Derek Trucks
Dreams

Chart from Brad Blog

Is there a possibility that Tenet is the one who told Cheney and Rove that Plame was a covert agent? He resigned, got a medal and hasn’t been heard from since. Just wondering………. there’s that black empty space on the chart they used today…..the unknown who told Cheney and Rove……. could it be Tenet???
Am I the only one wondering this?

June 03, 2004 News of the day from the Jurist

President Bush has met with a Washington attorney about an ongoing grand jury investigation to determine who in the administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent to the media, according to the White House. Bush is not the subject of the investigation, but he may be interviewed by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or may need to testify in the investigation. Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate six months ago, and has been bringing witnesses before the grand jury since January. Bush may have sought outside counsel because discussions with White House counsel Alberto Gonzales are not covered by the attorney-client privilege. Bush has called on members of the administration to cooperate in the investigation into who leaked information that Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was an undercover CIA operative. Newsday has more.

and

CNN is reporting that President Bush has accepted the resignation of CIA Director George Tenet. Tenet cited personal reasons for his resignation. The text of Bush’s comments can be found here.

UPDATE: AP has text of George Tenet’s remarks to CIA employees following the announcement of his resignation.

The old “I don’t recall” defense…..I just don’t remember…..I was too busy……I ahhhh I ahhhh……my memory is murky…..ahhhh I ahhhhhh…. I will testify if you don’t put me under oath! Hey…..pick up a copy of my latest guidebook…….it’ll help ya out!!

WASHINGTON - The White House dropped its contention Friday that former Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, blaming “hazy memories” as e-mails shed new light on Karl Rove’s role. Support eroded further for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, “I don’t want to try to vouch for origination.” He said, “At this juncture, people have hazy memories.”

The White House also said it needed more time before deciding whether Miers, political strategist Rove and other presidential advisers would testify before Congress and whether the White House would release documents to lawmakers.

“Given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved, we need more time to resolve them,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She said White House Counsel Fred Fielding suggested to the House Judiciary Committee that he get back to members on Tuesday.

More at YahooNews

I’m surprised he didn’t go today. They like Fridays.

CBS/AP) One of the eight recently fired U.S. attorneys at the center of a growing political scandal tells CBS News that he lost his job because he “did not play ball” with powerful Republicans.

“I believe, and I think all my colleagues believe, the real reason is partisan politics,” the former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric. “I believe I was fired because I did not play ball with two members of the Republican delegation here in New Mexico. I did not give them privileged information that could have been used in the October and November time frame.”

The fallout from the firings continues to grow in Washington, and sources tell CBS News that it looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will take the fall.

Republicans close to the White House tell CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod that President Bush is in “his usual posture: pugnacious, that no one is going to tell him who to fire.” But sources also said Gonzales’ firing is just a matter of time.

More at CBSNews

Victoria Toensing and James Knodell were witnessed singing this song to Bush prior to the hearing this morning.

(Cross-posted at Vagabond Scholar)

“The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock-proof, bullshit detector.”
- Ernest Hemingway

What’s the difference between a lie, a false statement, a misrepresentation, spin, or simply calling it wrong?

Why are the press so reluctant to say someone’s lied?

Why are the press so reluctant to call “bullshit“?

On lying, I suspect the press are reluctant because it ascribes motive and someone’s inner thoughts, which generally aren-t verifiable. There may also be legal issues regarding libel and slander for “lie.” In any case, we often get “false statement,” “misrepresentation” and other careful formulations.

In his 6/1/06 column “Bush’s Lie” Dan Froomkin observed:

Lying is probably the one word mainstream journalists are the most averse to using when recounting what the president said — even when they know he’s not telling the truth. The act of lying requires not just the presentation of false information, but an intention to deceive. Reporters — and, particularly editors — are notoriously resistant to ascribe such volition without ironclad evidence.

But there’s really no other way to describe what Bush said Thursday. Press secretary Tony Snow’s widely-quoted explanation that Bush’s statement [about the future of Treasury Secretary John Snow] was in some way “artfully worded” is just plain wrong.

It may not have been an important lie. And there are some mitigating factors: It was, after all, a personnel matter and there was some possibly legitimate concern about the financial markets. But it couldn’t be more clear that Bush was being intentionally deceptive.

The bigger issue is not the word choice of the reporters in question. It’s that, as Froomkin noted, “Several White House correspondents dutifully reported Snow’s explanation — but neglected to note that it doesn’t wash.” He goes on to consider:

How hard is it for reporters to call what Bush says a lie? Consider Dana Milbank’s near-legendary front-page Washington Post story from October 2002, headlined: “For Bush, Facts Are Malleable.”

Milbank wrote that some of Bush’s statements “were dubious, if not wrong”; that Bush’s “rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy”; that he was guilty of “distortions and exaggerations”; that he had “taken some liberties,” “omitted qualifiers,” and made assertions that “simply outpace the facts.”

But you won’t find the word lie in there anywhere. It just won’t get by the editors.

(more…)

~ 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 march on the Pentagon ~
~ 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war ~
~ Where we will assemble on March 17th

On March 17, 2007, the 4th anniversary of the start of the criminal invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S. Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. The message of the 1967 march was “From Protest to Resistance,” and marked a turning point in the development of a countrywide mass movement.

In the coming days and weeks, thousands of organizations and individuals will begin mobilizing for the upcoming March on the Pentagon. Organizing committees and transportation centers are being established to bring people to the March on the Pentagon.

More information and downloadable flyers here

Dr. James Knodell Notell, director of the Office of Security at the White House testified today regarding the Plame leak. He said there was no investigation, to date, from within the White House. Rep. Cummings was “shocked” to hear this. (I don’t know why…..we are talking about the Bush administration). Victoria Toensing also testified, and Waxman bitch slapped her really good at the end. I can’t find a transcript of his closing statement, but he thanked her for coming to testify, at the request of the minority party. He also stated he thought that alot of what she claimed was not accurate and that they would check the validity of her statements before entering it into record. I wish I could find a video of that. I love Waxman.

Video of exchange between Knodell and Cummings.

(APN) ATLANTA - At least four Members of US Congress and four US Senators today raised concerns about a breaking report in the National Journal that US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appears to have known he was going to be negatively implicated in a review at the US Department of Justice’s (USDOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) when he advised President Bush regarding the review. The review was later squashed when Bush denied security clearances OPR needed to investigate Gonzales.

“Your role in advising the President on this question raises… even more serious concerns,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, wrote in a letter to Gonzales, dated March 15, 2007, obtained by Atlanta Progressive News. A second letter obtained by APN was signed by US Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and John Lewis (D-GA).

US Sens. Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Kennedy (D-MA), and Schumer (D-NY) have requested Gonzales clarify his actions as well, according to a third letter obtained by APN from Kennedy’s Office. “We are deeply troubled by a report in today’s National Journal… In the aftermath of revelations about the dismissals of U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department’s abuse of Patriot Act authorities, this report raises still more concerns about the independence and integrity of the Justice Department under your leadership.”

Read more here

Like her husband, she was a class act and a great witness. Republicans tried to make two false points. 1. They wanted to place doubt she was a covert agent. 2. They wanted it to be the CIA’s fault she was outted. I’d say they failed on both points, and in the process made themselves look like idiots. Nothing new there. Their loyalty to the crooks in the White House is unbelievable. Westmoreland made an even bigger ass of himself when he questions Plame as to her and her husbands political affiliation. This, from the 10 Commandments genius!! I would hope that this hearing cleared up, DEFINITELY, that she WAS covert. Of course, we’re talking about Republicans here, so in their minds, if they keep saying it isn’t so, it isn’t so. She stated several times how happy she was to testify UNDER OATH.

Her opening statement:

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

My name is Valerie Plame Wilson, and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information.

I am grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight.

I’ve served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States, until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14th, 2003, after a leak by an administration official.

Today I can tell this committee even more.

In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced (ph) to discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq’s presumed weapons of mass destruction program.

While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

I loved my career, because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer. And I was dedicated to this work.

It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked. But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all the value of my years of service, were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.

In the course of the trial of Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, Scooter Libby I was shocked by the evidence that emerged. My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department.

All of them understood that I worked for the CIA. And, having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer.

The CIA goes to great lengths to protect all of its employees, providing at significant taxpayers’ expense painstakingly devised and creative covers for its most sensitive staffers.

The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave. But I can’t provide details beyond that in this public hearing. But the concept is obvious.

Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence.

Lives are literally at stake.

Every single one of my former CIA colleagues, from my fellow covert officers to analysts to technical operations officers to even the secretaries, understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them.

We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies.

It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover.

Furthermore, testimony in the criminal trial of Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, who has now been convicted of serious crimes, indicates that my exposure arose from purely political motives.

Within the CIA, it is essential that all intelligence be evaluated on the basis of its merits and actual credibility. National security depends upon it.

The tradecraft of intelligence is not a product of speculation. I feel passionately, as an intelligence professional, about the creeping, insidious politicizing of our intelligence process.

All intelligence professionals are dedicated to the ideal that they would rather be fired on the spot than distort the facts to fit a political view, any political view or any ideology.

As our intelligence agencies go through reorganizations and experience the painful aspects of change, and our country faces profound challenges, injecting partisanship or ideology into the equation makes effective and accurate intelligence that much more difficult to develop.

Politics and ideology must be stripped completely from our intelligence services, or the consequences will be even more severe than they have been, and our country placed in even greater danger.

It is imperative for any president to be able to make decisions based on intelligence that is unbiased.

The Libby trial and the events leading to the Iraq war highlight the urgent need to restore the highest professional standards of intelligence collection and analysis, and the protection of our officers and operations.

The Congress has a constitutional duty to defend our national security. And that includes safeguarding our intelligence.

That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before this committee today and to assist in its important work.

Thank you. And I well welcome any questions.

Think Progress has a video of her statement.