Skip to main content

"The facts were being fixed around the policy."

That's what the Downing Street Memo said, and now we have the hard data to show how this was done. Don't let the administration off the hook by viewing Rove/Plame, Bolton and the DSM as separate. They are all of a piece, all parts of the same story.

Republican talking points are that Rove's treasonous behavior was actually insignificant, that Bolton is just a hard-charger. But look at the pattern.

The DSM says that facts were being fixed around the policy.

The objection to Bolton isn't that he is rude or aggressive. It is that, when presented with intelligence contrary to his already established opinion (re Cuba or Syria), that he attempted to have analysts who disagreed with him removed from their posts. Failing that, he sought to use classified intelligence to spy on people who disagreed with him, presumably to discredit them in some fashion.

This is clearly a case of a man who decided on a policy and then was willing to do whatever he could to make sure that the intelligence reinforced what he already believed.

Rove's behavior was even more egregious, but all part of the same narrative. Having been caught in a lie about intelligence -- by the very person who collected the intelligence -- Rove attempted to use classified information to discredit the whistleblower. In doing so, he blew the cover of not only a covert operative, but also the CIA front company for which she worked.

Again, we have the policy, then we have the use of classified information to intimidate those who collected information contrary to that policy.

I'm not reading anything about the DSM or about Bolton anymore, either in the news or on the front page or recommended diaries here. This is totally understandable, as the revelations about Rove are fairly dramatic and, let's face it, red meat for those of us who despise him.

But do not forget that this is all about one thing: the undeniable fact that this administration made every effort to twist and fabricate intelligence in order to lead us into a war of choice in Iraq, one that has cost us so much in so many ways, which has strengthened our enemies and made us more vulnerable. In doing so, the administration betrayed our intelligence community to punish those that did not go along with the party line.

Rove is only the latest example of this. It is one story, one narrative: this administration chose to go to war in Iraq and was willing to do anything to accomplish that goal.

(This diary cross-posted at the DowningStreetMemo.com blog!)

Originally posted to strandedlad on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 11:48 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Makes sense to me (4.00)
      just another facet of it.

      I'm going to recommend this one.

      Phillybits "Censoring torture stories doesn't help the troops."

      by Stand Strong on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 11:49:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what you have here (4.00)
        is a really nice frame.  The administration attacks the fact finders when they don't like the facts.  Bolten did it.  Rove did it.  Now, who else?

        Recommended.

        •  Well, Lt. Kerry of Swift Boat fame, for one (4.00)
          The facts didn't suit their taste, so they assigned some attack dogs (Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth) to reinvent the facts about Kerry's medal winning actions.  And by mass-faxing to all their talking heads, they made sure it had the widest possible dissemination, in the shortest amount of time - in order to flatten Kerry's bounce coming out of the Democratic National Convention.  They couldn't have a real hero.

          And try this one, too: 60 Minutes, with the Dan Rather story on Bush's Texas Air National Guard desertion.  The one document that they challenged was true in spirt; the secretary remembers typing it, but the one she typed didn't look like the one CBS used - but still the FACTS contained therein were correct!  (I personally thought that the Bushites planted the damned thing, just so they could attack its forensics.  They re-typed the original, word for word, then made sure a news organization they wanted to "get" was made aware of it.  What is easier than taking a damaging document that turns up and then castrating it by making it look fake?  You don't even have to invent anything or lie - you just have to find a patsy named Dan.)  Again, they mass-faxed (or whatever) to all the ditto heads to overwhelm the public attention span with one common spin.

          •  Don't forget Negroponte! (4.00)
            The man in charge of all US intelligence agencies is a famous for suppressing reports that don't support the party line, and making up reports that do.

            The man is slime. He has abetted untold levels of bloodshed and murder in Central America. If we can pull him down with the others, so much the better.

          •  What you've left out. (none)
            What you're leaving out is that the information they plant in the press is always false.  Then, when it is demonstrated to be false, they can always claim that someone simply made a mistake.

            The reason Rove can get off the hook on Plame is that the information he passed on--that she arranged for Wilson to go to Niger--was obviously false.  In fact, it was so obvious that some of the people it was presented to rejected it out of hand.  Even if Plame was an operative, rather than just a clerk at Langley, the idea that an official with ambassadorial rank would be dispatched on the recommendation of a clerk or agent is just too ludicrous.

            But, the intent wasn't to "out" his wife or discredit the information Wilson had collected; it was to distract Wilson, make him angry enough to talk about something else.  Which it obviously succeeded in doing.

            This is actually the same strategy employed by terrorists--generate mayhem in an innocuous area (one you don't care about) in order to distract the attention of your real target from where you don't want them looking.

            For example, while bombs are going off and killing people in Baghdad, nobody's paying much attention to the permanent military bases the US forces are building in Iraq.  Why is Iraqi reconstruction going so slowly?  Because what's to be rebuilt is the infra-structure (water, electricity, sewage treatment) needed by the bases, not by the civilian population.  Why else was it destroyed in the first place?

            Relocating American military assets to the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean region has been planned for decades.  It was the reason for Vietnam and Cambodia.  

            3-D Republicans=division, deceit, debt

            by hannah on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 05:45:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Has anyone seen or heard about (none)
          Bunny Greenhouse after her report on the missing billions associated with Iraq and Halliburton's "no bid" contracts? She has shown what true patriotism she has and I hope she is supported and commended for it.

          "The lunatics have overtaken the asylum." And the asylum is burning.

          by Skylor on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 03:57:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  ditto n/t (3.50)

        "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

        by Street Kid on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 05:53:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have got to agree... (none)
      It is all the same story, but I think a lot of people already know and agree with that.

      IWT
      Independent World Television

      by m16eib on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 11:50:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What I want (4.00)
        is for everyone to know this, not just dKos readers. That means we need at some point for a major media outlet to connect the dots.
        •  Exactly (4.00)
          plus we talk about framing a lot here and this is a perfect example.  Making the Rove scandal part of a larger narrative that implicates the entire administration is the key.  If this were a Democratic administration, it's what the Republicans would do...

          Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man - Bertrand Russell

          by mediaddict on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 11:58:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed, and the frame we ought to use (4.00)
            is stonewalling.  With both the Plame investigation,and with DSM, the WH has stonewalled all attempts to get information. I had a diary last week suggesting that we frame both discussions in terms of stonewalling, because it puts Bush on the spot in a way that is nearly impossible to wriggle free from it. The Bolton nomination has involved a lot of stonewalling too.

            DSM Watch - Day 69: When will Bush and Cheney finally read the documents?

            by smintheus on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  An indictment for a general conspiracy (none)
              would tie the pieces together very nicely.
            •  may I humbly add my thoughts on framing here? (4.00)
              Valerie Plame was part of a covert CIA group dedicated to gathering intelligence on WMB.  I hear over and over how the greatest threat we face in the U.S. from terrorists is the use of a biogical or nuclear WMD.

              Now that Valerie Plame is outed and her network destroyed we are yet even more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.  

              The outing undermined more than her career, which I think might be a connection unmade in the average American mind.  Tied to the general pattern outlined in this diary, this might be an effective frame to use against this administration.  We have to drive home the larger picture of what Valerie Plame and her colleagues were doing, its importance, to illustrate why the outing was so egregious, not just that it was retaliation for Joe Wilson.  Talk up the CIA, talk down this administration.

              Listening is where love begins: listening to ourselves and then to our neighbors. Mister Rogers

              by station wagon on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 02:46:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely (4.00)
                This was a political action that hurt America. Bush cares more for his political agenda than America's security. His personal security's pretty fine anyway. It's just the rest of America that's at risk.
                •  As Keith Olberman wrote yesterday ... (4.00)
                  "Politics first, counter-terrorism second -- it's as simple as that."

                  It is better to die standing than to live on your knees. - Emiliano Zapata

                  by cotterperson on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 03:03:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  nice finesse (none)
                  on station wagon's frame.  This was a blow to our security from a man who's personal security has always been looked after by others.
                •  Here's my take on this: (4.00)
                  This was a political action that hurt America. Bush cares more for his political agenda than America's security. His personal security's pretty fine anyway. It's just the rest of America that's at risk.

                  I really truly suggest: drop the "Bush cares more about...xxxxx " What the Presidential election told us was that swing voters didn't like that tact. That's why they hated the MoveOn ads. Picture in your mind that terrible voice-over guy, with his super-exaggerated voice:

                  George Bush. He just doesn't get it.

                  No. MoveOn didn't get it. Whether or not the following is due to GOP-media conditioning is irrelevant: Mainstream America does not like basing an argument on what Bush and his bad Administration has done. They want to hear solutions. They want security and they gravitate to those who are stating solutions, not negating. (nice double-negative there...)

                  I think station wagon has the spot on theme: Our effectiveness in the war on terror is eroded when our US Intelligence is compromised and undercut.

                  So I think we need to steer it more in the direction of:  "America needs to win the war on terror. And to do so, we need to respect the specialized capabilities of our secret intelligence operatives.  

                  That's presenting a solution -- and the implication is: we're not doing that, we haven't done it, and it's time we paid more attention to protecting the integrity of our CIA operatives and allowing them to do their best work.

                  Possible -- though it's dangerous -- we could add: It's possible the London attacks could have been avoided had our agencies' not been compromised during the Iraq invasion period.

                  .
                  .

                  Those are just some thoughts. But let's provoke an  emotional feeling of WINNING -- not of ANGER -- that "see! See how they only care about themselves!".  The moment the word "Bush" comes out, for sure the hard-right (who are 100% unreachable) brace for what crap the liberals are going to throw this time. But the election post-mortems showed that swing voters have a conditioned response too:  If you base your argument on "Bush bad!", you lose their receptivity.

                  i know this sounds counter-intuitive -- because we'd like to see these bastards impeached and sent to jail. But we have to win the hearts first, then minds, of Middle America... And we do that by invoking our STRENGTH to really win that WOT, and not just say the words.

                  (hope this sounds useful ...)

                  rh+
                  demspeak

              •  Excellent point (4.00)
                and you could tie it very easily to that infamous episode last year (so famous I'm blanking out on the details) when the British were onto what they thought was a very dangerous cell in the UK. The Bush administration, in trouble politically, rushed out and proclaimed publicly that these important suspects were being arrested, before the Brits were ready to arrest them. Many of the people involved got away as a result of the Bush administration's recklessness. They cared more about scoring political points than about winning the war on terra.

                DSM Watch - Day 69: When will Bush and Cheney finally read the documents?

                by smintheus on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 06:36:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I don't agree a "stonewalling" frame (none)
              and the frame we ought to use (4.00 / 9) is stonewalling.  With both the Plame investigation,and with DSM, the WH has stonewalled all attempts to get information. I had a diary last week suggesting that we frame both discussions in terms of stonewalling, because it puts Bush on the spot in a way that is nearly impossible to wriggle free from it. The Bolton nomination has involved a lot of stonewalling too.  

              I don't see this as a useful frame. Though it accurately describes what the Admin has done in each case, presenting to mainstream America the general message that "the Bush Admin has stonewalled" -- how does that serve us? How does that resonate with a swing voter?

              I don't think it does. And so I want to understand your thinking. The biggest problem with framing is that it's not just a "connect the dots"... If you aren't presenting an engaging emotional message that strikes a resonant chord, it's a frame all right, but a non-useful frame.

              We have to get out of our own progressive heads and inot the heats and minds of a swing voter. What would give them pause?  To hear that Bush has stonewalled them? It's flat and lifeless in my view. But I'm not saying it to be discouraging. i'm saying it to encourage us to better frame our frames. They need to have emotional resonance to be valuable in influencing a swing voter. WE'RE already convinced. So take us out of the equation entirely.

              rh+

              •  Motive (none)
                I think we should probably not spend a lot of time on it, but someone should probably start mentioning sort of quietly as our alternative motive that the reason Bush wanted this war, the reason his administration kept twisting the facts and manipulating the intelligence community was at least partially Bush's desire for political gain.

                There must be a better source than this Russ Baker article cited at democrats.org, but this is the quote I remember:

                "He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: `One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, `My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, `If I have a chance to invade....if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

                The point is, we have to replace the motive. If it wasn't to fight the terrorists, then why? Why did he push so hard to invade Iraq? Why did he even begin diverting funds and equipment to the Gulf before we were done in Afghanistan -- and before he ever asked Congress about it. Maybe he believed in it, a little. But fulfilling what he saw as his father's lost opportunity to seek political power as a successful war president, this was his driving motivation. Notice the timing of the public relations campaign in support of an invasion of Iraq -- timed to coincide with the midterm elections. The timing of the Pakistani announcement of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani on the night of Kerry's acceptance speech.

                And let's not forget one other thing: this is not even the only time we know of that this administration has leaked classified information to defend itself politically. Remember when the administration raised the security level just as Kerry was picking up steam? The stories on the news about how al-Qeada was planning to attack financial institutions? Those turned out to be based on four-year-old evidence and made it look like Homeland Security was scaring people to screw with Kerry. In its defense, the administration burned a British terrorist sting operation by revealing the identity of an al-Qeada operative who was acting as a British double agent. I wonder who did that?

              •  Take us out of the equation (none)
                That was exactly the point of my stonewalling diary. Did you read it?
                http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/5/222333/5136

                It is a frame that will keep the attention of the press--the longer Bush stonewalls, the larger the story grows--and get the attention of a dozing public--it Bush is stonewalling that's automatically a bad sign, so why is he doing it? Once the public starts to ask its own questions, it's relatively easy to connect the dots for them (or they can do it themselves).

                It is an ideal frame because no rational person can deny that Bush is indeed stonewalling. The facts are simple and straightforward. If the public refuses to take the first step with you, out of suspicion of your motives, then no frame no matter how clever will succeed in undermining Bush's support. However a large proportion of the public already believes that the administration has lied about Iraq. Stonewalling is what people do when they've been caught in a lie.

                Stonewalling is also useful because it is almost infinitely flexible and expandable. Bush Co. stonewalls about nearly everything, so we can extend the discussion in nearly any direction in the future.

                So what is wrong with the frame? That it doesn't hit the hot buttons immediately? That's the point.

                DSM Watch - Day 69: When will Bush and Cheney finally read the documents?

                by smintheus on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 09:23:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I will read the diary tonight (none)
                  No, I did not read it yet. But replying to what you wrote above:

                  Stonewalling is what people do when they've been caught in a lie.

                  I understand that we disagree on the fundamental premise: My focus is on connecting with mainstream America, more specifically, the swing voters. And it seems to me that ample evidence was provided to the American people in the course of the 04 campaign that "Bush lied" multiple times -- and yet the public did not tap into that whole line of attack. Kerry nailed him red-handed in Debate 2 or 3 re "You've forgotten about Bin Laden" -- and the videos back to back are just as clear as day: he lied there too when he denied he ever said whatever it is he said.

                  Your argument WORKS under the assumption that people are influenced by rational arguments:  They are stonewalling so they must be lying.

                  The American people don't even know about what they lied about with the whole Joe Wilson trip to Niger ad yellowcake. They don't know who valerie plame is -- and don't care. If she's associated with a liberal war critic, she's filtered out.

                  Bush has been stonewalling about bin laden for 3 years. What makes you think the public is going to get hooked THIS time by that frame?

                  My argument is that what influences the swing voters are solution-oriented messages, how can we be made safer -- and the negation of Bush as effective inthe war on terror simply doesn't work, hasnb't worked, won't work.

                  The Democrats do not have a message that resonates with swing voters. WHY? because they have yet to even develop one.

                  Listen, I don't argue that, to me, stonewalling is a sign of "where there's smoke, there's fire". But I -- and you -- and progressives as a whole are wired differently in the way we evaluate information and stimuli than those who had access to all the evidence we have had access to -- and voted to keep Bush in office.

                  I think we just have fundamentally different perceptions about "what works" in messaging. Fair enough.

          •  Please add to the narrative . . . (none)
            The SCOTUS.

            How in the world does a president who likely has a man who might be indicted for treason nominate a justice of the SCOTUS.  This is a ludicrous situation.

            We have been advised that Karl Rove is hard at work vetting and appeasing the extremist right wing base of the Republican party. He will deliver to them an extemist anti-Christ nominee.

            We have been further advised that we would be lucky to get Abu Gonzales (how pathetic). This for me is not an acceptable outcome.

            The SCOTUS nomination, must be part of the narrative.

            These people are criminals. Criminals go to jail. Criminals do not nominate other criminals to the SCOTUS.

        •  I would specifically add WMD misinfo (4.00)
          to this list.  Illegalities must lurk there, and from a public perspective, everyone with a screwed-on head knows we didn't find any, despite the fact it was our casus belli.
        •  Oh... (none)
          I kindof guessed that... That is why I recommended it after reading it originally, even if the diary is missing some other stuff from it.

          I think that in the end the DSM will just be supporting evidence to all of the major smoking guns. It is only evidence of an intent compared to the actual deeds done by rove, bolton, gannon, novak, cheney, rice, etc. ....

          I do think that the DSMs are important, but I think history will note them as a small part of it all when all is said and done, IMHO.

          IWT
          Independent World Television

          by m16eib on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 12:41:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They are afraid to connect the dots... (none)
          everyone knows what THAT means. Guess we will have to wait till the dems take over congress. Or are there any up and coming Woodwards out there?
        •  Is anyone doing a timeline? (none)
          In a blog last week, Rep. Conyers asked for a timeline of DSM to the war....maybe this could be included...also at the DSM hearings one Rep., I forgot her name, was requesting pre-military action timelines and invoices (for things such as prebuilt airfields, prison camps  and other logistics leading up to a war)...a comprehensive timeline with all that info would be gold....was a timeline done already that I missed?
        •  vaguely remember reading something... (none)
          re:  Watergate being a bunch of small stories that developed into one big one...

          and we know the result...

          Wondering if histroy is repeating itself???

          "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

          by Street Kid on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 06:04:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree 100% (4.00)
      And suggest that you add Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans and Ahmed Chalabi's lies to the grand design to fix facts around the policy.
      •  I think all of that will be added (4.00)
        As long as we keep this story simple enough to start with. I don't want the media to simply move on to the latest scandal as though it is unconnected to anything else. Once we get them to connect the dots initially, it will be a feeding frenzy.
    •  cheney rove bolton stovepiping wmd (4.00)
    •  and Gannon (none)
      he was more than a boytoy. He fits exactly into the timeframe and logic. He seems to have been one of the six journalists in addition to Novak who probably were given the info on Plame.

      BUSH LIES, PEOPLE DIE

      by seesdifferent on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 06:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Folow the money... n/t (none)

      "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

      by Street Kid on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 06:38:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think (none)

      Freedom isn't free. So why are you bitching about taxes?

      by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 07:37:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All one story, all the same players... (4.00)
    All were indicated -- if not directly mentioned -- in the DSM, all seem to be cropping up around the edges of the Plame outing, all were participating in the fixing of intelligence -- and all roads point back to Cheney.
  •  You should add "Gannon" to the title (4.00)
    And if the press really wanted the public to stand up and take notice they'd be working the Gannon angle.
    Only the possiblity of sex, especially gay sex, will rip the public from American Idol repeats.
  •  Excellent, thank you--and I (4.00)
    don't agree that most people are getting this, because about every 10 diaries it seems there's one talking about the Rove thing as a distraction from the DSM.  It's not, and folks need to get clear on that.

    ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

    by bibble on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 11:53:48 AM PDT

    •  couldn't agree more-- (4.00)
      This is a very important point to make.  With the short attention span of many out there (most of all, MSM) this is a perfect opportunity to tie all of the Iraq/WMD scandals into one neat package.

      I have been putting the "it's all tied together" story out for the past week and I think that if people realize that Bolton/DSM/Wilson/WMD lies/Gannon (didn't he have access to the Plame info at some point?) are ALL CHAPTERS IN THE SAME STORY then it brings it all home with everything from the run up to the war to stalling the investigation until after the election to the attempted ramming of Bolton through for the UN to Gannon (since sex news is all that some people will respond to...) then the masses may understand the depth of the lies and deception.

      ......or that is just my humble wishful thinking.

    •  Still a distraction, until the stories are linked (4.00)
      This needs a good, short statement. Perhaps something like:

      "We know they twisted American intelligence to back their war. Now we know they went further -- they attacked an American intelligence officer."

      Ideas in this:

      • "American intelligence" is contrasted with "their war"
      • Uses "twisted", not the confusing "fixed" or the red-flag "lied about"
      • Uses "attacked an American" not an abstraction like "weakened our security".

      (This doesn't tell either the Rove or DSM story, it only links them.)

      Slippery-slope arguments are often taken too far. Yes, using them is a slippery slope...

      by technopolitical on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 02:11:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BRILLIANT (4.00)
    BRILLIANT. I am so glad that you could incorporate DSM into the debate of the day because I, like many others, believe that DSM is THE STORY.  It must be CONTINUALLY POUNDED and not forgotten.  It must culminate either in resignation, impeachment or you gotta believe in victory in 2006.  

    If the Dems cannot win in 2006 with so much ammunition, one would have to start to consider that we can never win again.  I don't mean to sound bleak, but c'mon people is this what you want from America.

    •  War was the first and only resort (4.00)
      Excellent diary, and I couldn't agree more. The main talking point we should always be refering back to is that this is in the context of punishing the whistle blower Joe Wilson because he was exposing the truth that Bush was lying about the evidence for the war in iraq.

      Bush knew the intelligence was bad.
      Bush knew diplomacy wouldn't work because war was the plan from the start.
      The Bush Administration punished whistle blower Joe Wilson for revealing the President's lies about the reason for war.
      War was the first and only option for Bush.

      Bush planned to start a war, but had no plan to finish the conflict.

      "Blogging doesn't make it so" - Rep. Hayworth (R) AZ 1/6/2005. Oh yeah?

      by bejammin075 on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 12:38:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq in 1999 (4.00)
        according to one of his biographers. He said if he invaded Iraq, he would use the political capital earned from being a successful wartime president to pass his legislative agenda -- just as he used Sept. 11 to do exactly that, before riding the run-up to the war in Iraq to solidify majorities in the Congress.
    •  The illegal war is the story (4.00)
      The fact that the Bush administration was willing to commit treason, find a hooker and plant him in the press corps, and actually memorialize their intent to commit these activities in the DSM to skew public perception ties into the illegal war.

