« The Wilson SSCI Part Two: Or, Kneecapping Waxman | Main | More on Immigration Judges »

May 29, 2007


Ah, man, Cheney's black hole is on my birthday!

Small correction: Terry was the briefer on February 13 who wrote up the briefer's tasking; not Schmall.

Shit, I meant to go back and double check it, but Typepad is being so postitively evil I got distracted.

Thanks, Jeff.

Sorry Jeff--I think chemo brain is catching. How do we know the Feb 13 briefing is Terry? I don't see a name (I do see a name on the Feb 14 one). Are you looking at the other version of this that was submitted into evidence?

I'm looking at DX66, and it's right there on p. 2, on the February 13 2002 briefer's tasking, just above where it names Richard Cheney as the principal.

Yes you are--looking right there, where I'm overlooking.

So EW allow me to be simple for a minute. Based on your part II and III, it would seem that the minority of the minority of SSCI did some work when it was in fact a minority of the majority, and now we are stuck with the oversight they've reported and the documents they feel comfortable releasing. Did I get that right? So,

Why does the new majority not revisit this issue? Does it take a formal process to revisit previous testimony and documents?

Do the former minority (now majority) not have access to the documents? Why not? Is this a case of 'classified' documents released only to certain members, and if so, why do those trusted members not include members of the majority? That's weird.

In part II, you state the CIA sees the SSCI as it's specific oversight committee ("...according to the CIA, SSCI is the CIA's oversight committee. And if that interview is going to happen, then SSCI is going to have to do it.") Since when does a department get to chose who oversees their activities and decisions? Does this really mean that they will not respond to Waxman's committee if they choose to, um, investigate the investigation?

The details make my head swim and, daring to mix metaphors, it looks like we're all getting snowed here. (Or screwed.) Thanks for all your amazing work digging into this and keeping it all straight for us.

Ahhh, I was taking Cheney's black hole to be that orifice from which his "last throes of the insurgency" and other atrocities had come. My bad.


No, I think they could get docs. But that gets you into my shopping trip for a new SSCI chair, because the one we've got gets rolled so often.

They got just the docs they had to do pre-empt Waxman, and then stopped. PResumably, the Dems could get all the docs I'm talking about... but they don't.

Perhaps they don't want the documents because it doesn't do their politics any good. Now that would assume they have a glimmer of what they might say!

I guarantee that if the current majority thought they could get something on Cheney or Rove they would be working very hard and very publicly.

Therefore I assume that the (whatever there is) documents that are undisclosed are in the same or even a worse category of the one that we have just seen which seems to make the ground tremble in Wilson-Plame land.

The subtleties elude me, but having just started Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy," let me toss in a few odd bits for added context:

2001 - Cheney's Secret Energy Task Force pored over maps of 'Mesopotamia', thought to contain the world's largest remaining oil reserves.
2002 - oil was selling for $30 barrel.
-- the world's five largest major oil companies made **profits** of $36 billion.
-- the **estimated annual profits** of Iraqi oil were estimated at $95 billion.
By spring 2006, oil was selling for $75 barrel

Numerous published sources explain long term relationships between Michael Ledeen and Italian SISMI (intelligence). The bogus Niger yellowcake documents appear to have an Italian/SISMI provenance. Raw Story and other sources suggest the Niger forgeries came to Cheney's attention via Ledeen --> John Bolton (at State Dept)--> OVP.

Cheney needs a 'cover' for how he found out about the Niger forgeries, and Plame is his convenient lie. Cheney got punk'd by the forgeries (or else he used them to punk Bush and Congress). Plame didn't get punk'd.

Surely, Waxman will surely note with interest the excessive efforts to cloud the trail of Cheney's interest in the Niger forgeries. This is an interesting little dustcloud on the trail.

But it is not clear that Joe Wilson—as distinct from Valerie—knew CIA had already taken steps to send him. Given the hesitation Valerie expressed in her February 12 memo about CIA’s past sloppiness, she may have insisted that all preparatory work be done before Joe even be asked.

At the Waxman hearing, she said:

My colleague suggested this idea, and my supervisor turned to me and said, "Well, when you go home this evening, would you be willing to speak to your husband, ask him to come into headquarters next week and we'll discuss the options? See if this -- what we could do" Of course. And as I was leaving, he asked me to draft a quick e-mail to the chief of our Counterproliferation Division, letting him know that this was -- might happen. I said, "Of course," and it was that e- mail, Congressman, that was taken out of context and -- a portion of which you see in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report of July 2004 that makes it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.

How do you square the information from 2 sources that Plame facilitated the Feb 19th meeting with Wilson's previous:
"The meeting was not convened by my wife," the former ambassador said. "She had, as it now turns out, the misfortune of having escorted me into the building. ... She left before the meeting started." He also said that the subject of his going to Niger did not arise until halfway through the session.

I guarantee that if the current majority thought they could get something on Cheney or Rove they would be working very hard and very publicly.

ah, the wingnuts have shown up in force.

1) You are projecting. Not everyone thinks like wingnuts do, and believes that treating sensitive intelligence as a political weapon is appropriate.

2) Smart people are capable of logic. Getting at the truth of this matter doesn't "get Cheney", it merely embassses people like you.

How do you square the information from 2 sources that Plame facilitated the Feb 19th meeting with Wilson's previous:

non-wingnuts know that the word "facilitated" means "helped make it happen", and "convene" means to "call people together" for a meeting.


If the minority of the minority was serious, there are three fact witnesses they would have interviewed based on Valerie's sworn testimony-- the "junior officer" who got the call from Cheney's office, the "colleague" who passed Valerie's desk and suggested Joe, and Valerie's superior who asked that she write the memo.

These are the people who can verify if Valerie's story is true. Yet the minority of the minority (and wingnuttia) insists on taking one document out of its described context, and drawing conclusions.

We already know that Cheney was interested in "unfiltered" Iraq intelligence. We know that Bolton (at State) and Wolfowitz (at Defense), two key allies of Cheney, were also interested in unfiltered intelligence. And we know from Valerie's memo that "state" and "defense" were well aware of the content of the original DO report. The idea that Cheney was NOT aware of the DO reporting prior to Feb 13, of course, completely absurd -- but it is on this absurdity that wingnuts like Jodi and Maybee rest their beliefs.

BTW Maybee.... will you NOW admit that every word of the bullshit you and the rest of your buddies over at Maguire's have been saying about Valerie was not covert was complete and absolute crap?

p.lukusiak -- thanks for brightening my day. Nicely phrased, and your logic is impeccable. Between you, Wm Ockham, John Caspar, lhp, Mimikatz, marksb, bmaz, and so many other remarkable commenters here (I could go on but...), EW sure does run a fine pub.

Thank you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad