« Al Gore -- maybe | Main | The Next Open Thread »

May 17, 2006


Judy has very little credence in my book after all the shilling and subterfuge around Iraqi WMD. And not to mention consorting with Chalabi and all the neocon con artists.

ab initio

She's got no credence with me, either. Though she's a weather vane for the neocon project, and in that sense, she can be useful.

Besides, I'd rather get ahead of her lies this time.

calvin, although well-along in his nine lives, still recalls Judith's frequent visitor while she languished in her self-imposed prison. None other than the Acting UN Ambassador Extrodinaire. So, calvin is wondering how to document that relationship pre- and post-prison vis a vis Mr. Nuts and Bolton. It would require some humintel. Maybe someone could make a few bucks on the side by peddling the story to the National Inquirer. Anyway, there surely seems to be some kind of relationship there and he of the hairy lip certainly seems to know how to play that organ. For those with purient interests, that reference was to the WSJ.

In any event, Mr. emptywheel seems to have put 2 and 2 together and has gotten an answer closely resembling something between 3.5 and 4.5.

I think that "halfhearted effort" speaks to those fools who still do not trust Quadaffi. Even Bolton a staunch conservative, who should be skeptical, is full hearted on this one.

The message is that Iraq still has WMD's (I was fucking right Miller) and they got what they deserved. And Iran will get regime change too, unlike Libya the model state of how things could be.

My problem with Judy's warmongering it this:

If it is so

... relatively easy.... to hide elements of a WMD program, even in an open desert..
we never would have found the place at all if the Libyans hadn't shown it to us
, how do we know that they are no WMD's left in Libya? Just trust us? It was bad enough when Quadaffi was excluded from being part of the "just trust us" equation.

Libya is now the model of how a rogue state becomes an ally. Since Bolton and his reporter get to decide who has nukes and who doesn't Iran is toast. A preemptive justification for future Iran war detractors.

But for all the possible questions, Libya stands as one of the few countries to have voluntarily abandoned its WMD programs, and out of options for countering Iran's stonewalling, the White House belatedly opted to do more to make Libya a true model for the region.

I have to puke now.

how do we know that they are no WMD's left in Libya? Just trust us? It was bad enough when Quadaffi was excluded from being part of the "just trust us" equation.

Libya is now the model of how a rogue state becomes an ally. Since Bolton and his reporter get to decide who has nukes and who doesn't Iran is toast.

My question exactly. Judy seems to be much more impressed with Qaddafi's progress on nukes than other commentators (or even some of her sources, who note there were only 6 people involved).

I wonder if they thought out beforehand how effortlessly the transition would be from WHIG to WHIG.

They actually tried WHLG and then realized it didn't have a vowel.

But I hear Oman is worried. India, marginally, too.

I think there are lots of reasons Libya would like to have more influence with less risk. Shell, BP, Exxon and others are in the process of a major expansion where subsurface mapping has shown 50 billion gallons of oil in the Sirte basin of Libya.

Always an interesting place, Libya is somewhere between the shadow of politics from the Isthmus of Nile and Libya's other ancient interstices, to the interior thru the Sahara much of which lies within Libya, and to the more francophile countries rimming the Mediterranean along the N. Africa shore to Libya's west, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco. And, the Italy influence has prominent very recent political history.

Being the Herodotus scholar, ew likely knows all about the demographic continuum from the Phoenicians of Tripoli, Libya, to the fringe elements of Barbary whose pirates US president Jefferson controlled by a unitary executive approach that was less than pleasing to some congressmembers or to the European countries who preferred to continue paying the pirates tribute.

I have not been a student of the rogue states movement of which Qadafi was part. Clearly, the Reagan years passed, and the rhetoric ebbed; leaders aged. I even felt heartened reading the information in Judy's first installment that Qadafi's son went to the London School of Economics, and that scion liked [Bolton's] idea that Libya become a leader in approaching a more modern, Mediterranean-centric view of traditional northern Africa's future political.

Additionally, though I have not located it, I recall somewhere in Judy's biographical information, tales of her prior engagement with experts in the north Africa region. Given her journalistic specialization, I would anticipate she speaks many of the languages, as well; I believe she has traveled the N.Africa Mediterranean rim countries.

Al Jabal Al Akhdar region, Libya aerial photo. The area around Benghazi, Libya, appears less-desert like than the eastern Libyan coast

Arid Libyan coast from the Egyptian border northwestward

Sirte basin Libya oil exploration late 1950s, 50 billion barrels reserve, map of facilities location.
2-D and 3-D mapping project by Shell 2006-2007, drilling commence 2008; Exxon and others involved, including BP.

Nice pics and info John. Not sure what to make of this report of Chavez and Gadhafi meeting :

Gadhafi, his face partly covered by a large brown scarf draped over his Arab tribal robe, welcomed Chavez at his house, scarred with bullet holes and still showing some damage from a 1986 U.S. bombing raid.

A band played the national anthems of the two nations as Chavez, clad in a business suit, arrived and chatted with some of those waiting to greet him.

The two leaders got into a late-model Cadillac stretch limousine and were driven a short distance to the tent where they held their talks. A herd of camels watched as the car drove by with at least 20 security men trotting alongside.

I thought Gadhafi's security men were all women. Why the switch? I am disappointed.


Give it up, Judith. No one believes a word you write. Go on Oprah and admit it's fiction.

I think that the next oil country they will be going after is Venezuela. I think I read somewhere that Venezuela was getting close to being put on the terror list now that Libya has been taken off it. I wonder who is behind this?

That may have been a snarky comment. But we did cut off military sales to Venezuela. SO they, in turn, offered to sell their American planes to Iran or other people who can get spare parts.

EW, good point. Better to understand which spinning wheel Judy is on and the angle of the next neoConjob.

Chavez is happy to buy Russian and Chinese arms and he has the dough thanks to the Bush "risk" premium in oil markets.

What is really interesting to me is the current evolution of Russia. Putin has effectively taken control of Russian oil resources. Rumors have it that if he retires from the Presidency he will become Chairman of Gazprom - now the single largest owner of natural gas and related pipelines in the world. Russia is generating significant dollar reserves and is now embarking on a major military modernization program. Ruusia is no longer the chaotic country it was under Yeltsin. Putin, an ex-KGB guy is returning it to its authoritarian roots and now flush with cash will get back to their old geostrategic gamesmanship as the US continues to weaken its military and the CIA with Bush's orwellian political games.

I am not sure if you read an exchange between Larry DiRita and Joe Galloway on Pat Lang's blog and on dKos. Gen. Riper led Red Forces in a war game with Iran as the target. His unconventional approach which is what Iran likely would use had him defeating the Rumsfeldian "transformed" naval attack force, at which point they changed the rules of the war game so that Rummy could claim victory.

It would be very useful to keep an eye on Judy to see if we can read the tea leaves for an Iranian adventure or something else to get Bush out of his poll doldrums and prevent the Dems from gaining subpoena power.

ab inito

I did read the Galloway exchange. Pretty remarkable. Though I'm pretty sure it was the war gaming for Iraq, not Iran.

Thing is, Iran probably is smart enough to pull stuff like that off (not least because it has terrorist infrastructure to deploy).

I haven't the whole article by Judy, as I have no intention of giving the WSJ a hit. but here is the thing - I don't know if Judy mentioned it or not. The driving force behind Libya's urge to shed its WMD program is Quadaffi's son. It has nothing to do with US and all to do with Brits. Quadaffi's son went to London School of Economics and he realized (and was counseled by his Brit professors, I am sure) Libya would be forever a nomadic country, unless it modernizes with its oil revenue and it will never modernize unless it relinquishes its WMD program.
Remember, the first western leader to visit Libya after the country came to its senses was Tony Blair, not US leaders.
Now Brits want the whole "build the country" business.

Take a larger view. Quadaffi's son went to UK for studies and he will be the future leader. King Abdullah of Jordan studied in UK as well as US (Princeton and Georgetown). Syraian leader Bashar also studied in the UK. The next generation of leaders will also go to UK or France. This is where we used to have a great edge, wtih Fulbright scholarship and open-armed US universities. We will probably lose the whole next
generation of Asian and Arab leaders because of our policies.

India, I should say, is an exception. Gandhi and Nehru and that generation studied in England and befittingly they were the ones that rebelled against the British regime. The current generation of Indian leaders are mostly US-educated.


Yes, she does mention it, and interview him. Though she discounts his claim that it was all his doing.

Raw Story's latest pre-link teaser: "JUDITH MILLER TO CLAIM SHE GOT TIP OFF OF 9/11 ATTACK"

I needed a little comic relief on this dreadful dreary fitzless day.

The AlterNet Judy Miller interview is now up, as I'm sure you've seen, and it would be kindness itself if you would write about this today (Thursday). Why is she getting all this exposure now? Is she buffing up her rep in response to the Libby attacks on her memory and credibility? Who in the world in the WH was her source anyway -- and why does this person/people want to renew their fearmongering at this point? Is this, like the Libya story, all about Iran?


I'm in a meeting for several hours, but will post on it then.

I have always believed this leak was from Richard Clarke, who was apparently one of her sources, and who visited her in the prison (and who, of course, was trying to get someone to act on his intelligence). But reading the article, I'm even more convinced it's Clarke, since he was head of Counter Terrorism, and that's where she said the leak came from.

I think she's trying to recuperate leaks. But she might as well be trying to improve her reporting--because that's why she couldn't publish it right away.

Seriously OfT from FDL
"Patricia Morlan says:
May 18th, 2006 at 5:13 am
I saw this tidbit about Viveca Novak in this morning’s WaPo.
New Job for Time Magazine’s Novak
Viveca Novak , a former Time magazine reporter who got caught up in the CIA leak case, will be landing at Annenberg Political Fact Check. She will start in June as deputy director of the nonpartisan organization that monitors the accuracy of political ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.
Brooks Jackson , a former CNN investigative reporter, is the director. The organization says on its Web site ( http://www.factcheck.org ) that it “accepts no funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.”
Novak did not initially tell her editors at Time that she may have alerted Karl Rove’s lawyer in 2004 that the senior aide to President Bush had leaked information to a magazine colleague about CIA operative Valerie Plame.
She and her editors agreed that she would take a leave of absence, and earlier this year Novak took a buyout from Time."

Back on Plamania, Clemons has a really interesting new post. Short version is that Bobby Ray Inman says that Armitage is being targeted by Fitzgerald. I doubt it's too the exclusion of Rove, as they seem to suggest. But it wouldn't be a big surprise to me that Armitage is in trouble at least for obstruction-type charges. And let's remember. Armitage fought with OVP. But that doesn't make him a good guy. Also, he's not a neocon. But he's a rocksolid Republican member of the Bush administration. (He's still doing freelance diplomatic work for Bush, big time, which also helps him avoid the American press.)

I screwed up the link to Clemons: here it is, I hope.

Interesting comment from
looseheadprop (over at FDL this am) says:
May 18th, 2006 at 7:10 am
OT re:Wayn Madsen report and reposting my EPU’s comment from last thread:
Not endorsing the Wayne Madson report or anything. I am a professional sceptic on this.
However, at least his details sound more consistetn with SOP. But only just a little bit.
I don’t remember any report of Gonzales meeting w/the GJ before the return of the Libby indictment. I never saw the AG meet with a GJ I was involved with, nor even my local US attorney. There is no reason. Before you take the indictment in for the “true bill” vote, it has to be signed off by the US Attorney.
Since Fitz stands in the shoes of the AG, he does not need a sign off (though if he did not feel the Abu had a conflict, he might run it past him as a courtesy)
Abu showing up sounds weird, but maybe it was at Abu’s own request. Abu has done other weird things.
Had it not been for the confirmed sighting of PJF at the President’s lawyer’s law firm right before the Libby indictment, I would be scoffing outright at the idea that he showed up at Patton Boggs.
The EAGLE DOES NOT FLY. Defense lawyers come to visit the government, not the other way around.
The tidbit about Luskin becoming a target, intrests me. That has some possibilites that stir the imagination.
It is also consistent with and would explain something I heard from the foley square rumor mill a while ago, but didn’t understand at the time, and would explain why Luskin became so quiet as of late.
I have not made a secret of my scepticism regarding the Leapold report. While I am miles and miles away from buying into the Madsen thing, I must admit, it has me intrigued."

rwcole just mentioned pardons over at FDL, but he did not mention Armitage by name. If Clemons is right, I wonder how Libby/Bush/Cheney feel about wasting using a pardon on Armitage or people like him? Perhaps Fitz is telling Bush with the threat of an Armitage indictment, that he will have to pardon an awful lot of people to bury the conspiracy?

I don't know why Bobby Ray Inman would have better sources on this than Jason Leopold. And given the number of times Fitz has suggested Mr. X is an innocent accused, I would tend to suspect that Armitage, assuming he is Mr. X, is in Fitz' sites only in that sense. But if someone hasn't been following the case closely, they may not be able to distinguish between the signs Fitz has sent and the signs Libby's team has sent.

I guessed June 16 indictments in the FDL pool, though I now think it's likely it'll be June 2, because shit always goes down in this case while I'm offline, and I'll be in Canada camping on June 2.

Which is a polite way of saying I trust my "emptywheel's out of contact" instincts about as much as I trust Madsen.

As perhaps the only person in all of America who has pushed the idea that Armitage may well be in trouble with Fitzgerald, I may be jumping on Clemons' story too quickly. I mean, how often do you get that lucky?

But surely the former director of the NSA has better sources than the vast majority of reporters.

And hey, if the suggestion that it's Armitage and not Rove (which, as I said, I suspect is wrong in any case) puts a damper on lefty expectations regarding Rove, and raises neocon expectations of revenge on Armitage, then it's almost certain to be a win-win, from my perspective.

Agree with your last point, Jeff.

But how or why would the former NSA head have better sources than reporters? Who would actually know if Armitage were in trouble? Armitage, presumably. Novak and Woodward. And Fitzgerald. Sounds to me like the journalists--and maybe Colin Powell--would have better sources on this one than someone who used to head NSA.

My presumption would be that Inman would be hearing from someone connected to Armitage (or, perhaps, Novak), through elite foreign policy/intelligence circles. My point was not that NSA per se gets him any privileged info, just that being part of the foreign policy elite might.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad