Which aspens turned?

[Skidmore]

Chris Mathews was talking to someone on his show about the Aspen Institute? and how it was used as place for lobbyists to converge and pass favors onto politicians and their staffs? Maybe the aspens that Cheney's Igor was referring to in that letter had nothing to do with Chalabi and crew but more with the looming scandal that would affect the whole administration more directly than a political argument over how we got into war. Maybe Judith knows more about this also.

A thought about a comment I found kinda weird on Hardball.

[napi21]

1. I don't know. I didn't hear Chris, but that does bring up a question.

Has anyone EVER figured out what that stupid note meant? Maybe we have to wait for Fitz and a trial to find out.

[soothsayer]

2. interesting

[HillDem]

3. Maybe he was talking about that wierd

letter from Scooter Libby to Judy Miller.

[Skidmore]

4. Mathews was talking about the Aspen Institute and I

found it kinda weird and he said something about the Aspen Institute is used by lobbyists as a place to "turn" politicians. It kinda stuck in my head and brought to mind that weird letter from Libby to Miller.

[shraby]

5. It could be that the people who backed this

administration at Aspen Institute have turned against them.

[Sydnie]

10. At least two member of the Aspen board are signers of the

PNAC letter.

[adarling]

9. me too

anyone have the letter, it is time for analysis :)

[babylonsister]

6. This begs the question of how Miller might be

affiliated with lobbyists. :shrug:

[Skidmore]

7. I know.

The media is very corrupt now and they have lobbyists too. Something is just smelly here.

[Sydnie]

8. I was wondering about the connection between Libby's letter and

current events last week. I was wondering about the Colorado connection to Abramoff. I went from Italia Federici to Gale Norton. Made me wonder if the original PNACers that were involved in the Aspen Institute had begun to withdraw their support.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=77760

I might be totally off base, but the two theories could lead to the same connection. If there was hanky panky going on with the Aspen Institute and lobbyists (and the PNACers involved), it could get very interesting.

edit - typo

[DrDebug]

12. I wondered about that as well

The problem is that it is not one of the best known lobby groups. The description is of course very vague: "international non-profit organization dedicated to informed dialogue and inquiry on issues of global concern." so it could mean anything and it is probably used for anything as well.

It has an interesting division and that is Aspen Strategy Group which is a policy program concentrating on strategic relations and arms control issues. The Aspen Strategy Group is currently co-chaired by Joseph Samuel Nye, Jr. and Brent Scowcroft and it had links to a lot of PNACers in the past, but most seemed to have moved on from that group to more powerful circles.

Brent Scowcroft is of course a major player since he is a former general, national security advisor etc.
Joseph Samuel Nye is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and is a S&B member.

The Board of Trustees list also has some major players like Albright, prince Bandar bin Sultan and Pickering from Boeing, however most names do not sound familiar.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Aspen_Institute_/_Aspen_Strategy_Group

It has links with Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller, so it's sounds like lobby group which operates just below the top but is still connected to the decision makers. I wondered about the story as well, since it would make sense that Judith Miller was connected to them which was out of the limelight, but still in an influential position.

[Skidmore]

16. Scowcroft...

Didn't he skewer Little Boots over the war last year? Sounds like he withdrew support for policy.

[Peace Patriot]

11. My reading (personal decryption--guesses) of Libby's "aspens" letter

had to do with the Neo Con goal of total US military domination of the Middle East, including invasions and topplings of the government in Iraq, Iran and Syria. As background to my decryption: I think their Iraq plot actually went awry--they tried to plant WMDs (probably nukes) in Iraq, to discredit the CIA and to reap enormous political benefit for Bush/Blair; that deceitful scheme got foiled; Treasongate is the coverup.

Given all of that, I thought that Libby's letter was saying, a) the overall plot "is deeply rooted" and the most important support for and elements of the plot are still in place (the "aspens" "turn together"); b) Libby is taking the "fall" in order to protect that larger plot (probably a black op in Iran re nukes--planting of evidence? creation of a phony incident?); c) ergo Miller can now get out of jail and testify (which would incriminate Libby on perjury), and d) Miller should "come back to life--and work" in order to help them propagandize the next phase, invasion or bombing of Iran on some pretext (he mentions three things she should come back to work to cover, one of them being Iran nukes).

"Come back to life" may also mean that Miller's life is no longer in danger (from what she knows).* She got fired at the NYT. So "come back to work" may mean, you will be rewarded with a nice plum propaganda job at some rightwing think tank provided by some nice "aspen."

It's possibly true that Libby was/is concerned about the lobbying/financial scandals, although I imagine that he has been pretty well occupied with Treasongate for some time. I also imagine that the AIPAC (spying for Israel) case might be more on his mind than the lobbying/financial scandals--although all of it could be connected in the end.

Maybe the WMD-planting money is trackable through the "aspen" lobbyists. That would be worth pursuing.

-----

*(Note on Miller: It's possible that Miller knew of the WMD-planting scheme in Iraq (if that's what was going on, which I think it was)--that's why she was all positioned there, embedded with the US troops who were "hunting" for the weapons that they ("the aspens") all knew weren't there, on a special Judith Miller-embed contract from Donald Rumsfeld; a "find" of WMDs in Iraq would have been a "big scoop" for Miller; she would have been helpful in covering up the plant; and she was quite thick with these people, Libby, the Neo Cons, Chalabi, etc. She was very high-handed with local commanders, as if she had some special authority from the Pentagon.

(Also, it's quite possible that David Kelly, the Brits chief WMD expert, got killed because of what HE knew--re: the WMD-planting scheme. He was found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after Plame was outed; his office and computers were searched; and, four days after that, Novak additionally outed the entire Brewster-Jennings CIA front company for counter-proliferation projects, that Plame headed. Miller was an old colleague of Kelly's. She's my candidate for the one who outed Kelly to his bosses, which began the chain of events that led to his death, a few weeks later. It is to Miller that Kelly wrote his last, provocative email, on the day he died, warning of "the many dark actors playing games.")

[donkeyotay]

13. The Aspen's have a fascinating board

Very powerful, connected (and international) group that used to stand for liberalism and now apparently were part of the neocon hijacking of American power. Look at the board and you'll see people like David Gergen, who was suddenly all over tv after the remark about the aspens turning. I have no idea what he was promoting, but he sure got a lot of air time. I think the aspens turned because its important now to contain this scandal. America must think that some kind of justice was done, while nothing of substance gets changed.

[carolinalady]

14. I have said this before but I think that he meant that Cheney, Rice

and company told him he was going down. They were all part of that Aspen group. He took one for the team.

[Emit]

15. Interesting. Here's what the Institute has to say about lobbyists

And their Aspen Institute Congressional Program
From their website:

Participation. Since the program's inception, 307 members of Congress (including 32% of the current Congress), 182 international parliamentarians, political and government leaders, and over 700 scholar/experts have been involved. Participation is limited to these individuals, their spouses and foundation representatives. No lobbyists, congressional staff or outside observers are permitted.

Funding. Since its inception in 1983, the Aspen Institute Congressional Program has been funded solely by established foundations. Funding is not accepted from lobbyists, government, corporations, private citizens or special interests; and honoraria are not paid to members of Congress or scholars. Legislators feel free to engage openly because of their confidence in the integrity of the program. In 2005, funding is provided by the following foundations: Carnegie Corporation (foundation) of New York, the Ford Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:UuNVEm0eSrgJ:www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.612053/k.6DA1/Congressional_Program.htm+Aspen+Institute+Lobbyists&hl=en



Of course, just because they say this doesn't mean it's true.


Also, seems that this conservative blog (defending DeLay) says that the Aspen Institute funds more Dems than Repubs. Maybe that's what Matthews is really getting at here, trying to bring more shame to Dems to avert scandal away from the Repugs. It's hard to say what he was referring to, especially when it's taken out of context. Anyway, thought I'd pass this on:

~snip~

Last week a new study by PoliticalMoneyLine revealed that private groups have spent more than $16 million since 2000 on travel by members of Congress and their staff. An earlier study undertaken by the Medill News Service at Northwestern University found that between 2000 and 2004 dozens of organizations sponsored more than 4,800 such trips and that DeLay was not among the most traveled congressmen.

In fact, that study revealed that while Democrats do not make up a majority in either the House or Senate, they took a total of more than 600 such trips more than their Republican counterparts, with the top five travelers all coming from the Democratic side of the aisle. Harold Ford, a Tennessee Democrat, led the field by taking some 63 such trips at a reported cost of more than $167,000.

The most lavish trips seem to be those sponsored by the Aspen Institute, the liberal Republican Ripon Society and an outfit calling itself the World Economic Forum, which sponsors an annual "conference" in Switzerland. All of these groups are predominantly liberal and most of the money they spend is spent taking friendly liberals to places such as Rome, Barcelona, Honolulu and the Bahamas. Of the $2.7 million the Aspen Institute spent during the period studied, for example, nearly 70% of it was spent on Democrats.

cont'd here:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:RJaQdRc5StMJ:www.conservative.org/columnists/keene/04292005dk.asp+Aspen+Institute+Jack+Abramoff&hl=en