« Sampson Tries to Convert Yang, and then He Tries to Oust Her | Main | About that Binder of Emails »

May 04, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d83534ce6669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Simon Dodge:

Comments

Heck maybe we can even name the trick of blowing off subpoenas by showing up on Sunday Talking Head shows as the "Simon dodge," as in:

Condi is unwilling to face Waxman and her appearances on Sunday are an attempt to sway public opinion by using the Simon dodge.

I'm working with an old copy of Acrobat, so things look a little funky; nevertheless, it seems to be mostly OK.

Dear Madam Secretary:
I am writing to urge you to instruct your staff, particularly officials in your legislative
affairs office, not to impede the Committee's investigation into why President Bush and other
senior Administration off,rcials, including yourself, cited forged evidence in building a case for
war against lraq. I am also writing to notiff you of a deposition of a State Department offlrcial
and to request documents relevant to the Committee's investigation.

On Wednesday, Committee staff contacted Simon Dodge, a nuclear weapons analyst at
the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, to ask whether he would be willing
to meet to discuss the warnings he raised in January 2003 about the fabricated evidence that Iraq
sought uranium from Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Mr. Dodge
wrote to members of the Intelligence Community on January 13,2003 -
two weeks before the President's State of the Union address - that the Niger claim was "probably a hoax" and
"clearly a forgery."l Mr. Dodge indicated that he was willing to cooperate fully with the
Committee's efforts.

Yesterday, however, a member of your legislative office informed Committee staff that
you were prohibiting Mr. Dodge from meeting with Committee investigators. This official
claimed that allowing Mr. Dodge to speak with Committee staff would be o'inappropriate"
because the Committee voted to issue a subpoena to compel your attendance at a hearing on your
knowledge of the fabricated evidence.

I assume that your legislative staff was acting without your authorization in this matter.
It would be a matter of sreat concern - as well as an obvious conflict of interest - if vou had
I Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on the U.S, Intelligence Community's
Prewar Intelligence Assessments on lraq (July 7,2004).

The Honorable Condoleezza Rjce
May 4,2007
Page2

directed your staff to impede a congressional investigation into matter that may implicate your
conduct as National Security Advisor.

Mr. Dodge issued a timely and unmistakable warning that the uranium evidence the
President cited in his State of the Union address - and that you subsequently used in a New
York Times op-ed fabricated. Yet neither the Senate report nor any other public report
has addressed whether you and other officials in the White House were aware of, or should have
been aware of Mr. Dodge's assessment. This is relevant and appropriate information for the
Committee to obtain.

To ensure that the Committee obtains the information it seeks without further delay, I am
advising you that the Committee has sent a letter to Mr. Dodge notifying him that he must appear
for a deposition on May 9, 2007. I trust you will cooperate in this matter and instruct your staff
to cease further interference with the Committee's inquiry.
I am also writing to request documents relevant to the Committee's inquiry. I previously
requested some of these documents from you in a letter on July 29,2003, but you failed to
provide them. I renewed my request for these documents in a letter on March 12,2007,but
again you failed to provide them.

Specifically, the Committee requests that you provide all documents in your possession
or control, or the possession or control of the State Department, whether classified or
unclassified, relating to the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. These documents
should include:

All documents and communications between the CIA and the Executive Offrce of the
President, including the National Security Council, the Office of the Vice President, and
the White House Iraq Group (collectively, "EOP"), relating to the claim that Iraq sought
uranium from Africa, including two memos sent to you or your deputy, Stephen Hadley,
on October 5 and 6,2002;
All documents and communications between the National Intelligence Council and the
EOP or the State Department relating to the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa,
including a National Intelligence Council communication reportedly sent in January
2003;

All documents and communications between the State Department and the EOP relating
to the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa;
All communications between State Department official Simon Dodge and Intelligence
Community officials relating to the claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, including e-mails
sent in January 2003;
l. All documents and communications between the CIA and the Executive Offrce of the
President, including the National Security Council, the Office of the Vice President, and
the White House Iraq Group (collectively, "EOP"), relating to the claim that Iraq sought
uranium from Africa, including two memos sent to you or your deputy, Stephen Hadley,
on October 5 and 6,2002;
2. All documents and communications between the National Intelligence Council and the
EOP or the State Department relating to the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa,
including a National Intelligence Council communication reportedly sent in January
2003;
3. All documents and communications between the State Department and the EOP relating
to the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa;
4. All communications between State Department official Simon Dodge and Intelligence
Community officials relating to the claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, including e-mails
sent in January 2003;

