Skip to comments.Hannity - Live Thread
Posted on 10/24/2005 11:49:49 AM PDT by AliVeritas
All welcome. Come and discuss.
(Excerpt) Read more at wabcradio.com ...
Cuss and discuss? Starts in about 10 minutes.
Allen will be on. Brit. Flamegate and the real story on Fitzgerald. Chuckie slamming (always good).
What did I miss dc?
Loved the ebay spot... genius.
no ping for me... I feel soo unwanted
I got a kick out of the user who asked if it comes with a bag of ice. :)
thanks for the ping
Howdy....need a tissue?
Now lets talk about Able Danger Sean!
RATS haven't given up. Same playbook, different year:
Pittsburgh Tribune Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/s_164229.html
The Rockefeller memo: Whiff of treason
Sunday, November 9, 2003
A leaked memo from the office of West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller urges fellow Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to use its probe into Iraq war planning as a staging ground to beat President Bush.
It calls for an independent investigation of the president next year, timed for maximum negative impact on Mr. Bush's re-election effort.
The implications of the document are plain.
" ... (W)e have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war."
Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., condemned the memo as "politics in its most raw form." Mr. Rockefeller, who voted for the war and is the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the memo was a draft never circulated.
But he did not repudiate its contents.
Hence, as to their constitutional purpose, the hearings are irrelevant. Their object is not to seek the truth and in so doing offer a means to improve intelligence-gathering, which is the committee's portfolio.
They are instead to be a platform for garnering information against the White House by trolling classified material and employing it to the maximum political effect.
If this is not an ethics violation it ought to be. If this does not contain the whiff of treason, the word has no meaning.
THE SENATE INTEL REPORT: SO MUCH FOR 'BUSH LIED'
New York Post ^ | 07/10/04 | John Podhoretz
Posted on 07/10/2004 5:21:28 AM EDT by conservative in nyc
THE Senate Intelligence Committee report on the intelligence failures governing run-up to the Iraq war is a devastating document
for those who might have thought the sole reason to go to war in 2003 was Saddam Hussein's presumed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
The thing is, I don't know a single such person.
Those who supported the war, in overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for it.
Those who opposed and oppose it, in equally overwhelming numbers, weren't swayed by the WMD arguments. Indeed, many of them had no difficulty opposing the war while believing that Saddam possessed vast quantities of such weapons.
Take Sen. Edward Kennedy. "We have known for many years," he said in September 2002, "that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And yet only a few weeks later he was one of 23 senators who voted against authorizing the Iraq war.
Take French President Jacques Chirac, who believed Saddam had WMDs and still did everything in his power to block the war.
So whether policymakers supported or opposed the war effort was not determined by their conviction about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, politicians supported or opposed the war for the same reasons they support or oppose almost anything.
Some believed the war was necessary; others believed it counterproductive. Some believed their vote, for or against, would help their party. Some took whatever side they believed the voters back home wanted.
And some like the two men who make up the Democratic presidential ticket clearly chose sides based on their fear of being on the wrong side of a triumphant war as they looked ahead to facing the American people in 2004.
Yes, those of us who backed the war believed Saddam possessed WMDs but not in such quantities that it would make taking out his regime an impossibility (as seems to be the case with the nuke-possessing North Korea).
We also knew he had used chemical weapons inside his own country and against Iran.
We knew he was one of the world's leading terrorist sponsors, offering safe haven in Baghdad to some of the world's worst terrorists and paying $25,000 a head to encourage suicide bombers to strike inside Israel.
And we knew that the sanctions regime against him was eroding. We feared that Iraq would soon break loose from international restraint and would then be in a position to do things we didn't think Saddam had yet been able to do like build a nuclear weapon and give it to a terrorist group.
The basis for the war in Iraq was not that Saddam could kill us all in 2003. It was that he might be in a position to do us and the world incomparable harm in the coming decade, and that the lesson of 9/11 was that (as President Bush said in June 2002) "if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
Nothing in the Senate report vitiates that terrifyingly vital set of concerns.
The report condemns the CIA for overstating the intelligence it did have on Iraq's weaponry. But it doesn't claim that the CIA actively discarded or disregarded contravening evidence.
There was almost no evidence that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction until after the war was won and we began looking for them.
Let me cite the most dramatic example I've found so far in this lengthy report.
