OSP: The "administration" hangs its hat on wordplay

by Kagro X

Watch this play. WaPo:

A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.... The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal..... Feith called "bizarre" the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy _ the top policy position under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld _ were inappropriate but not unauthorized. "Clearly, the inspector general's office was willing to challenge the policy office and even stretch some points to be able to criticize it," Feith said, adding that he felt this amounted to subjective "quibbling" by the IG.

It should be obvious what Feith's motive is, especially with the Libby trial looming in the background.

His primary interest, of course, is that the activities of his OSP be deemed at least not unlawful. And he's managed to get the IG's cooperation on that score. But he wants more than that. He wants to scotch their designation of his activities as inappropriate even if not unauthorized. But what does that mean? Or more importantly, what's the difference between what it means and what Feith and the rest of the "administration" want you to think it means? When this "administration" makes an argument that its activities were legal because they were "not unauthorized," you need to be thinking of how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales regards the nexus between legality and authorization. Back in February 2006, Gonzales clashed (in)famously with Sen. Russ Feingold, in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary committee. In Feingold's own discussion of the hearing, he told us:

I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him [18.4MB video file] whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn't know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical" before stating "it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Yesterday, he tried to claim [25.6MB video file] that he had told the truth at that hearing, bringing the parsing of words to new lows. I think it is clear that the Attorney General misled the Committee and the public not only about the NSA wiretapping program but about his views on presidential power.

But I don't think it was parsing. I think it was misleading, but not parsing. Here's how I saw it:

Not only is he saying that no law can be passed that infringes upon the president's "inherent authority," he is saying that he told the truth in his confirmation hearings because he believes the surveillance programs do not violate the law because they cannot violate the law. That's why he regarded Senator Feingold's question as a hypothetical. Because it was and is his assumption that no program initiated by the president in furtherance of the national security could be in violation of the law.

That is, it is a resurrection of the infamous Nixon doctrine, revealed in Nixon's 1977 interview with David Frost:

Frost: "So ... what ... you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal." Nixon: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." Frost: " By definition." Nixon: "Exactly, exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security ... then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law."

The "administration's" gambit here is that we'll all fall back on the presumption that the government is "entitled" to this kind of deference. Either that the "Commander in Chief" can get away with certain methods of circumventing the law, and that if he "breaks" it, it's really not breaking it, precisely because he's the president. Or failing that, they hope at the very least that we'll accept their view that the sort of "not illegal" activities which Feith pursued at the behest of the "administration" ought to be beyond the reach of the criminal law, because otherwise we're "criminalizing politics." At bottom, though, this report makes clear that the "administration's" presumption rests on the willingness of the American people to believe that the purposeful dismantling and circumvention of our legal and authorized intelligence channels -- up to and including the outing of critical undercover non-proliferation agents and the insanely dishonest selling of a war that turned out to be the worst foreign policy disaster in American history -- is "just politics." It's time we all asked ourselves a question I posed early in the Plame investigation:

What I'm asking is, what's bigger? The lies the administration used to convince the country to go to war? Or the lie that the administration only fought the intelligence community after the fact, to cover its tracks when caught? Is the administration covering up the lengths to which it went to prevent the exposure of its mistaken reliance on bad intelligence? Or is the administration covering up the lengths to which it went to promote intelligence developed by its own, parallel intelligence structure, a plan which required the simultaneous undermining and the destruction of the credibility of the country's established (read: authorized and legitimate) intelligence structure, which refused to give them what they wanted? The answer to that question is the difference between "just politics," and "we're not kidding when we whisper the word 'treason.'"

Comments

[greenhouse]

WOW Kagro!!! The way you frame the issues is so spot on it's helped cause a major shift in my paradigm and increased my cognitive skills at least 2 levels. I hope it's not a temporary shift and increase. The difference between playing politics or just plain, outright treason -- that is the real question and equal to if not larger than the issue of lying us into war.

Thanks!

[DeWitt Grey]

They try to dress up their theories in modern clothes, but they're really not much more complicated than the views of King Charles I. The doctrine of sovereign immunity, for example, simply stems from the notion that the King can do no wrong.