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
I|l4;ay 4,2007
Page 3
5. All documents and communications relating to the portion of the President's 2003 State
of the Union Address that stated that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa";
6. All documents or communications relating to the portion of your January 23,2003, op-ed
in the New York Times entitled "Why We Know Iraq is Lying" that concerned the issue
of Iraq seeking uranium in Africa; and
7 . The September 2003 joint report of the Department of State and CIA Inspectors General
on the Alleged Iraqi Attempts to Procure Uranium from Niger.

I ask that you provide these documents to the Committee by Friday, May 11, 2007. You
should provide all responsive documents in your possession or control, or within the possession
or control of the State Department, regardless of whether other offices or agencies may have
generated original versions of these documents. I am also sending similar document requests to
the White House and other agencies.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight
committee in the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in
House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional information on how to respond to
the Committee's request.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me or David Rapallo or
Theodore Chuang with the Committee staff at (202)225-5420.
Sincerely,

so do you have a paypal account for contributions?
Seriously, I'd love to have you in Washington to comment on this.
Your analysis has made my week more times than not -- along with the commentary by Jeff and others.

looks like Waxman is going to execute the "Phase Two" investigatioon that repuglican senator roberts never got around to starting.

any word on what Senator Rockerfeller thinks about this ???

does this seem strange ???

Waxman = Govt Affairs

so where's the Senate Intel Committee investigation ???

I agree with MK. If you're serious about us sending you to Washington, let us know how we can help.

Wheeee!
It's like a thrill ride!

it's time for eripsote to put on his mask and cape and join you in the final assault on the aes/simsi forgeries.

i'm dying to know how it all unfolded, but when i know that, i will, alas, also know that one of the great modern political mystery stories will be at an end.

sweet sorrow.

re: sending EW to DC - I feel an FDL post coming on!!

Randiego - sounds like a great idea!

Has everyone seen this?

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2E0Xyb65axc

Three hours before Goodling visited his fourth-floor office, Margolis told House and Senate investigators that Sampson dropped by to say he had information Margolis needed to know, one congressional aide said.

Margolis recounted that Sampson read his e-mail exchanges with White House aides that showed the decisions on firing the prosecutors were closely coordinated with members of the president’s staff, the aide said.

EW goes to Washington.

I'm In!

Speaking of Monica - where is she? I'm picturing her in rural Virginia in a quasi-religious witness protection program - sort of like 'Witness', only no Amish folk.

A little OT but.....

A moment in our thoughts those at Kent State 37 yrs ago.

I wonder about the other day, if the Riot police had real bullets in LA, how many peaceful protesters would have been laying in the streets.

yo, ew, if you need a ride to DC, I'm sure tokyo jodi could loan you her rocket rollerskates

or an acme rocket

From Bloomberg's:
Goodling Shed Tears Before Revelations About Firings (Update1)

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2E0Xyb65axc

By James Rowley

May 4 (Bloomberg) -- A former U.S. Justice Department official and central figure in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys tearfully told a colleague two months ago her government career probably was over as the matter was about to erupt into a political storm, according to closed-door congressional testimony.

Monica Goodling, at the time an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sobbed for 45 minutes in the office of career Justice Department official David Margolis on March 8 as she related her fears that she would have to quit, according to congressional aides briefed on Margolis's private testimony to House and Senate investigators. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity.

Margolis's description of the emotional scene in his office sheds new light on divisions that were developing in the Justice Department's Washington headquarters as the Democratic-controlled Congress was demanding documents that might show White House involvement in the dismissals.

...

from the same bloomberg story:
"The House Judiciary Committee has voted to compel her testimony by granting limited immunity from prosecution. Goodling may have signaled in a letter yesterday -- sent by her lawyers to the Justice Department -- that she is eager to tell Congress her side of the story.