In July 2003, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson claimed he had proof that the administration ignored anti-WMD information because he had gone to Niger for the CIA and reported back that there was no evidence Iraq had obtained uranium there.
The White House knew of his mission, Wilson said, and therefore had trumped up charges about Iraq's nuclear program.
This was the first source of the "BUSH LIED" trope that has become a staple of the Left over the past year.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has an eye-opening refutation of all this:
"Because CIA analysts did not believe that the [Wilson] report added any new information to clarify the issue," the report states flatly on page 46, "they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. CIA's briefer did not brief the vice president on the report, despite the vice president's previous questions about the issue."
The Senate report has determined unquestioningly that Dick Cheney never heard about Wilson's trip. A major "BUSH LIED" pillar has just collapsed.
Indeed, the report destroys the entire edifice of the "BUSH LIED" temple. Here's the key sentence:
"The committee found no evidence that the [intelligence community's] mischaracterization or exaggeration of weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure."
This sentence, on the second page of the report's conclusions, was agreed to, unanimously, by the members of the Senate committee, including every Democrat.
Some of them, disgracefully, are already claiming that they don't think that sentence means what it says.
In other words, THEY LIE.
More here: Democrat's Secret Plan Exposed: Undermine America
Heeeeeeeeeeere! LOL - working and lurking
I saw that on Ebay!! Too funny.
Sorry, was on the phone with a certain show host (if I tell, you must die), got distracted... You are usually the first on the list. I must fix my MS Word.
Where are they getting these leaks?
"Now lets talk about Able Danger Sean!"
I second that emotion...
Senate Intel Report Goes According to Anti-Bush Plan
NewsMax.com ^ | 7/12/04 | Carl Limbacher
Posted on 07/12/2004 12:38:49 PM EDT by kattracks
A Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday that concludes the Bush administration used false information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to lead America into war follows a secret plan hatched by Committee Democrats last year to damage President Bush's reelection prospects.
"Most of the major key judgments" on the Iraqi weapons threat were "either overstated, or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting," the Committee report said. "A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of intelligence." While Republican Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts emphasized that the fault lie primarily with the CIA, ranking Democrat Sen. Jay Rockefeller did his best to turn the report into an indictment of the White House, claiming without evidence that Bush officials pressured the intelligence community.
Interviewed this weekend on "Meet the Press," for instance, the West Virginia Democrat complained, "Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. - they were putting out these hair-raising, paralyzing, horrifying statements about what was going to happen, was about to come back to the homeland, the mushroom cloud. This is pressure, folks. This is pressure."
The report's conclusions were just what the doctor ordered for Democrats, who plotted last year to unleash as much damaging information as they could once the presidential campaign heated up.
"Our plan is as follows," a still unidentified staffer for Sen. Rockefeller wrote in a confidential memo obtained by radio host Sean Hannity in November.
"Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials."
The names of Bush officials cited by Sen. Rockefeller on "Meet the Press" were among those targeted in the document, which became known as "The Hannity Memo."
"The chairman [Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department."
The Democrat memo continued:
"We may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry."
The Hannity memo's summary section leaves no doubt about the Democratic plan to turn the Iraq intelligence controversy into a political weapon.
"We have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war," the anonymous Rockefeller strategist wrote.
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."
In more evidence that Sen. Roberts allowed his Democratic colleagues to control the investigative agenda, key weapons discoveries in Iraq were either downplayed or ignored in the Committee's report, including:
The discovery of two tons of low enriched uranium at Saddam Hussein's massive al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons plant, which, according to U.S. scientists, could have been refined to make at leat one nuclear bomb.
The discovery of hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium at the same location.
More than a dozen artillary shells containing Sarin and mustard gas, uncovered in just the last month.
30 state-of-the-art Soviet-built fighter aircraft, found buried beneath the sand near Baghdad last July.
A fleet of Iraqi al-Samoud II missiles with a range of 93 miles - far in excess of the range allowed under the first Gulf War cease fire agreement.
A terrorist camp complete with a Boeing 707 fuselage where radical Islamists trained to hijack U.S. aircraft before Sept. 11.
A list of suspects harbored by Iraq's government that reads like a Who's Who of global terrorism, including 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, Achille Lauro hijacker Abu Abbas and al Qaeda kingpin Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was treated for leg injuries in a hostpital run by Saddam's son Uday.
Go ask a question if you have time.
Article he's referencing:
How about the Matthews or Russert calls?
He said Chucky... DRINK!
What I really enjoy is the outpouring of angst before any reports or indictments are released/handed down ... Either the ship of state is imperiled with leaks sufficient to render it unseaworthy or the conjecture level has gone critical.
I'm getting my friends to ask questions later, repost the link.
LOL ... startin early eh?
I will not post the thread. I will not post the thread.
I will not post the thread. I will not post the thread.
I will not post the thread. I will not post the thread.
I will not post the thread. I will not post the thread.
SUSAN ESTRICH BEING EVISCERATED ON EBAY.....hopefully, damage is being done to Hillary.
I am fine now, I just scrolled down to see Ali had not omitted me on purpose...
Since it is Monday.. I choose to believe it...LOL :)
I know and I'm not telling. Don't hurt me. I have some painting to finish, but I heard Sean's intro to the show and I fear I must listen for a while.
I'm waiting for the Great One's show. There needs to be so many hours separation between shows for my liver to recover!
See you soon!
It'd be a wonderful thing to have Juanita call in the next time Sean has Suzy Creamcheese on his show ... woohooo.
Re: Katrina and NOLA
" Corps documents and hydrodynamic models run through a Louisiana State University supercomputer -- are the work of three teams of engineers and forensic experts conducting separate probes. The investigations are shedding light not only on the cause of the failures but also the scale of the rebuilding effort: The discovery of major flaws in the design of the city's levees and floodwalls could add billions of dollars to the cost of New Orleans' recovery.
Investigators already have rejected the initial explanation offered by Corps officials in the hurricane's aftermath that massive storm surges had overtopped and overwhelmed floodwalls on the 17th Street and London Avenue canals on the north side of town. The new findings for the first time point to a human role in all three of the major floodwall failures that left about 100,000 homes underwater and caused most of Louisiana's approximately 1,000 hurricane deaths.
Experts now believe that Katrina was no stronger than a Category 3 storm when it roared into New Orleans, and Congress had directed the Corps to protect the city from just such a hurricane.
"This was not the Big One -- not even close," said Hassan Mashriqui, a storm surge expert at LSU's Hurricane Center. He said that Katrina would have caused some modest flooding and wind damage regardless, but that human errors turned "a problem into a catastrophe."
It'd be a wonderful thing to have Juanita call in the next time Sean has Suzy Creamcheese on his show ... woohooo.
That's my dream come true! Sean wouldn't ambush Estrich like that though. (Another Republican who is too nice to fight but hey....that's why I love em. And, come to think of it, why I can't stand them sometimes.)
Possible corruption? Substandard building materials and so on?
The leaks are coming from the Marxists / Arabists who make up a lot of the permanent bureaucracy at the CIA, the State Department, and other government agencies. They view themselves primarily as "citizens of the world" rather than primarily American citizens. The side with America's enemies and against our friends (like Israel). They are the enemy within.
Dear Laurie, "I saw you on FOX Friday [7/11/03] with John Gibson and noted what you said about what a former CIA agent told you in Fox's Green Room shortly after 9-11, just before you were to go on the air: "[We] can go to war [in Iraq] on the basis of WMD, but not on the basis of terrorism."
The enemy within is much more dangerous than the enemy without." ~ Matchett-PI Sunday, 7-13-2003
"Dear [Matchett-PI], Thanks very much for your exceedingly kind comments. And I'm most appreciative that you picked up that remark: You can go to war on the basis of the WMD, but not on the basis of terrorism.
That is why Bush has been unable to explain why we fought this war. You're absolutely right about the enemy within. " - Laurie Mylroie Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:52:30 -0400
Excerpted from my 7/15/03 thread, here:
"Free Republic is a great place--a lot of people read it." ~ Dr. Laurie Mylroie
Dr. Laurie Mylroie ^ | July 15, 2003 | Dr. Laurie Mylroie Posted on 07/16/2003 1:18:30 PM EDT by Matchett-PI
Bush vs The Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror
Amazon.com ^ | 7-29-03 | Laurie Mylroie Posted on 07/29/2003 12:31:38 PM EDT by Matchett-PI Just released today!
