Wednesday, July 20, 2005

DriftGlass has this exactly right...

Over at Drift Glass, a perfect piece of common sense:


Dear Freedom Lovers,

For the next ten days, please make sure every conversation you have with the press or with Republicans features the following three elements:

Step 1: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we will give President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as an associate justice to the Supreme Court the time, attention and careful deliberation it deserves in five weeks, when the Senate reconvenes. In the mean time...”

Step 2: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we urge President Bush to repudiate the reckless, irresponsible and treasonous behavior of Karl Rove, and demand that Mr. Rove accept Personal Responsibility for his actions publicly apologize to the individuals he harmed, the security agencies he compromised and the America people, who’s trust he betrayed. We further urge President Bush to keep his word to the American people and fire Mr. Rove, as he promised he would do to ‘anyone involved’ in the Plame Scandal. And...”

Step 3: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we urge President Bush to keep his word to the American people, demand that anyone else involve in the reckless, irresponsible and treasonous behavior that let to the Plame Scandal come forward, apologize, and accept Personal Responsibility for their actions.”


Amen.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

DriftGlass has this exactly right...

Over at Drift Glass, a perfect piece of common sense:


Dear Freedom Lovers,

For the next ten days, please make sure every conversation you have with the press or with Republicans features the following three elements:

Step 1: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we will give President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as an associate justice to the Supreme Court the time, attention and careful deliberation it deserves in five weeks, when the Senate reconvenes. In the mean time...”

Step 2: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we urge President Bush to repudiate the reckless, irresponsible and treasonous behavior of Karl Rove, and demand that Mr. Rove accept Personal Responsibility for his actions publicly apologize to the individuals he harmed, the security agencies he compromised and the America people, who’s trust he betrayed. We further urge President Bush to keep his word to the American people and fire Mr. Rove, as he promised he would do to ‘anyone involved’ in the Plame Scandal. And...”

Step 3: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we urge President Bush to keep his word to the American people, demand that anyone else involve in the reckless, irresponsible and treasonous behavior that let to the Plame Scandal come forward, apologize, and accept Personal Responsibility for their actions.”


Amen.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Feeling even better about Roberts...

I just saw this quote from Queen Ann (Coulter):

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.


If Ann Coulter is that pissed off about this nomination, then he can't be all bad...

If you think you can read it without going blind or having explosive diarrhea, the full article can be found here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Feeling even better about Roberts...

I just saw this quote from Queen Ann (Coulter):

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.


If Ann Coulter is that pissed off about this nomination, then he can't be all bad...

If you think you can read it without going blind or having explosive diarrhea, the full article can be found here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Oh, and what do you think of the site's new look?

I'm not sure I'm staying with this template, but I might. It's pretty cool...

Anybody got some feedback?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Oh, and what do you think of the site's new look?

I'm not sure I'm staying with this template, but I might. It's pretty cool...

Anybody got some feedback?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Why I think Roberts is alright...

Sometimes, things come right down to a hunch...

As I watched President Bush introduce John Roberts last night I was really struck by how emotional the man was, and it spoke volumes to me.

John G. Roberts exudes humility. Last night I saw a man humbled by the honor which was just given to him, without a hint of a sense of entitlement.

When he spoke of the lump in his throat that he got every time he climbed the marble steps that led into the Supreme Court Building, it was genuine, and people can't fake that.

That tells me that this is a man with a respect for our system of government, a profound love and respect for the law, an appreciation for history and his place in it.

I believe Roberts is a man who will always place fidelity to our Constitution and a real sense of justice before all considerations, even his historical legacy. How often do you see that in any Justice on the US Supreme Court? He's the real deal.

It is rare that we see a man of this disposition in Washington, and I think he's an excellent choice for these reasons.

I don't have anything concrete, and I could always turn out to be wrong, but I just have a deep calm in my heart and absolutely no worries in my head that when he makes decisions they are going to be based soundly on constitutional principles with the most careful of considerations and reasoning behind them.

Will I always agree with his decisions? I find that highly unlikely, but I have absolutely no doubt that when read I will respect how he came to his decisions and feel assured of the sincerity of his view of the constitutionality in how the law was applied.

I wish I could give you something more definite, but I can't at this time. Only history will prove me right or wrong, but I can't help but feel that this is a man worthy of my respect and trust.

Do you guys have any thoughts?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Why I think Roberts is alright...

Sometimes, things come right down to a hunch...

As I watched President Bush introduce John Roberts last night I was really struck by how emotional the man was, and it spoke volumes to me.

John G. Roberts exudes humility. Last night I saw a man humbled by the honor which was just given to him, without a hint of a sense of entitlement.

When he spoke of the lump in his throat that he got every time he climbed the marble steps that led into the Supreme Court Building, it was genuine, and people can't fake that.

That tells me that this is a man with a respect for our system of government, a profound love and respect for the law, an appreciation for history and his place in it.

I believe Roberts is a man who will always place fidelity to our Constitution and a real sense of justice before all considerations, even his historical legacy. How often do you see that in any Justice on the US Supreme Court? He's the real deal.