The letter noted that the Justice Department, which is conducting its own inquiry into whether Goodling improperly considered the political affiliation of applicants to be prosecutors, is powerless to block the congressional grant of immunity. "

from bloomberg's mouth to God's ear -- I would like to hear Monica sing, preferably with Sheldon Whitehouse asking the questions.

EW, just sent you an email to offer to help pay for your trip to DC. Alas, the yahoo account that I reached from your "Email me" link appears to be no longer active. So, along with several other folks here I too would be happy to chip in to get you to DC if you really want to go...

It looks like David Margolis has ratted her out. I hope she feels the need to ratout some rats too. Or maybe she likes having bus wheels roll over her.

did we make poor widdle monica goodling cry ???

GOOD

if losing your job hurt, imagine how losing your law license and the right to vote are gonna feel

I'm not an overly sympathetic type of bleeding heart liberal, think they'll kick me out of the club ???

*xyz

Thanks for the Bloomberg link.

Looks like the Congressional investigators know a lot more than we think. Its probably only a matter of time and a few good souls that the investigators will have actual evidence and testimony that confirms what we all believe that the WH political guys were the ones behind the firings of the USAs to obstruct and slow boat the investigations into the Repub corruption machine and subsequently managed the apparent coverup and obstruction of the investigation by Congress.

There's probably a good reason why Goodling has not yet received her immunity. Being in the DoJ many of them probably understand well the legal implications. I wonder if Congress themselves can bring charges or does it have to be the DoJ? If its the latter I'm sure there will be louder and louder calls for a special prosecutor with plenary powers.

With 3 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf shortly I wonder if the Commander Guy will order air and missile attacks against Iran? He needs to change the tune in DC!

ab inito:

out of the frying pan and into the fire

from zero to impeachment in 24 hours

can anybody think of anything else that happened in the week of March 8th ???

Want to alert those interested to this (from a commenter at TPM):

On the subject of the niger forgeries. Tonight on PBS:

Bill Moyer's Journal "Forged Intelligence Documents"
Airdate: Friday, May 4, 2007 at 9:00 p.m. EDT on PBS.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050307U.shtml
(Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/moyers.)

"Italy's foremost investigative reporter, Carlo Bonini, takes viewers on the trail of forged intelligence documents that the Bush administration used to help make a case for war."

This ought to be really good.
Posted by: B W
Date: May 4, 2007 01:53 PM

There may be nothing anywhere on the whole internets that I'd rather see than this statement

Next week is gonna be fun. Waxman is not fucking around.

written by emptywheel.

Headlines that begin "FBI raids offices of..." have been pretty good lately, and hell, even "House passes..." have been consistently gratifying. But "Waxman is not fucking around" is one of the happiest sentences on the internet today, no doubt.

anybody seen the Michael Isikoff article at truthout about kkkarl and kkkompany

Deputy chief of staff Karl Rove participated in a hastily called meeting at the White House two months ago. The subject: The firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year. The purpose: to coach a top Justice Department official heading to Capitol Hill to testify on the prosecutorial purge on what he should say.

snip ...

The problem, according to the Democratic aide, is that Rove and Kelley never told Moscella about the White House’s own role in pushing to have some U.S. attorneys fired in the first place. Moscella followed the coaching by Rove and others—and made no mention of White House involvement in the firings during his March 6, 2007 testimony to House Judiciary. “They let Moscella come up here without telling him the full story,” said the Democratic staffer.

Moscella at one point even appeared to specifically deny that Rove pushed to have one of his former aides, Timothy Griffin, installed at a top job at Justice. “I don’t know that he played any role,” Moscella said when asked by one committee member what Rove played in recommending Griffin to Justice.

how is that NOT obstruction of Congress ???

there's a LOT of happy stuff on the innertoobz today

truthout also has the third ranking house repuglican (Putnam) calling for abu gonzo to resign

the lid is officially OFF of this can of worms

one constitutional shitstorm coming up ...

Marcy: Go to DC. Kaleidoscope--I hope you are serious. We can cover it.

I too have looked for a PayPal button on this site. Please let us contribute to your excellent, democracy-saving citizen investigative journalism! Please.

time to start funding an "Impeachment House" ???

what does 18 months of rent and frozen pizza cost in DC ???

sounds doable to me

Um.. investigative citizen journalism. Got excited there.