Bush vs. the Beltway : How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror (Hardcover)
by Laurie Mylroie http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060580127/104-4220677-8910314?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
The truth behind the "mainstream media" story on Iraq, April 6, 2004
Reviewer: Thomas G Holt (Newburgh, NY United States) - See all my reviews
Laurie Milroie writes a very convincing book on the truth behind the conflict between the CIA and the White House. This is a very insightful book on what goes on behind the scenes in Washington.
The CIA and the State Dept had evidence of the complicity between Al Queada and Saddam Hussien. Laurie clearly details why the itelligence was not and is not still the Public knowledge norm for the war in Iraq.
It seems clear that the CIA to avoid embarrasment and for fear of losing power inside of Washington is continously discrediting such information to this day. Not only did the CIA endanger our national security before 9/11 it is till doing so in a power struugle in our intelligence community today.
Laurie also detail meetings between Iraqi intelligence and Muhammed Atta in the Chec Repuclic before the 9/11 attacks. The Checks still very much say this meeting took place. Yet this report is discredited by anoynomous leaks coming from sources inside the CIA.
Also very important links show how Iraqi intelligence altered records of terrorists in Kuwati intelligence files during their occupation of Kuwait during the first Gulf War. There same terrorists are the very ones behind attacks on the USS Cole, The First World Trade Center Bombing, The Sept 11 attacks. Laurie also sheds light on Saddams revenge tactics on Egypt for participation in the first Gulf War. Saddam was complicit in a major terrorist attack on the tourists at Luxor in 1997.
Saddam and his regimes evil is very much a subject of Ms Mylroies book which makes the most important humanitarian reason for the war in Iraq. Saddam was funneling money from the oil for food program and using it for his own weapons programs and funding of terrorist camps inside of Iraq. Which the main stream media refuses to admit Al Queada members trained in to hijack airplanes.
All this while his people starved. Or if you openly dissented you where killed or tortured, or your family was tortured in front of you. And the U.N. and the world community did nothing. Read this book. You will learn alot of the inner workings inside the beltway. And Praise G.W. Bush for fighting a just war in Iraq. Thank You Laurie Mylroie
Now out in paperback:
Laurie Mylroie on C-SPAN (Bush and the Beltway)
http://www.c-span.org/ ^ Posted on 12/25/2004 9:11:05 AM EST by leadpenny
She is emphasizing again that Saddam was deeply involved with those who planned the 9-11 attack. She also said that Tenet should not have received a medal and should have been fired long before he left the CIA.
2 posted on 12/25/2004 9:18:46 AM EST by leadpenny
From: "Laurie Mylroie" email@example.com
Subject: Bush vs the Beltway--Paperback Release
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:42:39 -0400
For Immediate Release Contact: Lila Haber 212/207-7035 firstname.lastname@example.org
BUSH VS THE BELTWAY: The Inside Battle Over War In Iraq By Laurie Mylroie
"In face of the glibly-repeated slogan that America is 'in search of enemies,' Laurie Mylroie shows that many in our intelligence establishment are fatally unable to recognize an enemy even when they meet one. A caustic and spirited statement of the original case for regime change." --Christopher Hitchens
"This revealing and important book underscores the gravity of the threat that faced the country on 9/11 and the truly heroic nature of President Bush's decision to confront it, as well as the unbelievable (for many Americans) obstructionism of the bureaucracies. The phony furor over Iraq's weapons is merely the latest phase in the Washington bureaucratic war. Mylroie wants answers to hard questions--and so will you." --Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
A key document in the ongoing policy debate...marshals a lot of persuasive evidence. Booklist
Laurie Mylroies previous books on Iraq, The War Against America, and the #1 New York Times bestseller, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf (co-authored with Judith Miller) made the persuasive case that Saddam Husseins regime had a long history of brutality and state sponsorship of terror.
Now in her latest book, BUSH VS THE BELTWAY: The Inside Battle Over War in Iraq (ReganBooks; on-sale August 2004; Trade Paperback; $14.95) she takes on the story behind the buildup to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Combining groundbreaking new research with an insiders understanding of the workings of Washington, Mylroie describes how forces WITHIN the CIA and the State Department have conspired to falsely discredit crucial intelligence about Saddam Husseins regime, from his links to al Qaeda to his development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry. She charges the bureaucrats of these agencies with cynical, self-serving behavior, designed to help them save face even at the expense of our national security.
Mylroie describes how major elements of the case against Iraqfrom new information about the al-Qaeda terrorists links to Iraq, to potential Iraq involvement in the fall 2001 anthrax attackswere suppressed or prematurely dismissed by the CIA and the State Department. She reveals how the very idea of state-sponsored terrorism had been pronounced dead after the 1993 World Trade Center bombingthereby giving states like Iraq the perfect cover to carry out well-orchestrated terrorist acts without ever being detected.
In what will surely be seen as the controversial book of the decade, Mylroie asserts that:
the peace and prosperity created by the Clinton administration was in essence an illusion during which our government failed to recognize and handle the growing threat of Iraqs arms build-up in the wake of the Gulf War, particularly its biological program. the concept of Islamic fanatical terrorist factions that are independent of any state backing is inaccurate and altogether false. all evidence points to a strong relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda operatives at a senior level, indicating that terrorist factions may, in fact, be a ruse to cover up Iraqs agenda. on the afternoon of September 11th, Donald Rumsfeld gave the order to start looking at Iraq, as well as al Qaeda, and that plans for war with Iraq were already in the making as we attacked Afghanistan.
the CIA has time and time again used methods to divert the government from pursuing the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. the proposed centralization of intelligence may, in fact, be the worst scenario for keeping America alert to the deceptions of our enemies.
BUSH VS THE BELTWAY presents astonishing facts that will lead readers to re-examine their own perceptions of the war and wonder what else we dont know.
In the chapter Deception and Self-Deception, Mylroie recounts the military tactics of deception and denial used by the U.S. and Britain during World War II to illustrate how similar tactics may be in place to convince us that al Qaeda operatives are not linked to Iraq.
This chapter alone will make readers want to brush up on historical military maneuvers in order to understand current politics. Together with Professor Robert Turner of the University of Virginia School of Law, who contributes an essay on the legality of the warshe demonstrates how only the unwavering vision of senior administration officials (President Bush first among them) broke through the roadblocks that stood in the way of liberating Iraq and defending America.
In what may be called the most up-to-date book on Americas past history with Iraq and terrorism, Mylroie succeeds in connecting each seemingly unrelated event in a way the media, and perhaps even the government, has failed to do.
Drawing on her own contacts with the Bush administration, as well as citing renowned journalists from publications such as The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post as well as speeches made by Saddam Hussein and our countrys leaders, Mylroie puts forth a comprehensive and encompassing investigation of the facts surrounding our entanglement with Iraq that will make it impossible for readers to put BUSH VS THE BELTWAY down. This is the kind of book that will spark intergenerational discussions and debates about U.S. politics, historical events and future predictions for years to come.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Laurie Mylroie is the author of The War Against America and the co-author with Judith Miller of Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, a #1 New York Times bestseller. An adviser on Iraq to the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, she is an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and has taught at Harvard University and the U. S. Naval War College. Mylories writing has appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Newsweek, and many other national periodicals.
BUSH VS THE BELTWAY The Inside Battle Over War in Iraq By Laurie Mylroie ReganBooks August 2004 Trade Paperback; $14.95 ISBN: 0060597267
I hold State Department, CIA, and FBI Clinton weasel SOBs like "Ms" Robin Raphel responsible for causing American deaths in Iraq, here in the USA, and everywhere else.
Here are the key excerpts from the WSJ article linked below that make the point:
"...The first step is to stop underestimating the nature of the threat. The CIA keeps telling U.S. officials that there is no "organized" resistance, as if it needs to find some headquarters in a basement to prove it."
"U.S. forces have at least gone back on offense against the Baathists, as in last week's attack on the convoy near Syria. U.S. regent L. Paul Bremer has also pursued a vigorous de-Baathification campaign.
This is a huge step forward from the early occupation, when State Department official Robin Raphel said it would be "fascistic" to purge too many Baathists.
In one episode reported by Mr. Tyler on May 8, Mr. Bayyati watched in horror as his former Baathist jailer walked past him to meet with Ms. Raphel."
"Disarming the Free Iraqi Forces after the war was a terrible mistake, another example of the State Department and CIA vendetta against Ahmed Chalabi."
There's also a message here for the U.S. political class: Saddam is counting on the media and politicians to continue their bureaucratic navel-gazing since the main fighting ended.
He wants them to re-parse every Pentagon word, and to interview every CIA analyst, to somehow show that liberating Iraq was a mistake. While the Beltway spins, he and his Baathists can plot their return.
Source: The War Isn't Over: The Baathists return. Is Saddam next? FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | Friday, June 27, 2003 | By Wall Street Journal Editorial http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936419/posts
19 posted on 06/29/2003 4:20:59 PM EDT by Matchett-PI (Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious KOOKS = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/937577/posts?page=19#19
SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE CRISIS IN THE GULF (Paperback) by Judith Miller
Paperback: 268 pages Publisher: Three Rivers Press; 1st ed edition (October 13, 1990)
illuminating account of historical importance, May 28, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
Everyone who wants to understand why the war in Iraq happened should read this book and think about it very carefully. Dr. Mylroie, trained as a political scientist, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the thinktank that has most influenced the George W. Bush administration. Miller wrote for the New York Times, with all the prestige that this brought to her byline. (As this review goes to press, she continues to work for the NYT, though for how much longer is anyone's guess).
Dr. Mylroie's later book, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America (American Enterprise Institute Press, 2000)-- published in paperback as The War Against America (HarperCollins, 2001)-- was perhaps even more influential than this earlier co-production with Miller.
But by understanding the relationship and cooperation between the two writers-- Mylroie the expert and Miller the scribe, we get a full understanding ...
1990 pre-Desert Storm Look at Saddam, October 29, 2002
Reviewer: Maximillian Ben Hanan (Sacramento, California, USA) - See all my reviews
Saddam Hussein has become one of the most well-known figures in the Arab world. Unfortunately for him, it's because he's notorious. This little 1990 book (268 pages with intro, bibliography, appendixes, etc.) was published as an inexpensive trade paperback before the world's campaign to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait (1991).
While the book is very dated (12 years ago as of 2002), the information regarding Saddam Hussein's rise to power and the history of Iraq from its' creation by the British is still very valid. While I find it a little difficult to read about some of the things that Saddam Hussein had done, I feel much better informed about him and will be ready with facts next time his name comes up at the lunch table at work.
The book is divided into 11 helpful chapters that cover just about anything someone would want to know about Iraq and the events that eventually led to Desert Storm. It is a well- supported novel with several appendixes with maps, bibliographies, a Human Rights report, and other useful information. The authors are from The New York Times newspaper and Harvard University so it would be a good assumption that they don't hesitate to criticize President Bush's 1990 US government. While they criticize the government, I don't think they overdo it and I don't think they would upset a genuine US patriot.
Another good novel to read, in this vein, is "Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography" by Efraim Karsh.
CONCLUSION: A great inexpensive novel to learn more about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Recommended.
Did Susan Estrich have a face-lift?? I saw her on Fox the other night and wouldn't have recognized her, but her grating, nauseating voice was a dead giveaway!!
Back to Plame ...
But personally, the most fascinating aspect of the Plame affair is the illustration of how information is used within Washington as a weapon, whether offensively to spread a story or defensively to discredit it; whether to build up the credibility of a source or to cast the gravest aspersions on its integrity. Whatever the power of a 2,000 lb smart bomb in the Outlands may be, it is as nothing beside the whispered word, the glimpsed memorandum, the indictment or the leak in Washington DC. That central fact almost determines the dramatis personae. The confluence of the media, intelligence agencies and partisan politics is not only unsurprising in that context, it is almost inevitable. Who else would be involved in the Plame affair except those whose jobs revolve around the processing of insider information?
Ah say, ah say. Sometimes I worry 'bout that boy.
Did Susan Estrich have a face-lift??
I thought the same thing myself. Cute haircut, obvious botox, and probably detox.
The left is going to have a darn hard time actually proving that the Administration lied to get this country into a war if they are going to be faced with actual facts, rather than just the constant repetition of their own lies, which are so easily disproven. Can they be so stupid as to ask for this?
I just emailed, feel free:
You can say that again. Leaks aplenty.
That's what I was thinking... set them up.
The Untold Story: Joseph Wilson, Judith Miller and the CIA
By Cliff Kincaid | October 24, 2005
The savage left-wing attack on Judith Miller from inside and outside of the New York Times completely misses the point. She is under attack for being a lackey of the Bush Administration when she failed to do the administration and the public a big favor. She could have done a potential Pulitzer Prize-winning story that could have broken the Joseph Wilson case wide open. It is a story exposing the Wilson mission to Africa as a CIA operation designed to undermine President Bush.