It is truly hard to imagine how Americans with law degrees can construct a constitutional theory of executive power giving the President more power than George III would have dreamed of claiming (understanding as he did only too well how what had happened to two out of the last three Stuart Kings), but given that the theory comes from the same bunch of people who try to read the American Civil War and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments out of the Constitution as being at odds with "original intent", I can't pretend to be surprised.

It is a pity that these guys utterly lack the courage of their convictions -- the Earl of Strafford went to the block for less than what Feith has done.

[mickey]

Sometimes, a writer just nails something - a slam dunk. Kagro X, you got this one nailed right into the wall!

We’re on the downhill course with the Valerie Plame case. If Libby’s convicted of Obstruction of Justice, the next stops are The Niger Forgeries and Cheney. But it’s going to be an uphill journey with Douglas Feith. And, as you point out, it matters!

This Inspector General’s Report is scathing, but doesn’t yet produce the vehicle for prosecution. We didn’t expect it would. The Pentagon protects its own. But It opens the door for Congressional Investigation. Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller are willing and in the wings, but we have miles to go before we sleep…

P.S. Is emptywheel on sabbatical?

[oldtree]

perhaps dougie is the, and I paraphrase an old quote, "the dumbest guy in the world"
it would help when he comes to trial

[plunger]

The funding for the coup was stolen by DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim in advance of 9/11. He stole $7 trillion and sent it to Israel.

Why do you think Cheney has no fear of Congress cutting off funding for the Crusade?

Arrest David Rockefeller - they all work for him.

It’s time to raise the level of discourse where the term “Conspiracy” is concerned:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/ intell/ library/ reports/ 2005/ franklin_indictment_04aug2005.htm

We’ve all been conditioned to snicker and ridicule when non-professionals offer theories about conspiracies. It’s time to talk about all of these theories and unravel the whole thing.

The Abramoff, AIPAC and Libby Trials are ALL THE SAME CONSPIRACY:

http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com/

Cheney sent Ledeen to meet with Ambassador Mel Sembler in Italy to plant the forged Niger document.

COINCIDENTALLY…
Mel sembler heads up Scooter Libby’s Legal defense fund
AND
Despite the fact he’s a lifelong Republican, Sembler held a fundraiser for Lieberman in Palm Beach - in coordination with Rove and the WH.

Connect ALL the dots…
Lieberman is now assigned the task of protecting Chertoff.

How does McCain factor in?

A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 “PULLED” by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:

Pull the entire thread and don’t stop pulling.
The Asbestos liability belonged to Halliburton, having acquired it along with his acquisition of Dresser.

GW included the issue in his State of the Union speech in 2005:

“To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits. (Applause.) Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims — and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.”

FULL CIRCLE.

Jay Rockefeller is going to "investigate?" Uh huh - sure he is.

[mainsailset]

What Bush's administration has taught me is that his motives, operatives, methodology and goals are all one - a single package where there is no top three acts of Presidential dishonesty. It is all dangerous and to turn the spotlight on one or two policies at a time merely leaves the rest of the meal on the table for his greedy minions to feast upon. I can only hope that Fitzgerald is so mightily enraged by hearing of the fired US attorneys that the knowledge will lend fuel to his own battle.

[Sara]

Kagro X -- yep it sure is fancy wordplay 'not Unlawful' v 'inappropriate' v 'not authorized' whatever, I think Senator Rockefeller served notice he understands how to get into the meat of it all, when he made clear he is going to hold the OSP up to the light of day of the charter of any intelligence effort, and that is the 1947 National Security Act as amended over the years. In a short sweet way Rocky is telling "them" that there is a legal standard, and he is going to use it to measure.

We need to basicly find any reasonable book on Intelligence History and get familiar with the elements of the Act. In essence it set up the National Security Council composed of specific cabinet officers, the President, and others -- it established the office of National Security Advisor to the President in the Executive Office, and it created a small executive agency, the Directors of the National Security Council -- a flat agency of specialists and experts as designed, who coordinate and synthesize intelligence from the Departments and agencies for the NSA and the President. All intelligence is funneled through this system, and all tasking (asking questions) goes down from the NSA or the President to the agencies and departments. As set up in 1947 it was a framework, open to being expanded BY CONGRESS when this was needed and recommended. For instance in the early 1950's all the Signals Intelligence that had been in Navy and Army Signals Corps were combined as the National Security Agency, and somewhat later, overhead intelligence got its own agency, NRO. But no one ever changed the core organizing principle -- intelligence flows through the NSC staff to the NSA, and then to the President.