      They wanted to launch a war (which they knew was illegitimate) rather than defend this country against the group who attacked us.  They were willing to do anything to achieve this agenda.

      It ain't really what you'd call change. It's all happened before and it'll happen again with a different set of facts. -Gloria Naylor

      by GN1927 on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 12:46:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. (none)
        The lies were necessitated by the illegitimacy and unjust nature of the war.

        They had to tell the lies to buy the American people's acquiesence in and/or support for the Iraq invasion.

        •  Just as (4.00)
          they had to insist that we could occupy the country with 30,000 troops, that the invasion would pay for itself with oil revenue, that Iraqi intelligence met with the Sept. 11 hijackers, that Hussein had unmanned drones that could disperse chemical agents over American cities...
  •  You are right and (4.00)
    I believe this story will go much deeper if we can handle it correctly.  Focusing on Rove for "revenge" purposes doesn't get us anywhere.  What gets us somewhere is taking it all into context and making sure that every last one of them is held accountable for creating what is looking more and more like a cabal.
    •  Depends on what the meaning of truth is (4.00)
      Happily, the ridiculous attempt by Ken Mehlman and the RNC to justify Rove's behavior raises the larger issue of Rove's motivation and the administration's strange understanding of the word "truth." Rove didn't call Cooper to prevent him from getting the Niger story wrong. He called to prevent Cooper from getting it right.

      This White House has worked to conceal virtually everything it has done. When the Bush administration does let a piece of information out, you can pretty much bet the farm that it's a lie.

      Still unanswered is how many people care. This note in Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing in today's Washington Post refers specifically to Scott McClellan's misleading the White House press corps:

      Martha Joynt Kumar, a political scientist who studies the press corps' interaction with the White House, wrote to me in an e-mail: "Scott was looking for relief. . . . But there was no relief. Reporters are unrelenting when they believe they have been lied to."

      Let's hope it's true for the larger public, and that this episode jogs people's memories about the many interconnected lies we've been told.

  •  Demand immediate suspension of his clearances (3.80)
    Please, Harry Reid, please demand that Karl Rove be removed from all matters of national security until the prosecution is done.  

    Tug

    Jesus loves me...but he can't stand you!

    by Tug on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 12:34:27 PM PDT

    •  The CIA can't trust the administration (4.00)
      not to betray its secrets. Not to mention, the CIA gets all the blame for supposedly getting the intelligence wrong -- despite continually warning the administration about its cavalier relationship with the truth. I wonder when we'll have our CIA whistleblower? If Bush doesn't fire Rove, expect a good one before 2006 elections.
      •  Lautenberg Has Called for Suspension (3.75)
        of Rove's clearance.  See this LA Times article:

        http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-rove12jul12,1,3685274.story?coll=la-news-poli tics-national

        It is really the very best approach for us to take at this time in my opinion by the way.  It is harder to explain why they have not done that in light of the recent revelations about the investigation than it is to explain why they haven't fired him.

        Letting him keep his clearance further binds their collective fate if you know what I mean.

        •  I agree (4.00)
          I love this site.  No way I would have found the Lautenberg demand on my own, thank you.  

          Information is such a good, good thing.  

          Also, Mehlman's talking points response is sort of forcing Fitzgerald's hand.  

          Fitzgerald may have previously been inclined to allow Rove to merely resign and throw a fall guy in the way and figure, "Hey, we did some good here - we established boundaries and outing a CIA agent is beyond the boundary".

          With Mehlman's talking points and disingenuous effort at damage control, Fitzgerald now HAS to indict Rove or the whole investigation will have been an exercise in futility, accomplishing nothing.   In effect, Fitzgerald will have condoned the outing of CIA agents.  He has to know that.

          Elliott Richardson, we need you, Buddy.  

          "Clearly you and I have a difference of opinion as to what is in the country's best interest."  - Richardson to Richard Nixon, Oct 20, 1973

          Tug

          Jesus loves me...but he can't stand you!

          by Tug on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 12:54:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ideally 2 Senators, Biden and McCain, perhaps (4.00)
          could put this to thee administration.  

          I suggest these guys because of their Foreign Relations ties.  

          Tug

          Jesus loves me...but he can't stand you!

          by Tug on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:08:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  GO JERSEY!! n/t (none)

          Fight terrorists wherever they be found/Well why you not bombin Tim McVeigh's hometown?? - Michael Franti

          by missreporter on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:58:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Watergate Parallel (4.00)
        Screwing over Hoover's FBI became Nixon's undoing. That was part of the reason Felt became a whistle blower. I see W screwing over his "father's" CIA, and I hope a similar fate awaits. (And yes the CIA adulates poppy Bush. The main building is named after him and a bronze bust of him is centered facing the entrance.)
      •  when we'll have our CIA whistleblower (4.00)
        That's probably been happening for a little while now. I'm sure bits of information have been getting out to certain people.

        "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

        by subtropolis on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 03:50:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  NOW you're talking. (none)
        The CIA can't trust the administration (4.00 / 3) not to betray its secrets.

        This is the key, in my view. As I present way up top of this thread, and agreeing with "station wagon"'s post -- beef up the CIA -- we're proud of them damnit -- and downplay "Bush and Rove"

        Americans want security. they're scared when they see the London attacks. They hear Bush saying we're winning the war on terrorism, but they know in their hearst it's not true, with every new twist and turn in Iraq, not to mention the London bombings.  We need to emphsize that we NEED THE CAREER PROFESSIONALS in the CIA and our other intelligence agencies in order to prevent further attacks, and to win the war on terror.

        But they keep getting subverted.

        .
        .
        .

        Advance Note: What the GOP will start to say:

        "it was CLINTON who castrated our intelligence capability, not Bush."

        We need to affirm that the CIA hasn't been listened to... (technically, they and the FBI weren't listend to even before 9/11, but that's too dangerous ground). The point is that these world class professional agents that took decades to acquire sources and build relationships have been undermined by people who no respect for the craft of intelligence gathering.

        Outing one of our own secret operatives is just the latest revelation in how devastatingly disrespectful this admin has been towards these career professionals.

        (Don't all threads of the story fit under that umbrella?)

  •  Steve Clemons wonders about Bolton's ass't (4.00)
    <snip>

    Was Fred Fleitz, Bolton's Chief of Staff, the Link on Plame?

    I would like some of you in the intelligence industry to send me notes as to whatever you might know -- or might have an educated guess -- regarding the likelihood that such a brief, held by Powell, would have come from the Bolton/Fleitz shop.

    Fleitz continued to hold a CIA portfolio while working at State as Bolton's acting Chief of Staff. He is clearly the person who empowered Bolton's abilities to cherry-pick intelligence and to outmaneuver on some occasions and intimidate other State Department intelligence analysts.

    </snip>

    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

    It is better to die standing than to live on your knees. - Emiliano Zapata

    by cotterperson on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 12:36:08 PM PDT

  •  The context that Dems need to speak continuously (4.00)
    When will the Democratic party leaders get it. They need a single talking point that ALL of them use ALL the time.

    Unless they can create a firestorm around this message they will become completely irrelevant.

  •  Fixing facts around the policy = Stovepiping (4.00)
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
    The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic--and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book "The Threatening Storm" generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was "dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.
    •  Good (4.00)
      "Fixing facts around" an idea/theory/policy is a British expression that means "being intellectually dishonest about the facts" to give the appearance of support for one's idea etc..  I've been saying this for more than two months, and I'm surprised at how many people continue to believe that the expression means "fabricating facts". For that matter, You'd think that journalists at least would have bothered to find out what the expression means in the UK.

      DSM Watch - Day 69: When will Bush and Cheney finally read the documents?

      by smintheus on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:15:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But isn't Christopher Hitchens British? (none)
        •  Yup, a British shill (none)
          There's never any telling how much of the crap he's spewing he actually believes.

          Incidentally, this is an expression I heard in British university (Oxbridge) circles, not among the general public. The BBC Panorama program of March 20, 2005, which mentioned this specific sentence, felt the need to gloss it for its general audience: the Beeb said it meant "trawling for evidence" to support the policy...which in US lingo would be "cherrypicking".

          DSM Watch - Day 69: When will Bush and Cheney finally read the documents?

          by smintheus on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:40:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Fixing the facts (none)
        I got into a discussion with a right wing pseudolibertarian who argued that "fixing facts around the policy" meant fabricating facts.  He seemed to think that it discredited the DSM for that reason.  I spent most of the time trying to explain the idea that the policy itself was fixed, as in stable, not moving.  Everything else was just tacked on around it.  I don't see why it's so confusing.  A boxing match is fixed when the results are determined before it begins.  It doesn't mean that it was a "fabricated" boxing match.
        •  Fabricating facts (none)
          Wouldn't fabricate mean like "being made up"?

          Here's the definition of fabricate from Answers.com

          fab·ri·cate (făb'rĭ-kāt')
          tr.v., -cat·ed, -cat·ing, -cates.

          1. To make; create.
          2. To construct by combining or assembling diverse, typically standardized parts: fabricate small boats.
          3. To concoct in order to deceive: fabricated an excuse.

          Hang on to this definition for the next time some RW bimbo wants to stick their foot in either one of their orifices.

  •  Want to get this to the MSM??? (none)
    Float it to Mr Olberman. Perhaps he has connected the dots already, for he is an intelligent man. But overkill wouldn't hurt in this case.
  •  So Many Scandals... (4.00)
    We keep shooting at a moving target it seems. Every day something new surfaces and it almost makes me lethargic because nothing was tied up with the previous one(s). When they are tied together this way, it presents a package deal. I believe the larger view gets lost with all the extraneous noise and the fact that we were led into a war under false pretense. That is the larger crime. Halliburton and the like benefit monetarily from a war, and the pres gets higher ratings. This administration needed a war to further their own self-interests and they will ride this war wagon as far as this country will allow them. Yes, something is very ripe around Gannon because so much was done to cover his tracks as soon as his history was revealed.
    •  Straight to the point! (none)
      IMO, that is it in a nutshell.  Everything else is related to your post and the trick is putting it all together.

      "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

      by Street Kid on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 06:18:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You are exactly right. (none)
    Thank you for getting me back on track.  I have been so afraid to hope that Rove would finally be punished for some of the crap he has pulled on so many people that I had almost lost sight of the big picture.  If we allow each piece of the puzzle to stand alone then Bush et al can defend as they always do; however, if we stay focused on the corrupt administration as a whole, it will pull Bush down as the whole crumbles.  I am just hoping that Puffy McMoonface has insulted the MSM so much that now that they have some ammunition they will hound him until they break through that lying false front.  (Does anybody know how to make a c-cedilla so we can use the word, "facade?")  I heard him saying yesterday, "you know me" as a defense against having to answer whether he should finally come clean about Rove's guilt in the Plame matter.  I hope the MSM does "know him" as the rest of us "know him" and they stop accpeting what he tells them as if it is the gospel truth.  That will be a big step forward.  
    •  Have you been listening to Stephanie Miller? (none)
      As of today she's given up "Puffy McMoonface" in favor of Jim Ward's "Chummy McSharkbait". :->

      As for lowercase c-cedilla, this page tells you that the corresponding HTML entity is "& #231;" (take away the quotes and remove the space between the ampersand and the number sign). Thus: façade.

      "There's more than one answer to these questions, pointing me in a crooked line" - Indigo Girls

      by AlanF on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:49:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I do listen to Stephanie Miller. (none)
        In these dark times with this administration hanging over all our heads, I need to laugh in the morning.  I streamed her for several months and now Fresno has a progressive talk station and she is on live in the morning and is even replayed for an hour or so in the evening.  Unfortunately, KFPT plays Ed Schultz after Al Franken so I am back to streaming in the afternoon so I can listen to Randi Rhodes.  Yes, I heard the new name this morning but Puffy McM...seems so right for him.  Thank you also for the tip on the c-cedilla.
        •  I love Stephanie (none)
          I love Stephanie and her crew, I like Randi (though I dislike the way she treats callers), I'm neutral towards Al, and I can't stand Ed.

          "There's more than one answer to these questions, pointing me in a crooked line" - Indigo Girls

          by AlanF on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 08:29:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The Office of Special Plans (4.00)
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

    Rumsfeld and his colleagues believed that the C.I.A. was unable to perceive the reality of the situation in Iraq. "The agency was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism," the Pentagon adviser told me. "That's what drove them. If you've ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at C.I.A. that color the way it sees data." The goal of Special Plans, he said, was "to put the data under the microscope to reveal what the intelligence community can't see. Shulsky's carrying the heaviest part."

    ...

    In interviews, former C.I.A. officers and analysts described the agency as increasingly demoralized. "George knows he's being beaten up," one former officer said of George Tenet, the C.I.A. director. "And his analysts are terrified. George used to protect his people, but he's been forced to do things their way." Because the C.I.A.'s analysts are now on the defensive, "they write reports justifying their intelligence rather than saying what's going on. The Defense Department and the Office of the Vice-President write their own pieces, based on their own ideology. We collect so much stuff that you can find anything you want."

    •  Oops. Forgot to close my tag. (4.00)
      Anyay, sorry if I'm repeating myself but I can not understand for the life of me why the institutional design of the Office of Special Plans never gained much traction outside of few excellent journalists.  But was also the case during Watergate.
      •  Team B (4.00)
        Particularly considering the fact that this was just another incarnation of the "Team B" experiment from the mid-1970s.  Taken in this context everything that has happened involving the Office of Special Plans, the DSM, the outing of a CIA covert agent, etc. is just the continuation of a 30-year war against the CIA, conducted by the neocons.

        Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man - Bertrand Russell

        by mediaddict on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:48:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay excellent, but be pre-emptive... (none)
          I like that -- the 30 year War against the CIA conducted by neocons. But:

          The conventional wisdom (what a word...) amongst conservatives is that CLINTON cut the balls out of the US intelligence and military.

          And so a pre-emptive measure is needed to cut that off at the hip.

          Plus -- tell it to me like I'm a 6-year old:

          (devils's adovocate, mind you:)

          "Why would the NEOCONS wage war on the CIA? Are you nuts??!!"

    •  OSP (none)
      From the Center for Cooperative Research which has an excellent timeline, together with links, which unfortunately did not copy here:

      The OSP bypasses established oversight procedures by sending its intelligence assessments directly to the White House and National Security Council without having them first vetted by a review process involving other US intelligence agencies. [Guardian, 7/17/03; Salon, 7/16/03; New Yorker, 5/5/03; Mother Jones, 1/04 Sources: Unnamed senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war, David Obey, Greg Thielmann]  The people at Special Plans are so successful at bypassing conventional procedures, in part, because their neoconservative colleagues hold key positions in several other agencies and offices. Their contacts in other agencies include: John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International; Bolton's advisor, David Wurmser, a former research fellow on the Middle East at the American Enterprise Institute, who was just recently working in a secret Pentagon planning unit at Douglas Feith's office (see Shortly after September 11, 2001); Elizabeth Cheney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs; Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser; Elliott Abrams, The National Security Council's top Middle East aide; and Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey and Kenneth Adelman of the Defense Policy Board. The office provides very little information about its work to other US intelligence offices. [Inter Press Service, 8/7/03; Guardian, 7/17/03; Salon, 7/16/03 Sources: David Obey, Greg Thielmann, Karen Kwiatkowski, Unnamed An unnamed senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war]
      Lastly, the people involved in Special Plans openly exhibit strong pro-Israel and anti-Arab bias. The problem, note critics, is that the analysis of intelligence is supposed to be apolitical and untainted by ideological viewpoints. [American Conservative, 12/1/03 Sources: Karen Kwiatkowski] According to a CIA intelligence official and four members of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, Special Plans is the group responsible for the claim Bush will make in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from an African country (see January 28, 2003). [Information Clearing House, 7/16/03; The Nation, 6/19/03] After the existence of the Office of Special Plans is revealed to the public, the Pentagon will deny that it served as a direct conduit to the White House for misleading intelligence, instead claiming that its activities had been limited to postwar plans for Iraq. [New Yorker, 5/5/03] And a December 2003 opinion piece published in Insight magazine will call the allegations surrounding the Office of Special Plans the work of conspiracy theorists. [Insight, 12/2/03]
      People and organizations involved: Elliott Abrams, Colin Powell, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Colonel Bruner, Stephen Hadley, Newt Gingrich, Elizabeth Cheney, Karen Kwiatkowski, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Abram Shulsky, Kenneth Adelman, David Wurmser
      Center for Cooperative Research   (Scroll down to September 2002)
  •  Excellent insight... (4.00)
    ...and the perfect narrative.

    Every conversation about Rove should really be about the fact that, as most Americans now believe, we we're lied to about the Iraq War and WMD. This is one of the bigger lies.

    It was meant to silence someone who actually knew that there were no nukes in Iraq. And because the lie revealed the identity of a CIA agent and an intelligence operation she was part of that was trying to stop the spread of real WMDs, this lie is a felony and possibly treason.

    Rinse and repeat.

    •  Gut feeling (none)
      The answers to all of the questions raised/pieces of the puzzle are in the documents that John Conyers requested re:  FOIA.

      "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

      by Street Kid on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 06:24:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  just watched Charlie Rose on PBS re: Rove (none)
      "controversy" with ABC's Terry Moran and Richard Stevenson from the New York Times.

      Audio appears to be available the following day:
      http:www.charlierose.com/index.shtm

      Very interesting, the lack of background provided was kind of stunning, it assumed the audience was filled in completely on the dynamics, the end result for someone who wasn't filled in I think was to dismiss it as "politics"--on purpose, don't know.

      Anyway, Moran thinks the WH believes this will go away, drowned out by Iraq, SCOTUS, etc.  He seemed to agree, though he said he'd never seen the press corp in quite the mode as the last two days.  Did say if the story gets traction with the public it will be because of the lies, not the story itself.

      Lots of other stuff here, final impression for me was these guys don't seem to know what their jobs are, don't understand the implications of the leak for national security, or were almost trying to actively downplay that end of the story.  Maybe they were just in inside speak mode with lots of assumptions they weren't sharing with avg. folks like me.

      Listening is where love begins: listening to ourselves and then to our neighbors. Mister Rogers

      by station wagon on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 10:08:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Probably no background intentionally (none)
        Charlie Rose was a big supporter if the Iraq War. And when he interviewed Richard Clarke, following Clarke's testimony, he literally seemed clueless. i used to like Rose 5 years or so ago. I don't know if my taste got better or if he just has dropped in capability and integrity.

        There is no doubt about it - Charlie was pro war in a big way.

  •  Follow the lies (4.00)
    As I've said on another thread, Rove's leak occurred to insure the public stayed misinformed about the need to invade Iraq.  This campaign of misinformation is the far greater crime here.  If these stories meet anywhere it will be systematic shaping of public opinion using highly selective evidence.

    To turn a phrase from All the Presidents Men, follow the lies.

    Rove is to Progressives, what McCarthy was to Communists.

    by Bryce in Seattle on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:11:51 PM PDT

  •  Can't believe I'm (3.80)
    pimping my own diary again, but you are right on, and here are some facts to back up your assertions:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/9/135736/6735

    One thing to remember with the new Republican "he was just correcting a false story" spin - in essence these Repubs are, by saying this, tangentially participating in the cover up of a pattern of crimes of the highest level.

    Those Niger documents have been proven false.  Rove wasn't correcting.  He was MISdirecting, at the very least, away from what he knew was false intl.

    "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by hopesprings on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:14:04 PM PDT

    •  Pimp away, babe (4.00)
      "correcting a false story" = Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    •  As long as you can't believe it (4.00)
      Hopesprings, then I won't believe I'm going to pimp my own.

      LISTEN UP KOSMOPOLITANS, YOU IGNORED THIS LAST WEEK WHEN I POSTED IT HERE, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL READING ABOUT DSM!!

      A diary published two years ago by one of Blair's closest confidents, Robin Cook, supports our interpretation of DSM very strongly. It flatly contradicts the Blair/Bush spin that claims we're just taking the document out of context. Please read this diary. Though it is very long, every word I quote from Cook is pure gold for anybody who wants to counter the GOP spin.

      DSM Watch - Day 69: When will Bush and Cheney finally read the documents?

      by smintheus on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:28:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah Smintheus (none)
        I was NOT one who ignored that diary!

        And it was an amazing new bit of information.  I only hope Conyers is putting this together for his inquiry...

        "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

        by hopesprings on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 05:00:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I know you commented on it (none)
          and that's why it occured to me to pimp the diary as a footnote to your comment. Thanks for looking in on it. Obviously I agree that Cook's comments are hugely important, or I wouldn't keep pushing them.

          DSM Watch - Day 69: When will Bush and Cheney finally read the documents?

          by smintheus on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 06:27:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  And even worse... (4.00)
      The Repubs are continuously perpetrating the lie the Plame authorized Wilson's trip to Niger. FALSE! Plame didn't have the authority to ok Wilson's trip. She may have suggested Wilson's name, but he knew the Uranium business in Africa, and was eminently qualified, having been an Ambassador to Niger. Who could be more qualified?

      Wilson's problem (from the Bush perspective) is that he is honest. This is a capital offense in Bushworld, of course.

      Wilson showed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was impossible for Niger to sell Iraq Uranium yellowcake, because of the multinational consortium that controls the mines. Saddam would have had to negotiate with French, German and other country representatives.

      This point is consistently ignored by the MSM. Drives me CRAZY!

  •  Good Job (none)
    We need to tie Rove to several other scandals (and the larger narrative) so that when he gets cut loose the media can't say "ok, on to the next shark attack".

    I think they will cut Rove loose, and we need to be ready when they do.

    Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by racerx on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:31:53 PM PDT

  •  Hunter diaried similarly (none)
    Here.

    Among his points:Be careful how much you read a direct Bolton-Plame connection into this, however -- the odds that Bolton is tied directly to the Plame case are, from past known evidence, remote.

    If you have been framed, the only response is to reframe.--George Lakoff

    by bobinkc on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:37:04 PM PDT

    •  Bolton is not connected to Plame (4.00)
      as far as I know.

      Both are connected to the manipulation of intelligence using confidential information to mislead and betray the American people as documented in the DSM.

      It's like if you believe in evolution, you don't believe that humans are descended from apes, but that both are descended from a common ancestor. A chimp-like creature, perhaps.

      •  Bolton and the phony yellow-cake documents (none)
        I believe that Bolton was the author of the yellow-cake uranium story. At the least he, personally, was pushing the yellow-cake purchase story. So Wilson in discrediting the story also discredits Bolton. Bolton is tied in here very substantially.

        It has been offered that the Wilson outing was due to Bolton's displeasure.

    •  Josh Marshall has a different POV (4.00)
      and a link to interesting speculation that includes Bolton and Judith Miller.

      <snip>

      A reader over at TPMCafe suggests that the Plame case may end up being tied to John Bolton, because of some evidence that strongly suggests the particular piece of information about Plame came out of a classified memo from State.

      I suspect that's likely true. But it's only a part of the story.

      If you go back and trace out just what happened as the phoney Niger papers, and the reports based on them, made their circuitous way through the executive branch -- and this using both public information and stuff from reporting -- an odd and at first hard to explain pattern emerges.

      Confidence in the documents kept getting knocked down. But someone or some group kept giving them fresh life. And, improbably, those someones seemed to be at the State Department.

      </snip>

      http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

      It is better to die standing than to live on your knees. - Emiliano Zapata

      by cotterperson on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 02:48:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hunter's diary (none)
      I spent quite a long time reading through that diary and thinking about it. And still I can't help but think that either Bolton or someone else a whole lot like him is behind this.

      Somehow the info about Mrs. Wilson's other identity got to Rove, and we don't yet know how. (Perheps through Judith Wilson?) But it's exactly Bolton's m.o. to eliminate anyone who wasn't playing along with his game of distorting intelligence, and clearly Plame's group wasn't playing along.

      The line out of the MSM was: "This was just done as revenge against Wilson, out of pure meanness and spite." But I have to wonder now if that tidbit was spread as disinformation too.

      •  oops... (none)
        Not "Judith Wilson" but "Judith Miller." Brain cramp.
        •  asdf (none)
          There is another aspect to this that I haven't seen spoken of very often (although I have seen a few comment on it). Plame's cover was as an executive for Brewster, Jennings and Associates. This company was a long-standing CIA front that provided intel. on a wide variety of subjects. One of their main subjects was ARAMCO (Saudi Arabia's shady national oil company). As Melody mentions upthread, this all ties together, has the same cast of characters and all leads back to 1 thing: OIL. After her outing, BJ&A was forced to close up shop (I've heard speculation that their were deaths), thus reducing the amount of intel. that we are able to garner about ARAMCO. As someone mentioned upthread...There was a great deal discussed during those secret energy meetings attended by the VP. I would venture to guess that Iraqi oil was at the top of their agenda.

          If you turn enough corners, all you're doing is walking in circles.

          by green917 on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 09:39:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  ... and the policy was disastrous (none)
    The facts were being fixed around the policy of forcing an invasion of Iraq by any means necessary... and the policy was disastrous, leaving everyone much worse off.

    "There's more than one answer to these questions, pointing me in a crooked line" - Indigo Girls

    by AlanF on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 01:40:49 PM PDT

  •  Part of an ongoing investigation... (none)
    This connection seems apt in many ways, though I am certainly not suggesting there is evidence right now of a direct connection between these events.

    But why would the White House withhold classified Bolton information from a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Who was Bolton investigating, and why? Some have suggested he was researching political opponents, including congresscritters, which obviously would put a damper on his confirmation hearings.

    And what if it were something a bit more sinister. Could it be possible that Valerie Plame is one of the recipients of Bolton's tough love?

    We'll never know, will we, since the WH refuses to release the records. At least Bolton's nomination appears to be dying on the vine...

    •  OK (none)
      I should read before commenting.

      Clearly this is well-covered (not to mention tendentious) ground.

      Please ignore previous comment.

      •  not really covered. (none)
        Thanks.  I've been thinking the same thing about Bolton - Plame.  I haven't read Hunter's piece that is quoted as saying there is no connection between the two yet, -

        But, how 'bout the documents the Senate committee can't get?  Bolton was requesting documents regarding certain analysts.  Maybe he got info on a certain agent, too.  That would sure explain why the WH will not give it up.

        Ken Salazar (D-CO), who said he'll vote for the Flag Desecration Amendment, needs to hear from us.

        by OLinda on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 08:27:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well (none)
    Just got an email from Kerry with a form letter to fill out to the White House requesting ROves resignation or firing
  •  FOLLS on Rove - "Worst then Watergate" (none)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

  •  GO VOTE! Voting Link


    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

  •  GO VOTE!  Voting Link


    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

  •  TONIGHT'S SHOW

  •  Connecting the dots from 9/11 (none)
    and the chain...Miller, Novak, Chalabi, Libby, Hannah, Cheney, Rove, Cooper betrayed the country, blamed everything on Tenet.  Tenet, "rewarded" (told to shut up) now working to bring down this "vast, right wing conspiracy."

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 02:19:10 PM PDT

  •  Could not agree more (none)
    I was a little reticent in reading this diary, because I wrongly assumed it was the who "Bolton leaked the name to Rove" wildly speculative version of ClueTM that some what to play.

    Your diary surprised me as being far more germane and relevant that the parlor game of trying to create some expansive who-dunnit mosiac of the mona Lisa with only 3 differnet tiles.

    Well done.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

    by Lestatdelc on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 02:19:48 PM PDT

  •  Corrupt Strategy by the President n/t (none)
  •  Yes, yes, yes... (none)
    Can't say more...

    ===== "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Cristopher Hitchens

    by durrenm on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 03:19:42 PM PDT

  •  That's the Repbulican way (none)
    Come up with general ideas and then mold the specifics to fit that frame.  Though sometimes they don't even bother with the evidence.  My favorite example of this is Condi Rice to Barbara Boxer: " "But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity."  Rice suggests that Boxer should not suggest that has a deficiency of integrity, implicitly because she is a person of integrity.  Never mind the abundance of evidence to the contrary.
    •  missed opportunity (none)
      > My favorite example of this is Condi Rice to Barbara Boxer:
      >"But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity."

      I was most disappointed that Sen. Boxer didn't come back with, "Madam, your integrity is exactly what's in question here." Because in fact it was, and it still is.

  •  you forgot cheney (none)
    should read Cheney,Rove, Bolton, DSM all one story
    hersh tells it
     http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?040209fr_archive02
  •  Thanks for this Diary (4.00)
    It cuts the fat and gets to the beef. I was immediately inspired to do some satirical pics.

    "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" -George Washington

    by House on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 04:19:43 PM PDT

  •  On this same vein.... (none)
    Who's looking forward to the Karen Hughes confirmation hearings???  Bet she has a lot to share with us about the activities of the Iraq Working Group.. might we ask her if she is the other "Senior Administration official" Novak cites in his column?
  •  There are MORE in State/INR that need to step out (none)
    The hit list of INR people at State grows long; Greg Thielman, Carl Ford, the two analysts, Christian Westerman and Fulton Armstrong, and don't forget the story of John Kokal, may he rest in peace.  Guess what folks, there are more... let's hope for the good of the Nation they step forward as well.