It is rare that we see a man of this disposition in Washington, and I think he's an excellent choice for these reasons.

I don't have anything concrete, and I could always turn out to be wrong, but I just have a deep calm in my heart and absolutely no worries in my head that when he makes decisions they are going to be based soundly on constitutional principles with the most careful of considerations and reasoning behind them.

Will I always agree with his decisions? I find that highly unlikely, but I have absolutely no doubt that when read I will respect how he came to his decisions and feel assured of the sincerity of his view of the constitutionality in how the law was applied.

I wish I could give you something more definite, but I can't at this time. Only history will prove me right or wrong, but I can't help but feel that this is a man worthy of my respect and trust.

Do you guys have any thoughts?

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

My thoughts on Roberts...

I know this plays against the cartoonish stereotypes that people have about liberals, but I just wanted to say something about John G. Roberts...

From everything I have seen and read so far, he seems like a reasonable and contemplative jurist.

I don't have to agree with the guy politically, and I probably don't, but as long as his legal reasoning is sound and he approaches his job without an agenda, then I'm fine with him.

I've seen no indications that he's anything other this.

So, for my money, I say confirm him, no fuss no fight.

Who's shocked and surprised at this statement? If you are then you don't give me enough credit.

Yes it's true that I have a lot of personal animosity to most of the policies and rhetoric the comes from the right, but it is because I disagree with the policies and the rhetoric themselves, rather than just disagreeing because it comes from the other end of the political spectrum.

The problems that I have with the Bush Administration, and there are many, have never been about being a knee-jerk Bush hater.

The reason I have for my dissent are real and deliberate. The same goes when I can agree with decisions President Bush makes, and this nomination thus far seems to be one of those decisions, and I even laud the President' call for civility during this process.

Barring something that gives me a real reason to conclude otherwise, the choice of John G. Roberts as the nominee to the Supreme Court seems to have been handled in a serious way by serious people, and I respect their choice.

So, let the confirmation hearings be fair and reasonable, and if he shows himself to be the same, I offer my congratulations to Judge Roberts on this rarest of achievements.

Here's to Justice Roberts, and may God bless him for the process he is about to endure. May it be swift and painless.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

My thoughts on Roberts...

I know this plays against the cartoonish stereotypes that people have about liberals, but I just wanted to say something about John G. Roberts...

From everything I have seen and read so far, he seems like a reasonable and contemplative jurist.

I don't have to agree with the guy politically, and I probably don't, but as long as his legal reasoning is sound and he approaches his job without an agenda, then I'm fine with him.

I've seen no indications that he's anything other this.

So, for my money, I say confirm him, no fuss no fight.

Who's shocked and surprised at this statement? If you are then you don't give me enough credit.

Yes it's true that I have a lot of personal animosity to most of the policies and rhetoric the comes from the right, but it is because I disagree with the policies and the rhetoric themselves, rather than just disagreeing because it comes from the other end of the political spectrum.

The problems that I have with the Bush Administration, and there are many, have never been about being a knee-jerk Bush hater.

The reason I have for my dissent are real and deliberate. The same goes when I can agree with decisions President Bush makes, and this nomination thus far seems to be one of those decisions, and I even laud the President' call for civility during this process.

Barring something that gives me a real reason to conclude otherwise, the choice of John G. Roberts as the nominee to the Supreme Court seems to have been handled in a serious way by serious people, and I respect their choice.

So, let the confirmation hearings be fair and reasonable, and if he shows himself to be the same, I offer my congratulations to Judge Roberts on this rarest of achievements.

Here's to Justice Roberts, and may God bless him for the process he is about to endure. May it be swift and painless.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

It's Official: Bush has picked John G. Roberts Jr...

I don't know anything about him yet, but I'm sure we'll here a lot more in the coming hours.

I hope everyone has an appreciation for the magnitude of what we're about to expeirence.

[UPDATE]

From Washington Post:

Roberts grew up in Long Beach, Ind., and attended a private school in nearby LaPorte before going on to Harvard and Harvard Law School. He clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York, and later for Rehnquist, who was then an associate justice.

After that, he worked as a special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith and as an aide to White House counsel Fred Fielding -- who also mentored Luttig -- during the Reagan administration.

Roberts joined the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson in 1986, then went into President George H.W. Bush's administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr's principal deputy. He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 1992, but the appointment died when Bill Clinton succeeded Bush as president. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson, where he headed the firm's appellate practice and frequently argued before the Supreme Court. President Bush nominated him to the D.C. Circuit two years ago.


And this:

He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court -- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.

That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Roberts won the case -- Rust v. Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.


Read the rest here.


-The Oklahoma Hippy

It's Official: Bush has picked John G. Roberts Jr...

I don't know anything about him yet, but I'm sure we'll here a lot more in the coming hours.

I hope everyone has an appreciation for the magnitude of what we're about to expeirence.

[UPDATE]

From Washington Post:

Roberts grew up in Long Beach, Ind., and attended a private school in nearby LaPorte before going on to Harvard and Harvard Law School. He clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York, and later for Rehnquist, who was then an associate justice.

After that, he worked as a special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith and as an aide to White House counsel Fred Fielding -- who also mentored Luttig -- during the Reagan administration.

Roberts joined the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson in 1986, then went into President George H.W. Bush's administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr's principal deputy. He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 1992, but the appointment died when Bill Clinton succeeded Bush as president. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson, where he headed the firm's appellate practice and frequently argued before the Supreme Court. President Bush nominated him to the D.C. Circuit two years ago.


And this:

He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court -- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.

That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Roberts won the case -- Rust v. Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.


Read the rest here.


-The Oklahoma Hippy

Monday, July 18, 2005

I had never seen this quote before... I wonder why?

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

-Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

I had never seen this quote before... I wonder why?

"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

-Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Andrew Sullivan shines some light on the Bush Torture Policy...

So one of the big questions for me still remains: Is the torture of detainees an approved policy, or is it the work of a few bad apples?

Andrew Sullivan is circling in on an answer:

 

GENEVA SUSPENDED: We have new evidence that president Bush's suspension of the ban on torture under the Geneva Conventions and under American law was ordered over the objections of the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines. Money quote:
A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." Haynes -- through Daniel J. Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel for the Defense Department -- wrote a memo March 17 that rescinded the working group's report, and Dell'Orto confirmed that withdrawal yesterday at the hearing. According to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post, the general counsel's office determined that the report "does not reflect now-settled executive branch views of the relevant law."
Notice how broad the original exception was. It legalized torture anywhere for any POWs - not just enemy combatants - if the president so ordered. And we now have a precedent that would permit even legitimate U.S. POWs to be tortured in retaliation. We had a president declaring himself above the law, and he got his legal lackey, Alberto Gonzales, to rubber-stamp it. Does any sane person really believe that president Bush's personal suspension of the law against torture had nothing to do with the abuses that followed in every single theater of the war on terror? Or that his decision hasn't put U.S. soldiers now and in the future at greater risk even in conventional combat? Notice also how the military's legal representatives opposed it. The secretary of state opposed it. This was Bush's choice. The line from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the White House is perfectly straight. And people are fixating on Karl Rove?



You can find Sullivan's Blog here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Andrew Sullivan shines some light on the Bush Torture Policy...

So one of the big questions for me still remains: Is the torture of detainees an approved policy, or is it the work of a few bad apples?

Andrew Sullivan is circling in on an answer:

 

GENEVA SUSPENDED: We have new evidence that president Bush's suspension of the ban on torture under the Geneva Conventions and under American law was ordered over the objections of the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines. Money quote:
A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." Haynes -- through Daniel J. Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel for the Defense Department -- wrote a memo March 17 that rescinded the working group's report, and Dell'Orto confirmed that withdrawal yesterday at the hearing. According to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post, the general counsel's office determined that the report "does not reflect now-settled executive branch views of the relevant law."
Notice how broad the original exception was. It legalized torture anywhere for any POWs - not just enemy combatants - if the president so ordered. And we now have a precedent that would permit even legitimate U.S. POWs to be tortured in retaliation. We had a president declaring himself above the law, and he got his legal lackey, Alberto Gonzales, to rubber-stamp it. Does any sane person really believe that president Bush's personal suspension of the law against torture had nothing to do with the abuses that followed in every single theater of the war on terror? Or that his decision hasn't put U.S. soldiers now and in the future at greater risk even in conventional combat? Notice also how the military's legal representatives opposed it. The secretary of state opposed it. This was Bush's choice. The line from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the White House is perfectly straight. And people are fixating on Karl Rove?



You can find Sullivan's Blog here.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Friday, July 15, 2005

I have not seen it put better than what John at Americablog posted...

I'm noticing more and more news stories getting very sloppy with the latest twist to the Rove story. What those stories are trying to say is:

1. Rove claims he learned about Plame being CIA from other journalists and not from government sources. Even were that true, it's irrelevant to a senior government official leaking the name of a CIA agent - it doesn't matter how he found out. He knows better, and he flagrantly risked national security for petty revenge.

2. Rove now claims he confirmed for Novak that he heard Plame was CIA, but that Novak asked him about her CIA connections first. Again, irrelevant. He confirmed an undercover CIA agent to a journalist, is he mad? I mean, if a journalist said "so, I hear we're invading Syria on August 15" would Rove respond, "yeah I heard that too"? No, he wouldn't. This kind of journalist prying happens all the time. But Rove decided to answer this time, putting our national security at risk.

3. Matt Cooper's notes show that it was ROVE who offered Plame's CIA connection to TIME magazine, without any prompting from Matt Cooper. So, the Novak story is irrelevant either way. All the Novak story shows is that there's now a pattern of Rove outing Plame as CIA to numerous journalists.

4. The White House lied to the press corp and the American people for two years, saying that Rove had nothing to do with the leak, and he did.

5. President Bush said he'd fire the leaker, and now he's backing off of his own word.

Those are facts.


Exactly.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

I have not seen it put better than what John at Americablog posted...

I'm noticing more and more news stories getting very sloppy with the latest twist to the Rove story. What those stories are trying to say is:

1. Rove claims he learned about Plame being CIA from other journalists and not from government sources. Even were that true, it's irrelevant to a senior government official leaking the name of a CIA agent - it doesn't matter how he found out. He knows better, and he flagrantly risked national security for petty revenge.

2. Rove now claims he confirmed for Novak that he heard Plame was CIA, but that Novak asked him about her CIA connections first. Again, irrelevant. He confirmed an undercover CIA agent to a journalist, is he mad? I mean, if a journalist said "so, I hear we're invading Syria on August 15" would Rove respond, "yeah I heard that too"? No, he wouldn't. This kind of journalist prying happens all the time. But Rove decided to answer this time, putting our national security at risk.

3. Matt Cooper's notes show that it was ROVE who offered Plame's CIA connection to TIME magazine, without any prompting from Matt Cooper. So, the Novak story is irrelevant either way. All the Novak story shows is that there's now a pattern of Rove outing Plame as CIA to numerous journalists.

4. The White House lied to the press corp and the American people for two years, saying that Rove had nothing to do with the leak, and he did.

5. President Bush said he'd fire the leaker, and now he's backing off of his own word.

Those are facts.


Exactly.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

What I think happened...

I am still working on documenting everything and adding links to original source material, so please be patient while that comes. Until then, you can read it with the caveat that revisions are still being made and changes are likely.

*********
So, let's take a look at this as part of a bigger story, and forgive me for the length.

The PNAC group takes positions all throughout the administration.

They immediately begin planning to invade Iraq, as has been PNAC's dream since the mid 90s.

Amhed Chalabi has been involved with this crowd on a social and professional level for years, and knows exactly what they want to hear and what they wish to do, so he figures he will help them pain their picture for the President and if he plays his cards right, perhaps he'll be the next President of Iraq.

Cheney's Energy Task force starts to meet. Lots of questions arise as to who is in the meetings and what is being discussed. Executive privilege is invoked.

This is exceedingly strange, because why should the cost of gasoline over the next five years or the cost of heating oil be such a big damn secret?

Now imagine for a second that this Energy Task Force was being included in the preliminary planning for an invasion of Iraq, and these energy companies will be expected to be involved to take over oil operations once we're in Iraq. Suddenly the secrecy behind the meetings would make sense.

FOIA requests are filed and the issue is litigated for years.

Later, Judicial Watch gets a document release that shows the Task Force was dividing up the oil fields amongst the world's major oil companies.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

If memory serves, there were whispers all over D.C. before September 11th, that the country should expect something to happen with Iraq in 2002 or 2003.

Josh tracked down for us that the Niger document seems to come from someone in the Italian intelligence service.

Hypothetically speaking, the plan is to set up Saddam by forging a memo that would indicate that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. Perhaps someone in our Government faked the document. Not wanting to taint our own experts on whom we may later have to rely on to "authenticate" the document for us, we get someone trust worthy, but not ask knowledgeable to take on the task. We end up with a somewhat convincing document, but we still let it with enough mistakes that a real expert could tell the difference with a little effort.

Then, quite unexpectedly given that we were so focused on Iraq, September 11th happens and the Administration has to regroup. They have the plan for Iraq in the works and as Bob Woodward wrote in Plan of Attack, Rumsfeld wanted to go after Iraq from the very beginning. No good targets and all that jazz.

They come to the conclusion they just couldn't sell it, and they go ahead and invade Afghanistan. They do a half-hearted job in Afghanistan, leaving Osama Bin Laden alive and on the loose and pivot their attention back to Iraq.

The original point of the document was to illustrate Iraq to be in violation of the original agreement that ended the Gulf War. The political boost that Bush received from 9/11 made the process even easier.

People now believed that terrorists were lurking everywhere wanting to kill us. There is anthrax in the mail and no duct tape to be found.

We go back to plan A and plan on using the Niger document to prove that Saddam is trying to build nuclear weapons, but more importantly they've added the new rationale to their case that he's working with Al Qaeda and they will be the recipients of these weapons.

Still being in its state of shock, a majority of this country doesn't question this shift in priorities.

During this time the office of Special Plans is created by Feith and Rumsfeld to allow them to paint the picture they wanted the world to see by cooking the intelligence through their office. Only people they trust are involved in this.

There is web of PNAC guys all working at this in different parts of the executive.

You have Rumsfeld and Feith at the Pentagon.

There is John Bolton over at State. He's there because they know that Powell is not going to go along with this plan, so they make no attempt to involve him. They get him placed exactly where they want him as Under Secretary over Arms Control and International Security.

You have Cheney in the White House overseeing this whole thing, while keeping Karl Rove in the loop so he can handle the politics of getting this war past congress and the American people.