What we have with Feith and probably any number of other little privately run, off-line, and totally unauthorized intelligence operating groups is a Parallel Government run through the VP -- that does not flow through the system as authorized -- and above all is not authorized by Congress. In a way, it is Bill Casey's dream of an "off the shelf" outfit that he tried to construct through Ollie North on some super dooper steroids. And it has no reporting requirements to Congress, and Congress did not authorize setting it up. So yea -- it is a clear violation of the 1947 Act, and while that may not be precisely criminal, it clearly is a full misunderstanding on the part of Bush and Condi of how they are expected, in law, the Intelligence Assets in the Executive Office of the President. It may also be useful to note that nothing in the National Security Act provides any role for the Vice President. No office, no staff, and no official powers.

I think Rockefeller has selected the right yard stick with which to measure all this -- and to keep him going in the right direction, we should get familiar with the standard he plans to use. If you really want some historical entertainment -- dig into the fact that this act was the product of a Republican Congress negotiating it all out with Harry Truman, and all the while J. Edgar Hoover was trying to stop the process, because he wanted to be the President's only intelligence advisor. Among other things, no one wanted the President (Truman) to have sole control of Intelligence, (and eeh gads, never another FDR) and all the power balancing bits got soundly put into the Act. I think Rocky has precisely the right strategy here, and the more people know that Act, and use it properly, the more difficult spinning such as the wordplay of today will fail.

In my mind, the first criticism ought to go to Condi. She had the title "National Security Advisor" and it was her responsibility to put any and all programs (Including Feith's interest in Making Hussain into an al-Qaeda collaborator) directly feeding into the NSC process. Moreover, she should have had congress authorize it? Why put it in DOD rather then in NSC or an inter-agency taskforce? --

Here is part of the problem -- and for reference, you'll need Stephen Simon and Daniel Benjamin's book, The Age of Sacred Terror. There is a profound conflict which has huge budget implications (and turf) between whether you see the enemy as a state actor, against which you can position Military Assets, or a non-state actor much less sensitive to American Military Assets -- thus giving the lead to State or perhaps one or several intelligence outfits. One reason DOD did not get interested in al-Qaeda during the Clinton years, and indeed were still making the argument they wanted nothing to do with the Predator on 9/11 was precisely because they wanted nothing to do with non-state actors. The move to then slide Iraq and al-Qaeda into a marriage however unsupported by intelligence, was to serve these DOD institutional interests.

The World of Bloggers needs to get really savy about these kinds of system and institutional battles, because they are involved to some degree in virtually everything. The better we comprehend something like the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith plan for destruction of the National Security Act of 1947 -- the better we will be at Blogging the subject. And I think Rocky needs to be cheered on for what he said, because that sets the expectation he will use the yardstick properly.

[Mimikatz]

The difference now is that the Dems have the ability to hold hearings, and the press is going to report on the hearings. As more and more trickles out about the parallel Iraq intel operation and the fudging of intel, the harder it gets to do the same with iran.

Unfortunately, the quality of the intel is not the key factor with Iran. The Iranian nuclear program seems more real than the Iraqi one, and they will hang it all on that.

Think about Rudolph Giuliani having all this unitary executive power. There isn't any Dem candidate I wouldn't vote for over the current GOP crop, but Rudolph is the worst in so many ways.

[Mimikatz]

Another factor here, Sara, is the near total incompetence of Condi Rice as NSA. She may have been able to scare Tenet at night, but she was almost completely outgunned by Rumsfeld and Cheney. All she has ever really had is her personal connection to Bush. If she couldn't get to him first or last, she couldn't control events because she couldn't control those massive egos. Rumsfeld is gone, but she is at State now. Cheney and his deadenders are still trying to run things. Cheney needs to be isolated. But Gonzales is Bush's man, and through him we see how much Bush is behind all this too.

[DonS]

Plunger begins to address the level at which we need to be thinking. While addressing the peices in the puzzle, there must be ways found to escalate the exposure of treasonous activity to the level at which there is a chance to reverse the conventional wisdom which, despite cracks in the facade, gives the benefit of the doubt to the "system". The "system" can tolerate, and even abet cracks, in order to forestall serious action so far into the future, if ever, that any chance at correction is moot. Perhaps "conspiracy" will be the frame on which to hang these guys out to dry. I'm not all that confident, but it's hard to say what is possible if some of the players are turned.

[DeWitt Grey]

Sara --

Don't you see that under the "unitary executive theory" the National Security Act of 1947 is an unconstitutional abridgement of the President's Article II authority?

Here's the link to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy's critique of the Inspector General's report:

http://www.realcities.com/multimedia/nationalchannel/archive/mcw/Comments_DOD_OIG.pdf

wherein, among other things, he suggests that if the activities of the Office of Special Plans were inappropriate, the IG should be blaming Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for giving the OSP its brief rather than the OSP (duh, I guess we can agree with that) and, on p. 38, stating that the OSP could not have been doing "intelligence assessments" or "intelligence analysis" because it wasn't an "intelligence agency". You can't make this stuff up yourself, you'd be laughed at . . .

I fear that Congress is going to have get much more serious about exercising its Article I powers to withhold funding in a significant way to bring this rogue administration to heel.

[prostratedragon]

Amen, Kagro, especially the last paragraph, and also Sara. In line with her suggestion to bone up on this stuff, I think James Mann's book Rise of the Vulcans has an introduction to the agenda of undermining the existing intel apparatus, which seemed to pick up steam post-Nixon with the Rumsfeld-Cheney[-GHW Bush] cell.

Not that he puts it in quite those terms; his view of the group he calls the "Vulcans," or those like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Armitage whose careers spanned the Ford and current Bush eras, has it that that group merely differs from others in matters about which decent people of goodwill might legitimately agree. I've come to a different view, myself.

But he does encourage seeing them, especially Cheney and Rumsfeld, in a longer historical frame, starting with the "Halloween Massacre" they pulled under Ford, proceeding to the National Security Strategy of 2002 which in some ways was their crowning moment. By looking at them in this large a frame, as posters here have also said, you can see how utterly pernicious, and it has to be deliberately pernicious, they have been to the ability of the U.S. government to remain accountable to the people and even itself.

[Waiting in Texas]

Just happened to have my local CBS news affiliate on tonight and they ran a really interesting story about Houston businesses that received small business loans for $97 million dollars right after 9-11-01 based on the terrorist attacks in NY, DC and PA. The reporter, Dave Fehling, interviewed some of these people that received loans, who had no idea they were getting their loans based on the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

It was no sweat off the bank's backs to make the loans. They were guaranteed by the good ol' US Government. NOT ONE BANK would talk to the reporter, except for Compass Bank, who said that though they had no proof they discussed it with the customers, the customers were informed that these loans were for 9-11.

It got me to thinking back to those days after 9-11 here in Texas. Like the rest of America, everyone stayed home, spent more time with their families, didn't spend money and did some thorough soul searching.

Then the anthrax attacks started against the three major network anchors, plus some other local media and postal workers, and only Democrats were the ones to receive those envelopes (to the best of my recollection).

Also, not long after 9-11, most of us received money from the government. I remember Bush's speech about it, but don't remember exactly why we received it. I was married at the time so we got $600.00. Then these businesses were all given loans. Was this the Bush Administration's way of buying all of us off, buying our silence?

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070209_ac_911loans.688fad93.html

[prostratedragon]

Waiting,

Because of my own take on BushCO SOP, I'd assumed your guess was probably right:

Was this the Bush Administration's way of buying all of us off, buying our silence?

Still, I tried to refresh my memory of tax and budget news from 2001. The rebate was probably from the first tax cut bill that was passed under Bush—remember, the budget was in surplus when he took, and I mean took, office, while the economy seemed to be headed for a slump. Those two things gave him a rationale for a big tax cut to wealthy taxpayers and a piddling $3–600 per household for the rest of us as I recall. The checks were paid starting in July 2001, but might have taken all the rest of the year to be completed.