    There is some REAL ABUSE of assets going on through Bolton, Rove and the Office of Special Plans (OSP) crowd who are using these resources to harass the "unbelievers".  Keep digging, there are more stories of this purging of intell people of reason, they do exsist, that's a fact.

    The chairs of the Senate and House select committees on intelligence need to be exposed for tabling the "phase II" investigation of the OSP's role on the WMD and justification for Iraq.  That's where the Watergate style docs are, just need to keep at it.

    Ray McGovern (VIPS) and a couple others have found the trail, but they need our support.

  •  Fixing facts around policy (4.00)
    can be seen outside the realm of Iraq also.  The Bush gang has "fixed" facts on global warming and reproductive health by deleting information from government websites and censoring educational health programs.
  •  Bolton to UN (none)
      Just posted on another site; in a recess appointment, from WaPo. Will try to confirm.
    •  But it hasn't happened yet (whew)... (none)
      Note this quote:
      Two months ago, while his confirmation was in trouble, Bolton began efforts to double the office space reserved within the State Department for the ambassador to the United Nations, according to three senior department officials who were involved in handling the request.

      Previous ambassadors have kept a small staff in Washington in a modest suite. Bolton told several colleagues he needs more space and a larger staff in Washington because, if confirmed, he intends to spend more time here than his predecessors did.

      "Bolton isn't going to sit in New York while policy gets made in Washington," the administration source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the source lacks authorization to discuss this on the record. But Bolton's efforts to obtain more space have encountered resistance. Two colleagues said Bolton's request was inappropriate because he had not been confirmed.

      Hubris indeed. Gaaaccckkkk!
  •  Rove doesn't matter. Bush Matters. (none)
    The Rove inquiry is absolutely meaninglesss unless it effects Bush and Cheney.

    WMD and DSM and Jeff Gannon even. Nothing seems to matter.

    The fact that this is a LEGAL procedure may have an impact. But I for one don't know what Fitzgerald's sympathies are.

    •  This will affect Bush and Cheney (4.00)
      Trust me. Who were Bolton and Rove doing all this for? And who's protecting (in fact, rewarding) them now? And who is the other traitor in the White House? Remember, there was another source...yeah, this is gonna hurt.
  •  This connects the dots very nicely (none)
    Just read a lot of TalkingPointsMemo café where there were admonishments to remember this Rove story is about promoting and later justifying the invasion of Iraq. The revenge against Joe Wilson and his wife was a side-effect of the dirty tricks. The real objective was to discredit Wilson's report from his Niger trip. It did not please "The White House Iraq Group."

       
    The White House Iraq Group.
    The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.

        Systematic coordination began in August [2002], when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."

        The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. http://tinyurl.com/7kdd7


    To thine own self be true - W.S.

    by Agathena on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 02:03:11 AM PDT

  •  And why has it taken the investigation 2 years (none)
    to uncover what was common knowledge almost immediately after the leak? That also reaks of coverup and manipulation by the white house.

    Bush has the charisma and mindset of Jim Jones. Remember how Jonestown ended?

    by CitizenOfEarth on Wed Jul 13, 2005 at 05:21:32 AM PDT

  •  This Is What Patriots Should Have Been Shouting (none)
    from the floor of congress, from the editorial pages, and from the halls of learning for the last two years.  The fact that we have allowed the Bush party to compartmentalize their misdeeds in order to keep the citizenry confused about the breadth and depth of their ambitions and venality is our shame.  

    I would suggest that all of us use this post as a source for writing letters to our respective editors.  This is exactly the information that less informed Americans need to understand.  Highly recommended.

Chris Bowers, thirdparty, Bob Johnson, reef the dog, wozzle, Rob C, pedant, bink, Lestatdelc, Cricket, chezgle, paradox, Susan S, zzyzx, libby, astrolad, cvcobb01, zane, pb, Hubris Sonic, Jimmy Jazz, Tug, Irfo, CrazyDem, QWQ, Alexa, Nathan in MN, Ben P, knowthings, Trendar, glitterscale, miasmo, eebee, rhfactor, sharronmar, mikeb42, 2pt5cats, joeltpatterson, Tuffy, RINO, Alan S, wytcld, jjc4jre, bosdcla14, Citizen Clark, supergreen, Robespierrette, Yoshimi, B Rubble, cotterperson, lysias, KateG, Mnemosyne, figdish, hfiend, bcb, Voodoo, TarheelDem, pseudomass, frisco, velvetdays, lawnorder, dash888, caliberal, Bryce in Seattle, ilona, technopolitical, zeitshabba, TexasDemocrat, Vitarai, RubDMC, Jean, humbucker, Polarmaker, bara, Microangelo, mlafleur, fabacube, thalio, kwinz, Glickman, mediaddict, Joe Sixpack, TracieLynn, Dazy, DrKate, ProfessorX, amsterdam, SamSinister, guyute16, Doc Allen, understandinglife, sja, Billy Shears, colinb, Baldwiny, maxschell, Agathena, blueherring, redpeter, obgynlover, shock, digital drano, ksh01, linh, Scoopster, pixelthief, mrblifil, Kerry Conservative, xopher, Nicholas Phillips, Seemabes, sgilman, marylrgn, simplicity7, nargel, jbeach, bribone, res, itskevin, Brian Nowhere, madfgurtbn, Terre, fumie, tlyw, Jesterfox, Gonzophile, diana04, mosolino, antirove, missmann, Alna Dem, bejammin075, Alohaleezy, DemocracyLover in NYC, Cy Guy, Oke, kharma, entiel, rcvanoz, oldjohnbrown, Stand Strong, astrodud, AskQuestions, epochsounds, nj mom, pointsoflight, casperr, 49blue, kenjib, Red State Refugee, I like Ike, Hawksana, Fernando Poo, wdrath, OuijaBoy, GN1927, mcolley, PitPat, nika7k, sgoldinger, cat chew, The Zipper, Calidrissp, A Ball of Lint, graciella, rlharry, lecsmith, lcrp, East Bay Molly Girl, 313to212, Street Kid, inclusiveheart, towit, outragedinSF, Cablep, Levity, tf cappello, NewAmerica, mattes, In A World Gone Mad, Deward Hastings, Marianne Benz, Steven D, HK, alix, vacantlook, BrianVA, BigBite, jerbear57, demandcaring, Mikecan1978, rockmoonwater, kzoo leftie, bibble, Timroff, Graff4Dean, pontechango, Blueiz, Shapeshifter, macmcd, Hector Solon, Gowrie Gal, Hgrove, jbane, leolabeth, jack rance, Skennet Boch, Los Diablo, bayareadem, Slackjawed, Leslie H, Bluesee, Tarindel, saodl, 3goldens, t v d, TxTiger, kingubu, bellevie, Bensch, Elise, Alegre, m16eib, alopour, chinook, Independent Musings, ignorant bystander, whatsleft, irate, Mike A, Luetta, msilvers, clammyc, ZappoDave, station wagon, RequestedUsername, Darth Codis, theglobalizer, sbaecker, myeye, new creve coeur, humdog, Yestermorrow, reflectionsv37, non cest non, eru, homeland observer, lennysfo, Annalize5, zombie, Viceroy, Sharon in MD, Michael Alton Gottlieb, Karmafish, zenbot, ab initio, since1969, jabbausaf

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site