either intelligence failures or misrepresentation of the intelligence by others. In fact, both were involved. It appears that a third factor was involved as well: misrepresentation of intelligence by the intelligence community itself. One week before lawmakers were to vote on the use of force in Iraq, the CIA released an unclassified version of its just-completed National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). As the intelligence community’s definitive judgments on key issues, NIEs are always important documents on which great care is expended. However, this NIE was unusually important because it was the authoritative assessment of the Iraqi threat available to members of Congress on which to base a decision whether to support or oppose a war.

A close comparison of the unclassified version (CIA White Paper: “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs,” published in October 2002) and the original classified NIE (parts of which were declassified and released after the war), reveals striking differences. In addition to changes presumably made to protect sensitive sources and methods, the differences are of two types. Some convey the impression that the intelligence community was much more confident and more united in its views than it actually was. Others appear designed to portray a sense of heightened threat, and particularly of a threat that could touch the U.S. homeland. Sentences and phrases in the classified NIE expressing uncertainty were deleted while new formulations alluding to gathering danger were added.

The words “we judge” and “we assess” were deleted from five key findings of the classified document. For example, the classified version read: “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.” The unclassified version stated: “Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.” The classified NIE opined: “We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents.” In the unclassified version,
this was a certainty: “Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents.” The classified version expressed the view: “We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin) and VX.” The unclassified version was unequivocal: “Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents.” In each case, uncertainties turned into fact.

The full .pdf document can be downloaded here:

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/articles/ataleoftwointelligenceestimates.pdf

As many of you know, shortly after 9/11, Bush issued an Executive Order that severely limited Congressional access to classified information. Enough said.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

27. Ritter on Democarcy Now: "process of deliberately deceiving the American

... people.

He pulls no punches with regard to either President Clinton, President GHW Bush, or W.

Given that I don't want to have this thread degrade to a 'flame war,' I'm posting the link and folk can decide to read or not.

For the purpose of this thread I want to draw attention to only one paragraph:

They (i.e., the CIA) knew it, (a) because of their own access to intelligence information and (b) because of the work of the weapons inspectors. In October of 1992, I personally confronted the C.I.A. on the reality that we had accounted for all of Iraq's ballistic missile programs. That same year they had an Iraqi defector who had laid out the totality of the Iraqi biological weapons program and had acknowledged that all of the weapons had been destroyed. The C.I.A. knew this. But, see, the policy wasn't disarmament. The policy was regime change. Disarmament was only useful in so far as it facilitated regime change. That's what people need to understand, that this was not about getting rid of weapons that threatened international peace and security. This has been about, since 1991, solving a domestic political embarrassment. That is the continued survival of Saddam Hussein, a man who in March 1990 was labeled as a true friend of the American people and then in October 1990 in a dramatic flip-flop was called the Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler.

The link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

Many of us realize we need a different type of person sitting in most seats in the US Congress and definitely at the helm of the Executive Branch of our government.

I watched the first version, on location, between 1971 and 1974, and we have all been viewing the making of Corporatista Tricksters and Killers III: A Tale of the Neoconsters since Dec 9, 2000.

We need a different script and a different cast or none of us are going to want to be around when they make version IV.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

7. John Dean: The Big Question Is Whether Dick Cheney Was a Target

Waiting For The Valerie Plame Wilson Grand Jury: The Big Question Is Whether Dick Cheney Was a Target

By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 21, 2005

Washington is truly abuzz with rumors about what Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald may, or may not do, as his grand jury comes to the close of its almost two-year investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert status at the CIA. As I write, it appears that Fitzgerald will act within the next few days.

Unidentified government officials, The New York Times reports, say that Fitzgerald "will not make up his mind about any charges until next week." With his grand jury expiring on October 28, 2005, he is down to only a few options:

First, he could close down his Washington office; return to his work in Chicago, where he serves as the U.S. Attorney; and simply issue a statement that his investigation has ended. (He has no authority to write a report, for the information he has obtained is subject to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and thus is secret).

Second, he could extend the grand jury for whatever time he needs to complete his investigation. And third, he could issue one or more indictments.

Fitzgerald, and those who work for him, have acted throughout the investigation just as prosecutors should. Lips are zipped. Fitzgerald has held his information so close to his chest that, as one wag put it, he's got it in his underpants. Accordingly, Washington is filled with rumors.