This tax cut was such a dishonest policy that it might not be a stretch to call the parts that went to taxpayers of moderate incomes hush money. As Krugman ("Truth and Lies") said, "the tax cut would mainly go to the richest few percent of the population" even though the Administration had spent the whole year denying this fact; and "administration's claims that it could cut taxes, increase military spending, provide prescription drug coverage and still avoid dipping into the Social Security surplus" were completely false. The rebate was an attempt to fog up the first of the two lies. Krugman used a great deal of ink in 2001 trying to alert people to the dishonest nature of the Bush adminstration through exposing their tax and budget chicanery:

But the important point for now involves honor and credibility. Mr. Bush promised not to dip into the Social Security surplus; he has broken that promise. Critics told you that would happen; they have been completely vindicated. Mr. Bush told you it wouldn't; he lied.

That column was published Aug. 18, 2001, before he got really shrill. There also was some business aid legislation passed late in 2001, when about everyone feared the attack would cause a recession. Some, naturally, was supposed to go directly to Lower Manhattan businesses and a few in the Arlington area also, but there doesn't seem to have been much Congressional followup on post-attack spending;[

[plunger]

Take 1 Israeli Submarine.
Place it off the coast of Iran.
Now position the USS Enterprise just outside the perimeter established by the Israeli sub.

The sub launches a nuclear tipped cruise missile at the Aircraft Carrier, vaporizing it in an instant - killing all 5,000 sailors on board ("worse than 9/11" - that's the key).

The Fleet Commander notifies the President that Iran has (apparently) just nuked the USS Enterprise.

The President declares a (FALSE FLAG) strike against our carrier to be no different that an attack against our soil, and clears the Israeli sub to launch what will appear to be a retaliatory strike against Iran, with a dozen nuclear missiles (all of which are pre-targeted using the targeting codes stolen by Israeli Spy Ariel Weinmann).

The USS Enterprise is the worlds first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It was Commissioned in 1961 and is due to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015. The ship was selected to be the "victim" of this "attack" due to its age.

THOSE PLANNING THE ATTACK ARE INSIDE THE U.S. AND ISRAELI GOVERNMENTS and view the loss of the Enterprise crew as a necessary sacrifice to induce Americans to support war against Iran. Put bluntly, the ship and crew are to be cannon fodder.

Here is the DRESS REHEARSAL for the sinking of the USS Enterprise:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-17-ship-reef_x.htm

AND WHY DID THEY FEEL THE NEED FOR THE DRESS REHEARSAL? BECAUSE WHEN THEY TRIED IT A YEAR EARLIER, IT TOOK 25 DAYS TO SINK THE USS AMERICA WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES!
http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050522a.html

[plunger]

The Globalist Banksters figured out how to take Congress completely out of the oversight function of the US Government.

Congress was said to have "The Power Of The Purse."

Rumsfeld and Zakheim depleted the Pentagon's budget of $2.3 TRILLION - with Rummy announcing it less than 24 hours before the 9/11 attacks.

This meant that Congress would have no choice but to dump in a massive amount of money to fight the BOGUS WAR ON TERROR, which Rumsfeld himself created along with his Zionist Co-Conspirators.

Well prior to that time - prior to the Iran Contra Scandal, The INTELLIGENCE Complex figured out that that could completely circumvent Congress and accomplish any goal they chose by trafficking in cocaine and heroine - and using the profits to fund their operations.

A Shadow Government was created with these funds - with its own objectives - in concert with Israel and the Crown.

Congress is essentially powerless as long as the funding for the Shadow Government's Operations comes from drug sale headed by one GHW Bush.

CNN -- SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT
November 17, 1991

In the United States of America there is a hidden government about which YOU KNOW NOTHING.

Tom Golden, Chief of Counter Intelligence Strategic Defense Command: "It is highly classified and the largest program of it's kind that I had ever become involved in"

In the United States Federal Government there is a super-secret agency which controls this Shadow Government.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/doomsday.htm

"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy,its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."