Texas dem, where are you? I'm in Austin. Happy words indeed.

The words 'forged intelligence' and Bush administration in the same sentence always make me smile on several levels. I mean really, what other kind of intelligence are they going to have? Yuk, yuk, yuk.


I like the idea of an "Oversight House" in D.C.

EW, the FDL crew and others could stay at the "Oversight House" and cover the widening US Attorney scandal and the pervasive corruption of the Bush Administration.

I could easily see Oversight House becoming Impeachment House down the road. But not quite yet.

I'm ready to contribute to the "Send Marcy to DC" fund, too; I just need to know where or how to send it. I do have a paypal account.

Bob in HI

Cool. The netroots can have our own Oversight House Committee.

Marcy,

I will help out if you want to go to DC next week. I will also pass the message around the lake if you want. I think this is it. Henry put the magic words in the letter to
COndi. 'White House Iraq Group'.

All documents and communications between the CIA and the Executive Office of the
President, including the National Security Council, the Office of the Vice President, and
the White House Iraq Group (collectively, "EOP).

I am off to read the pdf. Enjoy your weekend. Hopefully the wifigod will continue to bless you (us) over the weekend as all this unfolds. Thank you for everything. I love reading your work and I especially love the comments. I usually just lurk but I wanted to let you know how much this means to all of us. Please let us know and the funds will be yours.

lolo

1. Tenet's testimony has been postponed.

2. I don't think the January 2003 NIC document they mention is the 1-24-03 Walpole-to-Hadley+Libby document. I think they're looking for the NIC memo reported on by Gellman at the Post, purportedly written by Houdek declaring the Niger story baseless. However, Royce and Eisner's book appears to date that memo to April 2003, well after the SOTU. However, the original Post story had four U.S. officials making the claim that the memo arrived at the White House as they were making the uranium story a centerpiece of the case for war against Iraq. So we'll see.

I'll send you to D.C. And I'll buy you the finest wi-fi wherever you may travel! What do we do?

Marcy,
I would also contribute to your going to DC. As someone said above, ask via a FDL post (and using their PayPal).

Keep up the marvelous work.


Marcy to DC? I'm in. First class and beer money too. Where do we send it?

first class and beer money ???

I was thinkin of a Fed Ex crate and frozen pizza

in fact, I thought we had a consensus on the "frozen Pizza" question

but my idea for callin it Impeachment House wasn't good enough (grumblemumbleinaudibleexpetives)

I only got one thing to say:

Patience My ASS, I wanna IMPEACH SOMETHING

Compound F would fork some cash for that.

Hey, Marcy, you're welcome to stay at our house. We're in the 'burbs, but not far from the Metro. Email me at razorsharpwit AT gmail if you're interested.

I'm with you, Free. It's time to impeach some dipship repuglican ass!!! I say we start with Gonzo.

Per kaleidescope -- where do we donate our pennies? Please advise!

Per lolo (and others), my heart happily skipped when I read Waxman's request that Condi hand over WHIG docs. Woohoo!!!! (I savor Waxman's dry humor. It's so enjoyable to read dogged persistence veiled in the language of ambling geniality. Delightful ;-))

My only source of consternation: I'm not sure that I can stand much more of Condi in her Pouty Victim mode. Overplayed; unconvincing.

Per Jeff, would you be so kind as to elucidate the significance of the Walpole -->[Hadley + Libby] document...? I don't recollect why this is significant.

Count me in! Marcy to D.C.! I'd love to contribute and be a part of that. Hooray! Let's raise our glasses to Waxman's not fucking around next week!

I would love to help you get to DC. Count me in as well! Let me echo the many others who want to help -- where do I send the $$ to help you write in style from the center of the action?

Hiya,

Off of the subject.

Juan Cole says that Riverbend is trying to get out of Baghdad. Why do not emptywheel and Juan set up a fund to get her & family out. EW in DC is good; saving Riverbend is better.

I would love to see her testify in front of Congress. She would shred any sympathy for the war.

Hey! Remember when I brought this juicy quote in?

"A legal secretary at one of Washington's most prominent law firms, Akin Gump, has been suspended after telling her bosses she secretly worked at night for the escort service run by the so-called D.C. Madam, Jeane Palfrey,"

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/i_call_bull.html

:wide evil grin:

My twitchy little nose was almost certainly following the right scent through the musk:

OMG: The Akin Gump Escort Worked For... Monica Goodling's Lawyer!!!