The President shares a desire to see Saddam gone, but he is kept out of the loop to enough of a degree that he can maintain plausible deniability. The intelligence that he sees is very carefully put together to lead to very obvious conclusions.

The President is provided a certain version of the facts. He is faced with a very easy decision to invade based on those facts. He simply never questions what he is told, because he likes the answer he has.

At some point, the Niger document is put in front of the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division (CDP), and questions start to be raised.

At some point, the question is asked if we should attempt to determine if this Niger document as authentic or not. This isn't a question that the PNAC guys like, but they can't exactly say no. At this point, Mrs. Wilson suggests her husband for the trip. (Whether the suggestion of her husband was solicited or not doesn't really matter.)

As former ambassador to Gabon and former acting Ambassador to Iraq, he knows the people he needs to know and he has the connections he needs to have to really determine the document's authenticity.

Someone in the PNAC circle sees and opening in this, and sends word that Wilson is to be the guy to go.

The thinking goes like this: We know the document is fake, and we know whoever checks it out is going to come to this conclusion. Let's go ahead and send Wilson knowing we can use the nepotism argument to negate any inevitable critiques of the document that might arise.

Wilson returns, files his report about the document being a forgery and it is immediately ignored.


Along comes the State of the Union. We hear the 16 words. Joe Wilson writes his piece for the New York Times.

Walter Pincus indicated last week that the plan for discrediting Ambassador Wilson was in place in mid 2002. They were just sitting on it, waiting to use it if need be.

Sometime around now the government begins awarding no bid contracts to Halliburton to provide all kinds of services in the event of war. Think back to the Map of Iraq's oil fields obtained by judicial watch.

Wilson's Op-Ed is published and the plan is put into motion. Rove starts his wrecking machine and begins to leak to reporters their reasoning for ignoring Joe Wilson's claims that the document is a fake.

He returns calls to reporters who have left him messages about other things and at some point changes the subject to Iraq and slips them the info on Wilson and his wife.

The weak story about trying to warn reporters off the story isn't a lie and it isn't a revisionist history. It was just a really weak cover story Rove had planned on using since the moment he leaked the info.

Think about it. He's checked the law. Perhaps he asked someone he trusts to explain everything about the 1982 law against against identifying undercover operatives. He knows what exonerates him.

His leaks are very carefully scripted as have been all of his denials.

The conversation was very short
He did not use Mrs. Wilson's name
He never identifies her as an undercover agent
Plus, he demanded "Super Deep Background" anonymity for all of this
Novak, Miller, Cooper. He tells Chris Matthews that she's fair game.

Things don't go exactly to plan, because rather than the story becoming how untrustworthy Joe Wilson is, the story becomes about the leak. It's not too much of a problem, because the focus was no longer on the authenticity of the Niger document.

They allow the inspectors in, but do not allow them to finish. We claim that the inspectors' inability to locate any hint of WMD only means that Saddam is hiding them and that he's more desperate and might be ready to give them to terrorist or to use them himself rather than giving them up.

We go into Iraq over the hesitation and objections of most of the World's leaders.

True to the document from the energy task force, we secure the oil fields and not much else.

Things didn't go exactly as planned. We're still there. The PNAC guys haven't had enough stability and security to start the free market utopia they wanted to create in Iraq that would allow for the sale of cheap oil.

So the rest has been public and we're pretty clear on where it went from there.

So that’s my conclusion on what went down and why this leak occurred.

I have never been one to believe in conspiracy theories, because I had one very practical problem. People can’t keep secrets, and people aren’t perfect. Any plan is going to have flaws and any conspiracy is going to have people who talk.

But, if someone where to try to pull off a real conspiracy of huge proportions, big lie theory would work in their favor… for a while. But, people aren’t perfect and mistakes were made. People have talked.

What I am seeing going on right now is exactly how I imagine that such a conspiracy would unravel. Slowly, over the course of a long time, people who find out about small pieces of the story but not be able to connect the dots. But the picture is coming slowly into focus.

Most of what I have laid out in this post are commonly accepted facts with several moments of conjecture. I’m more convinced everyday that this is how it happened, or at least is pretty darn close.

The Leo Strauss school of political thought says that our leaders have a responsibility to convince the people of the grand destiny of America. He advocated using religion to control people and the focus on a great enemy to keep the masses from being idle. Most importantly, Strauss said that if you were the one spinning this “grand destiny” or pushing the religious values, it didn’t matter whether you believed it or not, as long as you were convincing in it’s presentation.

This is exactly how these people have governed. They have used religion to control people and they have repeated ad nauseum the refrain that it’s our responsibility to rid the world of evil. The repeated use of emotionally potent oversimplifications to keep people bought into this clusterf*** has been masterful in its simplicity.

Democrats don’t have the lock step message machine necessary to do this like the Republicans do. Democrats allowed the Republican Party the paint them as incompetent by claiming that they have no values, policies, ideas, or beliefs.

This is of course nonsense. Democrats share common beliefs and policy goals, but we don’t try to make sure that every single member of the party has a memo in their hand telling them what the 25 word refrain of the week is.

Good people who should no better went along with this whole mess within the republican establishment out of a misguided sense of party loyalty and sheer ambition.

When the Gingrich Revolution took over Congress in 1994, the rules of the game fundamentally changed. Politics became a brutal blood sport that fostered an environment of toxic partisan ship in this country. Congressional politics was no longer about a marketplace of ideas where real debate occurred and most Congressmen’s loyalties were still somewhat attached to the best interest of their constituents as well as their party.

No longer. It’s about subduing the political opposition. It’s about eradicating any obstacle that stands in the way of gaining more power and influence and eventually money.

We have to take a big step back in this country. We need to acknowledge what has happened and we must find some way to at least attempt some sort of reconciliation.

We allowed a small group of men to stage a war that had nothing to do with out security and everything to do with their personal ambitions.

The culture of corruption that has overtaken the Republican Party is a virus eating away at our society. We must put a stop to it, for I’m not sure how much more we can take.

What I think happened...

I am still working on documenting everything and adding links to original source material, so please be patient while that comes. Until then, you can read it with the caveat that revisions are still being made and changes are likely.

*********
So, let's take a look at this as part of a bigger story, and forgive me for the length.

The PNAC group takes positions all throughout the administration.

They immediately begin planning to invade Iraq, as has been PNAC's dream since the mid 90s.

Amhed Chalabi has been involved with this crowd on a social and professional level for years, and knows exactly what they want to hear and what they wish to do, so he figures he will help them pain their picture for the President and if he plays his cards right, perhaps he'll be the next President of Iraq.

Cheney's Energy Task force starts to meet. Lots of questions arise as to who is in the meetings and what is being discussed. Executive privilege is invoked.

This is exceedingly strange, because why should the cost of gasoline over the next five years or the cost of heating oil be such a big damn secret?

Now imagine for a second that this Energy Task Force was being included in the preliminary planning for an invasion of Iraq, and these energy companies will be expected to be involved to take over oil operations once we're in Iraq. Suddenly the secrecy behind the meetings would make sense.

FOIA requests are filed and the issue is litigated for years.

Later, Judicial Watch gets a document release that shows the Task Force was dividing up the oil fields amongst the world's major oil companies.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

If memory serves, there were whispers all over D.C. before September 11th, that the country should expect something to happen with Iraq in 2002 or 2003.

Josh tracked down for us that the Niger document seems to come from someone in the Italian intelligence service.

Hypothetically speaking, the plan is to set up Saddam by forging a memo that would indicate that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. Perhaps someone in our Government faked the document. Not wanting to taint our own experts on whom we may later have to rely on to "authenticate" the document for us, we get someone trust worthy, but not ask knowledgeable to take on the task. We end up with a somewhat convincing document, but we still let it with enough mistakes that a real expert could tell the difference with a little effort.

Then, quite unexpectedly given that we were so focused on Iraq, September 11th happens and the Administration has to regroup. They have the plan for Iraq in the works and as Bob Woodward wrote in Plan of Attack, Rumsfeld wanted to go after Iraq from the very beginning. No good targets and all that jazz.

They come to the conclusion they just couldn't sell it, and they go ahead and invade Afghanistan. They do a half-hearted job in Afghanistan, leaving Osama Bin Laden alive and on the loose and pivot their attention back to Iraq.

The original point of the document was to illustrate Iraq to be in violation of the original agreement that ended the Gulf War. The political boost that Bush received from 9/11 made the process even easier.

People now believed that terrorists were lurking everywhere wanting to kill us. There is anthrax in the mail and no duct tape to be found.

We go back to plan A and plan on using the Niger document to prove that Saddam is trying to build nuclear weapons, but more importantly they've added the new rationale to their case that he's working with Al Qaeda and they will be the recipients of these weapons.

Still being in its state of shock, a majority of this country doesn't question this shift in priorities.

During this time the office of Special Plans is created by Feith and Rumsfeld to allow them to paint the picture they wanted the world to see by cooking the intelligence through their office. Only people they trust are involved in this.

There is web of PNAC guys all working at this in different parts of the executive.

You have Rumsfeld and Feith at the Pentagon.

There is John Bolton over at State. He's there because they know that Powell is not going to go along with this plan, so they make no attempt to involve him. They get him placed exactly where they want him as Under Secretary over Arms Control and International Security.

You have Cheney in the White House overseeing this whole thing, while keeping Karl Rove in the loop so he can handle the politics of getting this war past congress and the American people.

The President shares a desire to see Saddam gone, but he is kept out of the loop to enough of a degree that he can maintain plausible deniability. The intelligence that he sees is very carefully put together to lead to very obvious conclusions.

The President is provided a certain version of the facts. He is faced with a very easy decision to invade based on those facts. He simply never questions what he is told, because he likes the answer he has.

At some point, the Niger document is put in front of the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division (CDP), and questions start to be raised.