— Senator Daniel K. Inouye at the Iran Contra Hearings

http://www.sweetliberty.org/shadow.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/secgov.html
http://villagevoice.com/news/0211,ridgeway,33050,6.html#cheney

This is being implemented by executive decisions; intrusive, unconstitutional laws being passed at the state and local levels of government; and a shadow government (the Doomsday Plan - Continuity of Government) of non-elected people that we're told was implemented by the president on the day of infamy. . . 9-11-01.

In fact, it is NOT a plan for the Continuity of Government. It is a plan for the Continuity of the Executive Office -- one branch of government.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/homeland/phaseiii.htm

How ironic it is that their greatest fear is the legalization of drugs.

The DEA is actually just a protection racket to ensure that the Bush/CIA Crime Family remains the number one drug trafficker on earth.

Ask talking head / operative General Barry McCaffrey all about it.

[Waiting in Texas]

Prostratedragon-thanks for filling in the blanks. I have always been one of these that generally laughed at some of the 9-11 conspiracy theories out there and never really gave them much regard.

Recently, I started thinking about how we have gotten to where we are now and to do that you have to go back before 9-11-01.

Have you ever read a book called "The Man who tried to Warn America, by Murray Weiss? Its all about FBI agent John O'Neill and his attempts to get OBL. He was cut off at every corner by those higher up in the govt. Once Bush went into office, his investigations were completely stymied and eventually, he resigned from the FBI. He took a job as the head of security for the WTC just weeks before and unfortunately, and sadly, died on 9-11-01.
Imagine how difficult life would have been for the Bush Adm if O'Neill had still been around. Anyway, I've heard from someone who would know that said that "O'Neill was his own man and often pissed off people," but make no mistake about it, "he was sincere about fighting terrorism."

With the current state of this Presidency, I have been reflecting on things that brought us where we are to today. Its kind of like a bad marriage - you wake up one day, realize everything is falling apart and you start asking yourself "how did we get to this point?" Well, that's what I am doing now, except I am questioning what has happened to our country.

[dalloway]

A prediction of the future: approximately twenty-four hours after Libby is convicted, Patrick Fitzgerald will be removed from his job and replaced with a loyal Bush soldier, to avoid any further investigation into the Plame conspiracy. The blogosphere will squawk, some in Congress will complain but nobody will do much. A few weeks later, Bush will bomb the hell out of Iran and Libby, the OSP and cooked Iraq intelligence will all fade into the horrendous chaos that will follow, both here (terrorist attacks) and in the Middle East, as it goes up in (possibly nuclear) flames.

[katie Jensen]

I was absolutely against the idea that the bush administration had anything going on when it came to 9/11 but I am now convinced that at the very least, they allowed it to occur. I also think that the saudi connection continues to be problematic along with Bush's life long dealings with the Bin Laden family. America just doesn't understand that our country has been hijacked by a shadow government and that the GOP is a pawn for this shadow government.

They pay off the GOP with investments, election money (and maybe even 'wins' that never occurred). During Iran Contra, I was floored that so few people seemed to understand what the Reagan administration had actually been doing. It's no wonder that they went after Clinton like they did and that he caved where the power was too much.

So...it's like capitalism out of control, it's like the dialectic between capitalism and fascism...they come full circle without regulation. Maybe this is the lesson we need in order to finally evolve into more acceptance of the need for some "socialism". Capitalism run amok is no prettier than any other "ism". But the GOP would really rather we did not know this.

[SWC]

Wordplay. Buckley calls dad Mr. Bush. Spruiell doesn't call The President Mr. Bush ,but some do. So, why sould we care about a editorial reply in Chicago back in the eighties? Maybe Buckley is looking for moles in a volcano, but, hey, there' s Plame: Exemplar CIA, paramilitarily trained, Operations Officer. Twenty years later, who won?

Maybe we all really are just Spewell?

[Mimikatz]

"The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright is also a very good historical view about the events leading up to 9/11. Some parts were in the New Yorker. He talks about O'Neill and some of those working for and with him. A very good book.

[dalloway]

As long we're indulging in wordplay, how about this? "If the President does it, then it's not illegal" means the President is above the law. Since no citizen of this country is above the law, the President must not be a citizen -- and is therefore eligible to be declared an "enemy combatant" and sent to Gitmo!

[katie Jensen]

dalloway, yea, I see the logic in an irrational, emotional kind of way. Same kind of logic...just as legit.