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/05/akin_gump_on_the_dc_madams_app.php#more

So far, tips and unnamed sources confirming those tips. Akin Gump refuses to officially confirm it. They didn't deny it either, like they denied the other possible position. However, if this blond busty bitch with an attitude was Dowd's paralegal or personal secretary, they won't be able to keep it contained much longer. As a government witness, too many people must know her identity.

On its official website, Akin Gump proudly bills itself as a "full-service" law firm.

"Over the years, we've handled a number of cases that have captured national attention. As a result, we know how to guide events in the press as well as in the courtroom."

http://www.akingump.com/about_litigation.cfm

Hmmm... Lam was investigating Foggo (rented hotel suite with lots of bedrooms, poker-players, hookers, limosine services, and money floating around like little boats of sushi waiting to be taken). Goodling and Sampson booted Lam to stop her for continuing that line of investigation. Congress was opening an investigation of how Shirlington Limo got a DHS contract; was the DoJ doing anything in DC, or was it just San Diego running with the case? Goodling ends up represented by Dowd, a top-tier attorney far beyond her salary-range. Who is paying for Dowd? Was Goodling promised protection? Does Dowd or anyone else at Akin Gump have an interest in quieting the investigation of USAs before the real reasons for their firing becomes common wisdom?

And, if Dowd's right-hand woman was assisting the DC Madam and was thinking of opening her own branch, had she already ventured into that arena? If the dots connect (and it is still a big if), we'll see a trail of breadcrumbs between the graduate of Messiah U and the Madam. [Even opera doesn't get quite so over-the-top. Usually. Khovanshchina is a political affair, with religious meddling, where everybody self-immolates at the end because they are afraid of the sweeping changes to come.]

One way to keep people in line is through blackmail. People who do opposition research get the dirt on everyone. Providing temptation in the form of money and sex and then using the results to persuade people is really low. But believable, given what we already know about operations in Karl's Shop.

I think the direction has been moving more towards the idea that this could be another sort Jack Abramoff style scandal in which you see that women, prostitutes here or call girls, were given to people as part of lobbying efforts, part of efforts to persuade people to do things on Capitol Hill.

(Juan Williams on NPR, from Atrios)

The inference was pretty clear: If Wilkes was bribing Duke Cunningham to get Cunningham to earmark contracts for him, he might not have been doing it just with money, but women -- and possibly other legislators beyond Cunningham as well as CIA officials were involved as well. A senior official in the Cunningham investigation last year confirmed that this was a highly possible scenario, and would, in fact, constitute a next phase of the Cunningham probe.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/04/names_like_nine.html

A phase which has been cut short?


Per Jeff, would you be so kind as to elucidate the significance of the Walpole -->[Hadley + Libby] document...? I don't recollect why this is significant.

To be clear, what's at issue is what Waxman is referring to when he mentions a particular document in his request to Rice, namely

a National Intelligence Council communication reportedly sent in January 2003

and this would be sent to the White House of the State Department and bear on the uranium claim. emptywheel is suggesting Waxman is looking for the January 24, 2003 fax from National Intelligence Officer Robert Walpole to the NSC - specifically Hadley and Libby- that just repeated the crappy NIE stuff on Niger in response to a request from NSC for additional information on Iraq's pursuit of WMD. We actually already saw the fax as a piece of evidence in the Libby trial, but it appears that emptywheel thinks that this request might produce documents showing the request and showing that it was made in response to the Intelligence Community (and Alan Foley, head of WINPAC in particular) casting doubt once again on the prospective use of the 16 words. I'm a little skeptical of that idea in any case, but my main point is that I think Waxman is looking for an entirely different document in the first place.

I think Waxman is looking for a different document that has only been reported on once - by Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer in the Washington Post back in April 2006. This is a memo that the National Intelligence Officer on Africa supposedly wrote up declaring the Niger story baseless and something that should be dropped. According to the Post, this memo was sent to the White House in january 2003, right before the State of the Union. If that's the case, it's incredibly damning, because it means the White House had a strong statement from the Intelligence Community - and the NIO for Africa no less - that the uranium claim should not be used because it was very weak.