At some point, the question is asked if we should attempt to determine if this Niger document as authentic or not. This isn't a question that the PNAC guys like, but they can't exactly say no. At this point, Mrs. Wilson suggests her husband for the trip. (Whether the suggestion of her husband was solicited or not doesn't really matter.)

As former ambassador to Gabon and former acting Ambassador to Iraq, he knows the people he needs to know and he has the connections he needs to have to really determine the document's authenticity.

Someone in the PNAC circle sees and opening in this, and sends word that Wilson is to be the guy to go.

The thinking goes like this: We know the document is fake, and we know whoever checks it out is going to come to this conclusion. Let's go ahead and send Wilson knowing we can use the nepotism argument to negate any inevitable critiques of the document that might arise.

Wilson returns, files his report about the document being a forgery and it is immediately ignored.


Along comes the State of the Union. We hear the 16 words. Joe Wilson writes his piece for the New York Times.

Walter Pincus indicated last week that the plan for discrediting Ambassador Wilson was in place in mid 2002. They were just sitting on it, waiting to use it if need be.

Sometime around now the government begins awarding no bid contracts to Halliburton to provide all kinds of services in the event of war. Think back to the Map of Iraq's oil fields obtained by judicial watch.

Wilson's Op-Ed is published and the plan is put into motion. Rove starts his wrecking machine and begins to leak to reporters their reasoning for ignoring Joe Wilson's claims that the document is a fake.

He returns calls to reporters who have left him messages about other things and at some point changes the subject to Iraq and slips them the info on Wilson and his wife.

The weak story about trying to warn reporters off the story isn't a lie and it isn't a revisionist history. It was just a really weak cover story Rove had planned on using since the moment he leaked the info.

Think about it. He's checked the law. Perhaps he asked someone he trusts to explain everything about the 1982 law against against identifying undercover operatives. He knows what exonerates him.

His leaks are very carefully scripted as have been all of his denials.

The conversation was very short
He did not use Mrs. Wilson's name
He never identifies her as an undercover agent
Plus, he demanded "Super Deep Background" anonymity for all of this
Novak, Miller, Cooper. He tells Chris Matthews that she's fair game.

Things don't go exactly to plan, because rather than the story becoming how untrustworthy Joe Wilson is, the story becomes about the leak. It's not too much of a problem, because the focus was no longer on the authenticity of the Niger document.

They allow the inspectors in, but do not allow them to finish. We claim that the inspectors' inability to locate any hint of WMD only means that Saddam is hiding them and that he's more desperate and might be ready to give them to terrorist or to use them himself rather than giving them up.

We go into Iraq over the hesitation and objections of most of the World's leaders.

True to the document from the energy task force, we secure the oil fields and not much else.

Things didn't go exactly as planned. We're still there. The PNAC guys haven't had enough stability and security to start the free market utopia they wanted to create in Iraq that would allow for the sale of cheap oil.

So the rest has been public and we're pretty clear on where it went from there.

So that’s my conclusion on what went down and why this leak occurred.

I have never been one to believe in conspiracy theories, because I had one very practical problem. People can’t keep secrets, and people aren’t perfect. Any plan is going to have flaws and any conspiracy is going to have people who talk.

But, if someone where to try to pull off a real conspiracy of huge proportions, big lie theory would work in their favor… for a while. But, people aren’t perfect and mistakes were made. People have talked.

What I am seeing going on right now is exactly how I imagine that such a conspiracy would unravel. Slowly, over the course of a long time, people who find out about small pieces of the story but not be able to connect the dots. But the picture is coming slowly into focus.

Most of what I have laid out in this post are commonly accepted facts with several moments of conjecture. I’m more convinced everyday that this is how it happened, or at least is pretty darn close.

The Leo Strauss school of political thought says that our leaders have a responsibility to convince the people of the grand destiny of America. He advocated using religion to control people and the focus on a great enemy to keep the masses from being idle. Most importantly, Strauss said that if you were the one spinning this “grand destiny” or pushing the religious values, it didn’t matter whether you believed it or not, as long as you were convincing in it’s presentation.

This is exactly how these people have governed. They have used religion to control people and they have repeated ad nauseum the refrain that it’s our responsibility to rid the world of evil. The repeated use of emotionally potent oversimplifications to keep people bought into this clusterf*** has been masterful in its simplicity.

Democrats don’t have the lock step message machine necessary to do this like the Republicans do. Democrats allowed the Republican Party the paint them as incompetent by claiming that they have no values, policies, ideas, or beliefs.

This is of course nonsense. Democrats share common beliefs and policy goals, but we don’t try to make sure that every single member of the party has a memo in their hand telling them what the 25 word refrain of the week is.

Good people who should no better went along with this whole mess within the republican establishment out of a misguided sense of party loyalty and sheer ambition.

When the Gingrich Revolution took over Congress in 1994, the rules of the game fundamentally changed. Politics became a brutal blood sport that fostered an environment of toxic partisan ship in this country. Congressional politics was no longer about a marketplace of ideas where real debate occurred and most Congressmen’s loyalties were still somewhat attached to the best interest of their constituents as well as their party.

No longer. It’s about subduing the political opposition. It’s about eradicating any obstacle that stands in the way of gaining more power and influence and eventually money.

We have to take a big step back in this country. We need to acknowledge what has happened and we must find some way to at least attempt some sort of reconciliation.

We allowed a small group of men to stage a war that had nothing to do with out security and everything to do with their personal ambitions.

The culture of corruption that has overtaken the Republican Party is a virus eating away at our society. We must put a stop to it, for I’m not sure how much more we can take.

Josh Marshall makes an excellent point...

From TalkingPointsMemo.com:

A point that hasn't been made yet.

Everyone I hear from today says that the White House is going after Joe Wilson hard in their background conversations with reporters. Apparently Karl Rove himself.

Their main hit apparently is that it was Valerie Plame who authorized Wilson's trip to Niger or was the one who sent him -- which is as false today as it was two years ago.

Now, that's as much an attack on Plame as it is on Wilson. Actually, even more of one on her since the subtext is that she was either engaging in nepotism or advancing some private political agenda.

So now we know that Karl Rove started attacking Valerie Plame to get his boss out of the soup. And now two years later he continues to attack her.

True to form to the last. And every reporter in town knows it. -- Josh Marshall



The longer the President waits to cut him loose, the more likely the whole administration's going down with him.

Now take a look at the Talking Points the RNC sent out today. Click here to read the memo.

I can't wait to see what Round 3 brings tomorrow.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Josh Marshall makes an excellent point...

From TalkingPointsMemo.com:

A point that hasn't been made yet.

Everyone I hear from today says that the White House is going after Joe Wilson hard in their background conversations with reporters. Apparently Karl Rove himself.

Their main hit apparently is that it was Valerie Plame who authorized Wilson's trip to Niger or was the one who sent him -- which is as false today as it was two years ago.

Now, that's as much an attack on Plame as it is on Wilson. Actually, even more of one on her since the subtext is that she was either engaging in nepotism or advancing some private political agenda.

So now we know that Karl Rove started attacking Valerie Plame to get his boss out of the soup. And now two years later he continues to attack her.

True to form to the last. And every reporter in town knows it. -- Josh Marshall



The longer the President waits to cut him loose, the more likely the whole administration's going down with him.

Now take a look at the Talking Points the RNC sent out today. Click here to read the memo.

I can't wait to see what Round 3 brings tomorrow.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The Rove-Plame scandal is not going away...

The White House is sticking with the strategy that has worked so often for them in the past when they've encountered unfriendly news. Stonewall until the story has simply been starved to death for lack of anything new to report.

It's not going to work this time.

The people in that make up the news media are usually reporting on the scandal rather than being an organic part of the story itself. In this case, the story involves reporters in jail, lies to reporters, and abuse of background sourcing by people in the administration.

Additionally, it has the added aspects of being related to the war, and how we dealt with the intelligence was vetted prior to a War that has become an albatross around the President's neck.

This story is not going to lose its signigicance to anyone in the press corps. They are not going to stop trying to get to the truth.

And honestly, I think the truth leads to the origin of the Niger Uranium document.

I have very good reason to believe that we faked it and planted it with the Itallian Intelligence service and then given back to us.

Think of it as setting up Saddam by laundering faked evidence.

This isn't as nutty as it sounds and I am working on documenting the whole thing so I can post it here. It's taking a while. Expect it by no later than next Monday if no one beats me to it.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

The Rove-Plame scandal is not going away...

The White House is sticking with the strategy that has worked so often for them in the past when they've encountered unfriendly news. Stonewall until the story has simply been starved to death for lack of anything new to report.

It's not going to work this time.

The people in that make up the news media are usually reporting on the scandal rather than being an organic part of the story itself. In this case, the story involves reporters in jail, lies to reporters, and abuse of background sourcing by people in the administration.

Additionally, it has the added aspects of being related to the war, and how we dealt with the intelligence was vetted prior to a War that has become an albatross around the President's neck.

This story is not going to lose its signigicance to anyone in the press corps. They are not going to stop trying to get to the truth.

And honestly, I think the truth leads to the origin of the Niger Uranium document.

I have very good reason to believe that we faked it and planted it with the Itallian Intelligence service and then given back to us.

Think of it as setting up Saddam by laundering faked evidence.

This isn't as nutty as it sounds and I am working on documenting the whole thing so I can post it here. It's taking a while. Expect it by no later than next Monday if no one beats me to it.

-The Oklahoma Hippy

Monday, July 11, 2005

Who the heck asked this question?

From today's White House Press Briefing:

QUESTION: Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Rove's excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the president hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?

MCCLELLAN: He continues to give speeches.

He was traveling this weekend talking about the importance of strengthening Social Security. And he's continued to go out and give speeches.


Everybody wants to know if Karl is being fired and/or going to prison and someone actually asked the question above?

Is Jeff Gannon back?

-The Oklahoma Hippy