Much more at the link:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051021.html

Worth the read.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

8. "It has been many years since my conversations with well placed friends ..

... in Washington have reflected the sort of inside-the-Beltway tension that is now mounting. This tension was not matched during the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation, nor during Iran-Contra. But it is very reminiscent of the wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in Nixon v. United States - the decision that famously forced Nixon to turn over his secretly recorded taped conversations -- and ended his presidency.

Ibid.

Like I said, you will want to read it ;)

(Oh, and I think his assessment is incorrect and if I had a way to communicate directly with him I'd suggest he re-read Judge Tatel's opinion.)


Peace.

[sundancekid]

25. though I like John Dean, I think it's either all tongue.in.cheek on this

one, or the greatest understatement on record ... I'm TOTALLY with you on that READ THE JUDGE'S OPINION thing

:crazy:

[understandinglife]

33. Billmon spikes it: "More prosaically, I think the fact that Fitzpatrick's

.... office has created its own web page is a strong sign that indictments are coming -- but not for the reason most widely held. Yes, a web page will come in handy for posting indictments, press releases about indictments, etc. But I think the documents already posted there may be the real tip off. They constitute a not-so-subtle reply to the conservative lie du jour -- that Fitzgerald has strayed far beyond his "original" mandate to investigate alleged violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

I've seen this lie repeated so many times today -- mostly by people smart enough to know better -- that I'm beginning to wonder if the RNC really does have a chip implanted in the brain of every corporate journalist on the planet. It was in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and in a Weekly Standard editorial so duplicitous that it cements Bill Kristol's claim to be the most talented intellectual hooker in Washington.

On his brand new web page, however, Fitzgerald has prominently posted both his original delegation of authority from the Justice Department -- which instructs him to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" -- and a follow up letter, dated Feb. 6, 2004, which clarifies that he has the power to investigate and prosecute:

... violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses . . .

Nowhere -- a word even Bill Kristol can't parse -- in either document is it stipulated that Fitzgerald's brief is limited to the IIPA, in fact the opposite is true. By throwing those letters up on the web today, Fitzgerald has, intentionally or not, signaled that he doesn't have the slightest intention of backing down. This guy is about as Irish as they come, and the Irish are not generally known for ducking away from bar fights. If the neocons want to take him on -- on the ground he's been preparing for the past two years -- they'd better have the propaganda equivalent of broken bottles in their hands.

Much more at the link:

http://billmon.org/archives/002284.html

Agree.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

11. Here's the "money sentence" -- "He is, in effect, attorney general with

....respect to this investigation."

I know some folk prefer not to read anything written by John Dean, but I wanted to be sure that everyone saw that Mr. Dean correctly notes the scope of Mr. Fitzgerald's authority in this investigation.

Oh, and I thought I read somewhere that Mr. Fitzgerald is non-partisan. ?? I'll need to check that ....


Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

12. Fitz is apolitical

Fitzgerald is careful to be apolitical in his targets and his public life alike. He registered to vote as an Independent in New York, only to discover, when he began receiving fundraising calls, that Independent was a political party. He re-registered with no affiliation, as he did later in Chicago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1

[understandinglife]

15. Thank you. I was looking for that article in my archives and appreciate ..

... your posting it!

As you may be aware, certain folk have worked up a lather trying to frame him as a Republican with an agenda.


Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

13. anti-climax?

from John Dean...
In short, I cannot imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington Office and returns to Chicago.

[understandinglife]

21. I know, I had to chuckle when I read that.

He's either being facetious or he needs to read (again):

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf


Peace.

[jsamuel]

9. thanks for pointing this out!

:hi:

[H2O Man]

10. Definitely nominated!

Thanks for adding yet another of the best posts on DU!!!

[understandinglife]

19. Thank you; the compliment from you is much appreciated.

Peace.

[troubleinwinter]

14. Maybe here is where I can get some info./opinions on this:

David Corn mentions the possibility of "Sealed Indictments".

As I understand it, indictments could be handed down, but would be secret and we would NOT know against whom or what charges they contain. Then Fitz could impanel another GJ to further investigate.

Might this be likely?

[understandinglife]

23. I hope one or more of the DUers with legal expertise respond to your ...

... interesting question.


Peace.

[Gelliebeans]

16. great post

I add another nomination :thumbsup:

[flyarm]

17. this is old and can not get any longer from FT ABOUT CARNEGIE REPORT

MODS THIS CAN NOT BE GOTTEN AND WAS IN MY FILES..so i can not put a link..link no longer works...


White House 'distorted' Iraq threat
By Stephen Fidler in London
Published: January 7 2004 21:56 | Last Updated: January 7 2004 21:56

Bush administration officials "systematically misrepresented" the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to war, according to a new report to be published on Thursday by a respected Washington think-tank.

These distortions, combined with intelligence failures, exaggerated the risks posed by a country that presented no immediate threat to the US, Middle East or global security, the report says.

The study from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace concludes that, though the long-term threat from Iraq could not be ignored, it was being effectively contained by a combination of UN weapons inspections, international sanctions and limited US-led military action.

It says the evidence shows that although Iraq retained ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction, almost all of what had been built had been destroyed long before the war.

Inspectors from the US-led coalition are still seeking evidence of the programmes in Iraq. But Joseph Cirincione, director of Carnegie's non-proliferation project, said: "We think it's highly unlikely that there will be any significant finds from now on."

Carnegie is regarded as a moderately left-of-centre think-tank. It opposed the war, saying Iraq's disarmament could be achieved via inspectors, if necessary backed up by force. Mr Cirincione said the report, which took more than six months to compile, was based on hundreds of documents and dozens of interviews with specialists, former weapons inspectors and current and former US officials.

It concludes that before 2002 the US intelligence community appears to have accurately perceived Iraq's nuclear and missile programmes, but overestimated the threat from chemical and biological weapons. But it also says that during 2002, published intelligence became excessively politicised. A "dramatic shift" in intelligence assessments during the year was one sign that "the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002".

The report says administration officials misrepresented the threat in three ways.

They presented nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as a single WMD threat, lumping together the high likelihood that Iraq had chemical weapons with the possibility that it had nuclear weapons, a claim for which there was no serious evidence. The administration also insisted without evidence that Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader, would give WMD to terrorists.

Finally, officials misused intelligence in many ways. "These include the wholesale dropping of caveats, probabilities and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements," it says.

The Carnegie assessment concluded: "There is no evidence of any Iraqi nuclear programme", contrary to assertions by Dick Cheney, vice-president, and others in 2002. It notes that since the war the US-led coalition has found no chemical weapons or programmes and no biological weapons or agents.

The report says the White House approach to the war was based on what it called "worse case reasoning", assuming that what intelligence agencies did not know was worse than what they did know. "Worst-case planning is valid . . . acting on worst-case assumptions is an entirely different matter."

The picture of an Iraqi arsenal existing only on paper is reinforced by an article in Wednesday's Washington Post, based partly on interviews with Iraqi scientists. It said that none of Iraq's weapons programmes had got past the planning stage since the 1991 Gulf war.



fly

[flyarm]

18. seattle paper about Carnegie report/cheney says war justified

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/156052_cheney10.html

snip:

Saturday, January 10, 2004

Despite report, Cheney says war was justified

By M.E. SPRENGELMEYER
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq as "perfectly justified," despite a scathing new report that cast doubt on many of the administration's pre-war claims.

snip:

"I think we were perfectly justified in doing what we did," Cheney said. "I think the American people support it overwhelmingly. And I don't have any qualms at all about the decisions that were made."

Cheney's comments came a day after the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a report claiming that the Bush administration misrepresented the threat of Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and the suspected terrorism connection.

In response to the report Thursday, Secretary of State Colin Powell defended his pre-war presentation to the United Nations, but conceded he had not seen "smoking-gun, concrete evidence" of a link between the former Iraqi regime and terrorist organizations.

In yesterday's interview, Cheney said there was new evidence in documents found in Baghdad concerning Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. Yasin was questioned by the FBI following that earlier attack on the twin towers, but he was released and fled to Iraq. The Iraqi government long maintained that it had imprisoned him in 1994, and CBS conducted a jailhouse interview in 2002. But Cheney said new documents suggest a more sinister link.


from my files...fly

[flyarm]

20. CSM article after Carnegie report released!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0114/dailyUpdate.html?s=mets

snip:

January 14, 2004, updated 1:00 p.m. ET

White House's 'rush to war was reckless'

Kenneth Pollack, key supporter of regime change in Iraq, now says White House engaged in "creative omissions' about WMD.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

It's the latest in a string of books, reports and articles that call into question the way the Bush administration presented pre-war evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


snip:

His most scathing criticism falls on the Bush Administration and, particularly, its tendency to misstate the facts of the case when trying to persuade the country to go to war. In his eyes, the Administration consistently engaged in "creative omission," overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it had evidence to the contrary. "The President is responsible for serving the entire nation," Pollack writes. "Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government – and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility."




snip:

Remember that when President Bush explained his case to the US Congress on Jan. 29, 2003, almost every paragraph highlighted the danger Iraq posed to the United States. Only a fleeting mention was made of the need to bring democracy to Iraq, the justification now favoured by the administration, faute de mieux . Writes Mr. Pollack: "At the very least we should recognize that the administration's rush to war was reckless, even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003. It appears even more reckless in light of what we know today." Pass the smelling salts, please.

Pollack also says in the Atlantic piece that the Bush administration used this strategy because otherwise it could not have convinced the American people that war was so necessary.
I think the Administration was only telling part of the truth to the American people because it was trying to justify a war in 2003. The intelligence estimates just didn't really support that imminence. The Administration could have said, "Look, the intelligence community thinks it may be five to seven years away, but they do think it's also possible that they could get it in one to two years. After 9/11, we shouldn't take even that kind of a risk." I think that would have been a much more honest way of presenting it to the American people.



*****************************
you must read the whole article as you wll see mr pollack changed his mind about the war ...as pointed out by a canadian newspaper


from my files..fly

[understandinglife]

22. Thank you very much for adding these documents to this thread!

Peace.

[understandinglife]

24. Booman Tribune - "Fitz's Targets: They Who Reveal National Security ...

... Secrets.

by susanhu
Fri Oct 21st, 2005 at 12:49:12 PM EDT

Most egegriously -- beyond the collusion of Scooter and Karl to smear Valerie Plame -- and the selling of the Iraq war by the WHIGs -- the entire Bush administration has failed to play by the rules it's enforced on everybody else.

The Friday edition of the Wall Street Journal reveals that:

(Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald) may be piecing together a case that White House White House officials conspired to leak various types of classified material in conversations with reporters -- including Ms. Plame's identity but also other secrets related to national security.

More at the link:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/10/21/13855/003

Peace.

[understandinglife]

28. ReddHedd at firedoglake -- "Note to the WSJ: "Everybody does it" is not

... an adequate defense to breaking the law. Nor is it an excuse for divulging information regarding national security matters, especially in a time of war. My dad wouldn't have accepted that as an excuse, and I'm quite certain that US Attorneys aren't that happy with it either.

Link:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/big-friday-news-round-up.html

What I've explained to many folk during the past few days -- it's interesting how many are starting to pay attention -- is that what little we know from Mr. Fitzgerald you can find in a few legal briefs, orders and opinions -- and two, yep only two, media releases from the Special Counsel's office. Amazing.

Beyond that, it's all "lawyers," "couselors," and "players" doing the yapping and leaking and dissing and implicating -- and, truly, doing substantial damage to each other in the process.

It must be quite the show for Mr. Fitzgerald, his staff and the GJ.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

29. Herald Tribune: "Prosecutor in CIA leak: 'Totally organized mind'"

By Scott Shane and David Johnston The New York Times

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2005

WASHINGTON In 13 years prosecuting mobsters and terrorists in New York, Patrick Fitzgerald earned a public reputation for meticulous preparation, a flawless memory and an easy eloquence. Only his colleagues knew that these orderly achievements emerged from the near-total anarchy of his office, where the relentless Fitzgerald often slept during big cases.

"You'd open a drawer, looking for a pen or Post-It notes, and it would be full of dirty socks," recalled Karen Patton Seymour, a fellow assistant U.S. attorney who tried a major kidnapping case with him.

"He was a mess. Food here, clothes there, papers everywhere. But behind all that was a totally organized mind."

That mind, which has taken on Al Qaeda and the Gambino crime family, is now focused on the most politically volatile case of Fitzgerald's storied career.

<clip>

More at the link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/21/news/fitzgerald.php

The neoconsters are going to prison ....


Peace.

[understandinglife]

30. "I don't think the prospect of a firestorm would deter him," said ...

... J. Gilmore Childers, who worked with Fitzgerald on high-profile terrorism prosecutions in the United States attorney's office in New York during most of the 1990s.

"His only calculus is to do the right thing as he sees it," Childers said.

Yes, I said, the neoconsters are going to prison ....

If you want to know why, just go to this link and read the entire opinion by Judge Tatel:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

Judge Tatel was far from a push-over for the Special Counsel; Special Counsel prevailed, as noted in the concluding three paragraphs of the above referenced opinion:

As James Madison explained, “A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” See In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 The Writings of James Madison 103 41 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910)).

Consistent with that maxim, “ a free press is indispensable to the workings of our democratic society,” Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 28 (1945) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and because confidential sources are essential to the workings of the press — a practical reality that virtually all states and the federal government now acknowledge — I believe that “reason and experience” compel recognition of a privilege for reporters’ sources.

That said, because “liberty can only be exercised in a system of law which safeguards order,” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 574
(1965), the privilege must give way to imperatives of law enforcement in exceptional cases.

Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential
to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony.

Peace.

[understandinglife]

31. "The con that landed him in the White House, and then got him reelected,

... suddenly is being seen for what it is, the old flim-flameroo. A majority of the public isn't falling for his ah-shucks routine anymore.

For a while, the most obvious con jobs worked for Bush the Younger. That landing on the aircraft carrier, with him squeezed into a flight suit, strutting across the deck in front of a huge sign reading "Mission Accomplished," was so blatant that, watching it on TV, I figured all those sailors and Marines would burst out laughing at any moment. But no, they must have been under orders to be cheerleaders for the head cheerleader. And the public fell for it all.

Motion picture critics often caution their readers that they have to "suspend disbelief" in order to enjoy a certain film. That's what a majority of the public did watching W. strut across that flight deck. They forced themselves to forget the fact that he managed to dodge all bullets during the Vietnam War by joining the Texas Air National Guard and that he then went AWOL for almost a year. No, there he was on their screens, a genuine hero holding his flight helmet.

Even after he and his cronies in the White House were caught in lie after lie — the weapons of mass destruction, the purported link between Iraq and the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon — the public swallowed his routine as if it were gospel. But now, suddenly, the emperor's new clothes are seen for what they really are, a royal pretense.

<clip>

From Bush is nothing if not consummate con man by George McEvoy, Palm Beach Post Columnist

Saturday, October 22, 2005

More at the link:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/10/22/m13a_mcevoy_1022.html

Oh, Jebbie boy ....


Peace.

[understandinglife]

32. "Tim Russert pushed their case further, by repeating lies to “prove” ...

... inspections don’t work.

Those lies speak volumes about media coverage of the WMD story then and now.

Russert’s lie: (repeated three times) Inspectors never found any nuclear weapons program in Iraq until 1995, when Saddam’s son-in-law defected and revealed secret nuclear program unknown to the inspectors. It was sheer luck, not the inspections, that kept Saddam from building 21 nuclear bombs by 2003.

Russert’s message: Today inspectors say they find no evidence of nuclear weapons. But experience shows that Saddam can develop nuclear weapons right under the inspectors’ noses. Bombs could still be in Iraq, so the danger - and the justification for war - remains.

The truth: After the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the first intrusive inspections in Iraq led to discovery and destruction Saddam’s remaining nuclear weapons program. In 1995, Saddam’s son-in-law revealed a second crash nuclear program (using a fatally flawed design) that U.S. bombs smashed during the Persian Gulf War, prior to the inspectors’ arrival. Before 1991, Iraq relied on European technicians, equipment and manufacturing expertise for its nuclear weapons program, (which, after seven years, remained unsuccessful.) Lacking foreign assistance thereafter, Iraq remained incapable of building any nuclear device.

“Lying” is an inflammatory charge and tough to prove because it presupposes knowledge of Russert’s state of mind. (I only know what I see on TV and in transcripts.) Whatever his motivation – currying favor with The White House, competing with Fox News – Russert’s lies are so obvious that no other explanation makes sense. There are five different reasons to believe that Russert lied instead of misspoke. Add them up, and the results are pretty damning.

<clip>

From The Noble Prize and Russert's Lies David Fiderer by on October 22, 2005

Much more at the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-nobel-prize-and-russe_b_9307.html

Just so we all remember that Judith was not the only propagandist in aiding and abetting Bush and the neoconsters in their un-Constitutional and otherwise illegal war of imperialistic aggression.


Peace.

[Disturbed]

34. Cheney said. "I think the American people support it overwhelmingly.

This man is an evil, pathological liar!