However, there has been no confirmation that this memo exists as described, and in fact, Royce and Eisner (who, it's worth noting, works at the Post where the story was first reported) evidently sought to track down information on this NIC memo, and instead they end up reporting in their recent book that the memo by the NIC for Africa dates from April 2003, well after the SOTU and even the start of the war. In other words, they contradict the important part of the original Post report.

However, it is worth noting that the original Post story cited no less than four U.S. official saying that the memo arrived at the White House as Bush and his people made the uranium claim a centerpiece of their case for the approaching war against Iraq.

My view is that Waxman is looking for this latter document. It is also my belief at this point that Royce and Eisner and probably right about it, especially since surely they must have given Gellman and Linzer a chance to respond to their claim that the memo dates from April and not January 2003.

There you go.

RANDIEGO SECONDED;
Kent State happened midway in my bachelors, just imagine......

Backwoods | May 05, 2007 at 04:02

Excellent comment, thanks.

Jeff

I agree that the document may well be the document the NIO from Africa wrote.

But if there was a request for the Jan 24 document after Jan 22 as the fax may suggest, it would be incredibly damning, on any account. And if Walpole said the same thing that he did in his testimony before Congress in Fall 2002 (that is, that the Niger claim was bogus), then it would be incredibly damning. In other words, either Walpole stands by his sworn testimony, or he supports Libby and Hadley.

Jeff (and EW), humble thanks. If I have this correct, Walpole was CIA overseeing WMD; Houdak would have been CIA (NIO) in Africa.

Houdek always viewed the Niger docs as forgeries.
Walpole may have said one thing in 2002 (i.e., that the Niger docs were forged), but another in 2003 (i.e., that the Niger docs were legit)?

If the latter, then probably either because (a) he sympathized with the neocon point of view, or else (b) he had been too beaten down (Cheney and Libby trips out to Langley might have influenced his reporting). Or (c) both.

So Houdek appears to be consistent, whereas Walpole does not.
Therefore, Waxman seeks to dispel the ambiguity, as well as trace the provenance, of the faxes.
-----------------------------

Per Hauksdottir: FOTFLMAO ;-)))

ew

Though I can't track it down at the moment, I'm pretty sure the 1-24-03 fax from Walpole to NSC was responsive to a request that came in quite shortly before that. But why is January 22 the pivotal date?

As for Walpole, what context are you talking about, in the context of the fax he sent on 1-24-03? It is all the more baffling that it was him sending it for the reason you suggest.

readerOfTeaLeaves

We really don't know, actually. We've never 1)had any solid confirmation on that NIO memo; 2)any word at all from Houdek. And as I just suggested, we still know too little about the Walpole's January 2003 fax to Hadley and Libby to be able to tell much about it, except that it does appear that Walpole made it seem like CIA was standing by that version of the Niger story from the October 2002 NIE. And that certainly is how Libby played it in summer 2003 and after - he and OVP overall were trying to emphasize that document really a lot, and were apparently quite upset that Tenet had not included disclosure of it in his July 11, 2003 statement.

Jeff, okay... I start to follow a bit more clearly. Libby was upset summer 2003 that Tenet did not include that Walpole fax; I assume refusing to release it was Tenet-speak for 'f*ck you'.

Bolten was at DoS, and he'd forwarded the forgeries through his path to Cheney/ OVP. These were the documents that DoS employee Simon Dodge determined to be forgeries in Oct 2002.

Meanwhile, at the WH (according to Joe Conason's book) one of the few people that Rove ever asked about foreign policy was Michael Ledeen. The same Ledeen who had studied fascism in Italy and become infatuated with the Italian fascists (and SISMI), who forged the Niger docs. So basically, whoever in DoS was tasked with exposing the forgeries was screwed even before they got to look at hte docs. That would have been Simon Dodge.
Interesting...

readerOfTeaLeaves,

I should perhaps apologize. Marcy is trying to keep a serious blog. With her background in analytical programming and such, she probably prefers that logic proceed step by orderly step. Logic doesn't work that way for me. Blink... and I'll be over the hill giddily gathering poesies as one bright thought leads to another. My path is just as logical, just as determined, but the linkage between steps isn't as obvious.