For 85 days in jail, Miller protected her source, Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, but the fact remains that she never used the explosive information Libby gave her. Now we know, according to Miller's account, that Libby told her about a CIA war with the Bush Administration over Iraq intelligence and that he vociferously complained to her about CIA leaks to the press. But Miller decided that what Libby told her was not newsworthy. Why?
We were critical of Miller from the start because she went to jail rather than testify under oath and tell the truth before a grand jury. Eventually, she did testify, under questionable and mysterious circumstances. She claims she insisted that her testimony be restricted to her conversations with Libby. Clearly, Miller had a relationship with Libby as a source. On that matter, she is "guilty" as charged. But the media attacks on Miller really show her critics do not regard Libby as a source worth protecting. Libby, according to columnist Frank Rich, is a "neocon" who misled the nation to get us into the Iraq War. On the other hand, Wilson is supposed to be a hero and whistleblower. He came back from Africa, after investigating the Iraq-uranium link, and concluded that the Bush Administration was lying. His wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, had her identity revealed by conservative columnist Robert Novak because Bush officials were upset that her husband had told the truth. At least this is their version of the facts.
But if Miller was too cozy with the White House, why didn't she rush into print with Libby's version of events and use him as an anonymous source? Miller couldn't even be counted on to do a story based on high-level information provided to her by the vice president's top aide. It was information that was not only true but explosive. Libby was letting Miller in on the real story of the Wilson affair that the CIA was out to get the President, and that the agency was using Wilson to get Bush.
The fact that she didn't write a story has been cited many times, supposedly to prove that Miller should never have been called by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald before the grand jury. If she didn't write a story, we were told, she shouldn't have to be ordered to talk about her sources. Fitzgerald obviously believed the information she had about her sources was relevant to the case. And it was. But Miller didn't write any of this up at the time. That's mighty strange behavior for a pawn of the administration.
In my recent special report on this matter, former prosecutor Joseph diGenova called the Wilson mission a CIA "covert operation" against Bush. Like the Novak column, a Miller story about this matter could have raised questions about the purpose of the trip and who was behind it. But if Miller had done such a story for the Times, the impact could have been enormous. After all, the Times was the chosen vessel for Wilson to write his column claiming there was no Iraq uranium deal with Niger.
Miller could have revealed that Wilson was recommended for the mission by his own wife, a CIA employee. His wife's role was critically important because a truly undercover CIA operative would not recommend her husband for an overseas trip and then expect to maintain her "secret" identity as he proceeded to write an article for the New York Times and become a public spectacle because of it. Her role in the trip means that she was not undercover in any real sense of the word.
As I have noted previously, Herbert Romerstein, a former professional staff member of the House Intelligence Committee, says that Plame's involvement in sending her husband on the CIA mission to Africa meant that when Wilson went public about it, foreign intelligence services would investigate all of his family members for possible CIA connections. Those intelligence services would not simply assume that he went on the mission because he was a former diplomat. They would investigate his wife. And that would inevitably lead to unraveling the facts about Valerie Wilson, or Valerie Plame, and her involvement with the CIA. Romerstein says that Plame's role in arranging the mission for her husband is solid proof that she was not concerned about having her "cover" blown because she was not truly under cover.
By any account, she was hardly a James Bond-type. Plame's "cover," a company called "Brewster-Jennings & Associates," was so flimsy that she used it as her affiliation when she made a 1999 contribution to Al Gore for president. She identified herself as "Valerie Wilson" in this case. The same Federal Election Commission records showing her contribution to Gore also reveal a $372 contribution to America Coming Together, when the group was organizing to defeat Bush.
If Miller had done some extra digging, she would have discovered that, contrary to what Wilson said publicly in the Times, his findings were interpreted by many officials as additional evidence of an Iraqi interest in obtaining uranium. This kind of story, if it had been published in the New York Times, could have completely undermined Wilson's credibility. It would have made it ridiculous for the Times to subsequently demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush White House. The Times went ahead and made that editorial demand, only to have it backfire on the paper when Fitzgerald demanded Miller's testimony.
The CIA obviously knew the facts of the case. Nevertheless, with Wilson and the media, led by the Times, generating a feeding frenzy over the publication of his wife's name and affiliation, the agency pushed for a Justice Department investigation, on the false premise that revealing her identity was a crime. This is what started it all. It was the perfect way to divert attention from a much-needed investigation of the CIA, the ultimate source of the questionable intelligence that the administration used to make the case for the Iraq War.
Eventually, some members of the press caught up with some parts of the truth. Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post was honest enough to admit, when the evidence came out, that Wilson had misrepresented his wife's role. Schmidt reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee report found that he was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, "contrary to what he has said publicly." By then, however, the media feeding frenzy was well underway and the facts of the case were being buried or shunted aside. And this takes us to where we are today wondering whether Fitzgerald will indict Bush officials for making conflicting statements about the facts of the case. If the investigation was a real desire for truth and justice, Fitzgerald would drop the case and accuse the CIA of pursuing the matter for an illegitimate political reason. It's the CIA not the White House that should be under investigation.
If Miller deserves criticism, it is for failing to write the story when Libby handed it to her on a silver platter. She had the perfect opportunity to set the record straight about some misinformation that had already appeared in her own paper. After all, it was Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who had asserted, in a May 6, 2003, column, that "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." We now know that Wilson was the source of this information, and that it was false. He whitewashed the nature of the CIA role in the trip because he wanted to protect his wife. Wilson wanted people to think that the Vice President's office was somehow behind his mission.
We also know, because of Miller's account of her testimony under oath, that it was because of this misinformation that Libby talked to Miller and wanted to get out the other side of the story. The Vice President's office, said by the liberal press to be at the center of the CIA leak "conspiracy," was justifiably outraged over Wilson going public with misleading information about his mission and blasting the administration in the process. Miller also testified that she thought Plame's CIA connection "potentially newsworthy." You bet it was. But she didn't write the story. This is where Miller failed her paper and the public.
Consider the record of the Times in this case. Editorially, the Times called for the investigation but didn't want to cooperate with it. The paper also published the misleading Wilson and Kristof columns. And yet Miller, who didn't write anything, is the Times journalist under fire in the press because she wrote stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs before the war and later talked to Libby about how the CIA had gotten the facts wrong! Miller has become a target even though it's her colleagues who put the misleading Wilson column into the paper, published Kristof's erroneous account, and called for the probe that resulted in Miller serving jail time.
Miller's WMD stories are said by the hard left to be evidence of her reliance on the Bush Administration for information. In fact, it shows her dependence on the same sources that told the administration that Iraq had WMD. Those sources included CIA director George Tenet, a Clinton holdover, who told Bush that finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk."
We are still left with the mystery of why Miller didn't write anything based on what Libby told her. She says she proposed a story. Miller and/or her editors may have been persuaded to drop it by other sources, who may have been in the CIA. It makes perfect sense. The CIA had been behind the Wilson trip from the beginning and, as Libby told Miller, had been trying to undercut the administration's Iraq policy and divert attention from the agency's poor performance on Iraqi WMD. The CIA did not want the full extent of its role uncovered and decided that the best way to divert attention from its own shabby performance was to accuse Bush officials of violating the law against identifying covert agents. This was one covert operation by the CIA on top of another. Miller watched the whole thing play out and refused to tell her own paper and the public what was really happening.
Miller says that she only talked to the grand jury about her conversations with Libby. She said she wanted to protect other sources she used on other stories. Miller's 2001 book, Germs, on "Biological weapons and America's secret war," has several references to her other sources. Some are unnamed "analysts" at the CIA.
My own recent special report on this matter struck a chord with readers, one of whom said it is a case of "the CIA undermining and eliminating a president." But Bush is still hanging on, dismissing the stream of stories on the case as "background noise." Staying above the fray, when he has come under assault by America's premier intelligence service, Bush is letting CIA director Porter Goss do the necessary job of cleaning house at this corrupt agency.
If some of Bush's aides now go down on dubious charges of having faulty or inconsistent memories about the case, they could try to blow the whistle on the CIA in court. The CIA would most likely try to censor the proceedings on grounds of "national security" and protecting agency "operations." For the sake of maintaining our democratic form of government and reigning in rogue elements at the CIA, the truth must come out.
The question is, Sean what are you going to do about it? Are you going to challenge Estrich? Are you going to have Juanita on your show?