As a game designer (writer and artist), I have to simulate reality: even fantasy worlds have laws which must be followed or else people lose that suspension of disbelief. We'll dangle shiny objects, but depend upon the scaffolding rather than distraction alone to hold our worlds together. Instead of edifaces, all I'm seeing in DC is false-fronts... on crumbly soil... with a storm brewing.

The current situation in DC is so messy and so full of coincidences as to be unbelievable. Story-tellers use coincidence to advance a plot(look at the four particular books found by Frankenstein's monster), but it is risky and can't be over-used lest people become cynical.

Is it just a coincidence that everybody in government has Alzheimer's? That *could* be truth, if the water had been poisoned or mice had broken free from the labs and mind-wiped the humans. Is it coincidence that prostitutes are getting access to the corridors of power and that bribes are being paid in sexual favors and escorts feature in scandal after scandal? (Who approved Gannon's credentials and let him wander around the WH at all hours? Who is giving government contracts to Shirlington Limos? Is there a more direct link between the DC Madam and the DoJ or Rove's shop than the one through Akin Gump?) Are we taxpayers footing the bill for the mattress-testers? That *could* be truth if the government decided to drop currency altogether and went on the sex standard. Is it coincidence that most of the fired USAs, no matter where they were in the country, were treating the Native American concerns with respect and honor? That *could* be truth if we were still fighting the Indian Wars. Coincidence after coincidence, as all these actors move from one office to another, or in and out of government jobs.

You may remember Murder on the Orient Express, where Poirot sniffs around and remarks that there are "too many clues". What we have here is "too many coincidences". A lone coincidence just happens. This snarl of coincidences didn't just happen. It is like a mirror maze, and I think somebody is going to have to break the glass to get to the master-mind(s). The proud part of me would rather that it be neatly solved, but somebody else is writing the rules enabling all of this.

Hauksdottir, feel free to apologize to Marcy if you must, but please don't apologize to me -- I was astounded at your ability to pull that info out of the Knowledge Universe and into this storyline. Like me, perhaps you are capable of thinking 'logically' (if/then; <=, >=, ==, !=, etc...), but generally tend to 'think ANA-logically' while skipping 3 steps in each jump toward new poesies. That's what much of this puzzling seems to call for.

Like you, I've been struck many times by the Game Nature of this whole bizarre mystery that started with the Plame outing, but keeps tipping up additional astounding implications. Events defy 'mere coincidence'. There is a mysterious meta-logic at work; however, the conditions upon which that meta-logic rests remain puzzling (at least to this reader).

For the Alzheimer's issue, watch Jon Stewart's interview with Bill Moyers (available online), in which Stewart explicitly describes Abu Gonzales' "performance" before the US Judiciary Committee as a 'game'. In Stewart's view, Abu's game strategy was to 'forget' (rather than reveal any chink in the legal armor). Until Leahy and Co alter the conditions of the 'game' to forbid 'forgetting' and 'plausible deniability' as strategies, Bu$hCo will prevail.

Assuming there is a Rovian OS at work (Rovian 3.4), then as I read things, that system specifies dominance/submission as its primary 'decision criteria'. If a decision leads to dominance, then it is good. Very simplistic. The other key decision criteria for Rovian OS 3.4 appears to be 'plausible deniability' (Y/N). Truth gives way to Truthiness. (And Abu's strategy is only one illustration of this OS driving events.)

For those of us who work with other technologies, the ability to identify, describe, capture, and predict events is critical -- whether modeling storm flows, or building game models. We understand that these are artifices and constructs, and our OS is designed for colloborative problem solving. For us, losing the ability to distinguish between 'truthiness' and reality is perilous.

We're seeing a meltdown of Rovian OS 3.4, but there seem to be additional 'logics' (and decision criteria) driving events; some psychological, others economic.

Hauksdottir, although I don't play WoW, I suspect that your info may merit a Heartseeking Crossbow (Damage = 91 - 137). I hope that this is not an insult, please read it in the spirit in which it was written. (Twitchy Noses are also good 'weapons'). Jeff always seems to have a number of Crossbows in his arsenal.

It's now my turn to apologize to EW for prattling so far OT.

great news, thanks for sharing and all.

just a point: your internet connection rarely, if ever, will have an impact on whether you can open a certain type of document, or not. Please don't blame the wrong boogeyman for your pdf problem. thanks

readerOfTeaLeaves

There are all sorts of patterns, and different methods for recognizing them. You are so right about our having to know that truthiness is not truth. For me, the world is richer for knowing how things work, while others accept the magic of an immersive world or other reality as created for them. Acceptance is passive. It is easier.

Remember when that senior adviser told Suskind, "We're an empire now," he said, "and when we act, we create our own reality. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Some of us were reminded of King Knut ordering the tide to stand off. All the belief in a world created by ego and imagination won't alter this real world. He confused maps and models and math for territory where real humans would bleed to death in real sand. BTW, arena is the Latin word for sand: they used layers of it to absorb blood before the next spectacle. "The arena of war" is a frightening phrase, because we have seen the truth of it so often.

That adviser has not been identified. sigh Rove?

Meanwhile, sort of back on topic, I think we will require layers of Venn diagrams to make some order out of all these "coincidences". I have art programs for creating worlds, buildings, people... but not Mathematica or something suitable for 3D graphing. It would be fascinating to see the intersections get plotted and what sort of pattern appears: cabal or mastermind.

A couple of decades ago I dated a man getting his Phd in Atmospheric Sciences. He showed me his model where the snows in Tibet influenced ocean temperatures and storm systems 2-3 years later. A small tweak and the weather changed. It wasn't reality, but a probing effort towards understanding it. We need an advanced version of that kind of model to make sense of this disparate data: coincidence, link, progression? Shiny object?

chuckle Even if we could model the political situation down to the last writhing tentacle, it wouldn't be reality... but it would help our understanding of it, and perhaps even stir prosecution and impeachment.

hauksdottir:

WOW!! Thanks for all the analytical work.

I have my own theories on coincidences which go back to when I first read the Warren Commission report back in 1964. Why is it that coincidences almost always seem to come into play when there is serious criminality bordering on treason being acted out by Republicans???

Coincidence that Nixon was in Dallas the day JFK was killed?

Coincidence that a guy who worked for the CIA named George Bush was briefed on 22 November 1963 regarding Oswald's involvement in the assassination?

Coincidence that John Hinckley's brother was supposed to have dinner with Neil Bush the night Reagan was shot?

Coincidence that Felix Rodriguez who worked for the CIA during Iran-Contra just happened to claim that George Bush had recruited him into the CIA prior to the Bay of Pigs and that this same George Bush was the person occupying the office of vice president to which Rodriguez reported?

Coincidence that Bush's oil company, Zapata, just happened to be the code name for a CIA operation involving activities against Castro and Cuba?

No, none of them are coincidences but people have been taught to glaze over when the word coincidence or conspiracy theory are uttered, It's almost like a post-hypnotic suggestion which triggers the response so that stuff can just happen with no one taking notice of it.

Much more intriguing than believing so many people are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

"Posted by: randiego : :I wonder about the other day, if the Riot police had real bullets in LA, how many peaceful protesters would have been laying in the streets."

Three. Seven of the ten who went to the hospital were journalists. The worst injury was a broken collarbone. And if the 'peaceful' protesters who an hour earlier knocked the cop off the motorcycle were pelting him with firebombs instead of trash?

How much state or federal anti-terrorism or ICE funding went into that special squad, and how much control over its deployment did Chief Bratton have?

• Given that we've had HUNDREDS of peaceful, nonviolent marches and rallies against the war under Bratton's watch, it would be surprising if he suddenly decided to attack Immigrant-rights marchers in MacArthur Park, especially when the much-larger event downtown had no problems on the same day.

Posted by: freepatriot: "With 3 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf shortly"

FOUR. There are two there, and two are arriving (have arrived?) to replace those two. Given that during the most expensive wargame in U.S. history in 2000 (mocked up as a 2007 war with 'Red,' a powerful ME country with a fanatical leader), a VN-era Marine commander in charge of Red SANK MOST OF THE FLEET IN THE FIRST DAY, stopping the wargames, it can be considered pretty goddamned dangerous to our sailors to put something like 60 ships into the Persian Bathtub.

Oops, I misattributed the two postings I responded to. Sorry.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad