As Time Evolves :: Neocon Think – A DEEP THROAT?

7 Comments

1. 

   Oui on October 15, 2005 at 9:06 am

   .
   New diary was a logical follow-up to last diary ::
   THIS IS MAJOR! ¶ Our Reichstag’s Fire
   Thu Oct 13th, 2005 at 03:35:20 AM PST

   

   As I was searching through previous articles in my archive on topics BooTribers asked for more detailed answers these past two days.

   Inconsistencies 911 ::

   It was past 02:00AM local time for previous quick answer, here upon deeper thought, some of my ideas:

   1. Hair Is on Fire – Inaction by WH, Tenet – reason for my thought OBL pre-emptive attack
   2. Israeli joy in NJ video taping WTC – Mossad agents
   3. Chertoff himself and as prosecutor releasing Israeli agents
   4. Permission by WH to allow Bin Laden family to escape from U.S.
   5. Inaction by Norad, FAA and U.S. Air Force to intercept at least one airplane
   6. Israeli propaganda, especially Likud

   Full comment »»

   911 Commission Staff Report on FAA Failings Published on Web

   Bush’s 9/11 Reichstag Fire ◊ by Harvey Wasserman
       Published on Friday, September 13, 2002 by CommonDreams.org  

   ▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY

2. 

   Oui on October 16, 2005 at 3:13 am

   .

   Editor & Publisher by Greg Mitchell ::
   After ‘NY Times’ Probe: Keller Must Fire Miller, and Apologize to Readers

   As the devastating Times article, and her own first-person account, make clear, Miller should be promptly dismissed for crimes against journalism — and her own paper. And her editor, who has not taken responsibility, should apologize to both readers and “armchair critics.”

   By Greg Mitchell

   (October 15, 2005) — It’s not enough that Judith Miller, we learned Saturday, is taking some time off and “hopes” to return to the New York Times newsroom. As the newspaper’s devastating account of her Plame games — and her own first-person sidebar — make clear, she should be promptly dismissed for crimes against journalism, and her own newspaper. And Bill Keller, executive editor, who let her get away with it, owes readers, at the minimum, an apology instead of merely hailing his paper’s long-delayed analysis and saying that readers can make of it what they will.

   He should also apologize to all the “armchair critics” and “vultures” he denounced this week for spreading unfounded stories and “myths” about what Miller and the newspaper had been up to. If anything, this sad and outrageous story is worse than most expected.

   Let’s put aside for the moment Miller exhibiting the same selective memory favored by her former friends and sources in the White House, in claiming that for the life of her she cannot recall how the name of “Valerie Flame” got into the reporter’s notebook she took to her interview with Libby; how she learned about the CIA operative from other sources (whom she can’t name or even recall when it happened).  

   Arianne Huffington ::
   TimesSelective: Judy-Culpa Raises More Questions Than It Answers …

   The first question raised by the Times’ Judy-Culpa and by Judy Miller’s own account is: Who told Judy about Valerie Plame (or “Flame” as the name appears in Judy’s notes)? According to these two pieces, the name was immaculately conceived. “As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from,” Miller writes.

   When the Plame case broke open in July 2003, these notes were presumably no more than a few weeks old. But who had revealed Plame’s name was not seared on Miller’s mind?

   This is as believable as Woodward and Bernstein not recalling who Deep Throat was. It also means that Judy went to jail to protect a source she can’t recall.

   Update: Not Since Geraldo Cracked Open that Vault…

   Now that I have spent a few hours absorbing this latest installment in the ongoing soap opera “Desperate Editors,” I can safely say that not since Geraldo cracked open Al Capone’s vault has there been a bigger anticlimax or a bigger sham. After all, the question everybody has been asking is: who was the source who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to Judy Miller?

   And the answer? She can’t remember.

   • dKosopedia – Plame Affair
   • Timeline Plame – Gannon ◊ by spiderleaf @dKos
   • FRANK RICH: It’s Bush-Cheney,
     Not Rove-Libby!!!! ◊ by Maccabee @dKos

   ▼ ▼ ▼

3. 

   spiderleaf on October 17, 2005 at 3:39 pm

   It’s funny Oui, that at the time I was not about to go down the Libby route because he had specifically signed the waiver and allowed the reporters he spoke to testify… except for Miller according to her… where he actually outs Plame/ Flame. Surprised I didn’t remember that after Libby’s letter to her.

   I think it could be former officials as well based on the David Cloud article in the WSJ and how that was worded… “two people”; “intelligence officials”; “Senior admin officials”… the “two people” part always stuck with me as being odd phrasing.

   personally I think it’s Cheney with an assist by Rove and everyone else is just doing their bidding… and their paymasters bidding.

   • 

     Oui on October 17, 2005 at 7:26 pm

     .
     His/her giving some specific details struck me as odd at the time, that is the reason I took notice. By chance, doing some archive search on my PC I came across the discussion. Fits very nicely in this week’s news release.

     Still find the whole episode a crazy ride, just as well could have been a Disney fantasy tale. Those PropaGannon days were very inspiring, is the mind set for the investigative standard of today.

     ▼ ▼ ▼  A MUST READ

4. 

   Connecticut Man1 on October 18, 2005 at 9:45 am

   I think I am going to need at least a week to digest all of the info in your recent diaries Oui.

   I find it interesting that you have found a way to connect some of these things in a way that makes all of Sibel Edmonds claims seem even more realistic.

   This goes straight to the heart of the interlinking of all of these different investigations that Edmonds keeps talking about but can’t “prove or back up” because of the court ordered gags.

   So far you potentially have (if I am correct in my assessment) links between “treasongate”, AIIPAC, WHIG.

   But there would still be even more to backtrack into this if Edmonds is correct. Hastert and his questionable campaign funding, Abramoff, Drugs and money laundering, etc.

   I am sorry if I am wrong in my relating this to Edmonds, but she keeps saying it is “One big investigation”, but they just happen to be coming at it from different angles that seem like they aren’t linked. But she says that they are all linked.

   You may have made a couple of them here? Or, at the very least, you have a good strong possibility of it. Way beyond conspiracy stuff.

   Am I getting off track on your goal here on this? lol

5. 

   Oui on October 18, 2005 at 4:56 pm

   .
   ~ Cross-posted from my new diary —
   CIRCLE CLOSED :: Neocons – AIPAC – Shill Reporter ¶ Laurie Mylroie – Benador Associates  ~

   As far as I remember, sharing confidential info is only permitted on a need to know basis. Just because a colleague has an equivalent status, you do not share confidential information unless it’s needed for his job.

   FAS Project on Government Secrecy by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)

   “The fundamental intellectual assumptions that have guided our Intelligence Community’s approach to managing national security information for half a century may be in some respects crucially flawed,” he writes.

   Along the way, he challenges some longstanding practices that are so deeply-rooted that no one normally thinks to question them, such as the application of the “need to know” standard for sharing information.

   “It may not be true,” Sen. Shelby proposes radically, “that information-holders — the traditional arbiters of who can see ‘their’ data — are the entities best placed to determine whether outsiders have any ‘need to know’ data in their possession. Analysts who seek access to information, it turns out, may well be the participants best equipped to determine what their particular expertise and contextual understanding can bring to the analysis of certain types of data.”

   But information sharing is not exactly the solution either, “inasmuch as ‘sharing’ connotes ownership by the party that decides to share it, an idea that is antithetical to truly empowering analysts to connect all the right ‘dots’.”

   Discussion yesterday :: read on »»

   Miller’s Security Clearance  
   By Ivo Daalder  @ America Abroad

   Having now waded through The Times’s articles on Judy Miller, one new fact struck me as particularly bizarre — Miller, by her own admission, was cleared to see secret information as part of her assignment as an “embedded” reporter in Iraq.  

   I had no idea journalists could receive security clearances — and I had no idea that the mainstream media would allow their reporters to have such clearances. After all, one of the most important obligations of a person receiving security clearances is not to reveal that information at any time, while one of the most important obligations of a reporter is precisely to reveal information the public has a need and right to know.

   Can someone explain why this glaring conflict of interest is acceptable?

   Some expert comments – read on »»

   Pentagon on Judith Miller <embedded>

     «« click on pic for TIMEline

   The critics
   Bill Vann (WSWs) suggested that Miller’s listing as a speaker for the Middle East Forum, a right-wing lobbying group, could be a violation of Times ethics guidelines, which barred reporters from participating in groups that seek to shape public policy.

   Soon after, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reported on a conflict within the Times staff. Quoting an irate e-mail from Baghdad bureau chief John Burns concerning a Chalabi story that he had assigned to another reporter, Kurtz included some of Miller’s response, shedding even more light on how dubious her sources might have been: “I’ve been covering Chalabi for about 10 years. . . . He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper.” More troubling still, it turned out, the army unit in which she was embedded was “using Chalabi’s Intel and document network for its own WMD work.” [6]  

   No accountability–not then, not now
   As Vice President Dick Cheney candidly admitted during the first Gulf War, when he served as defense secretary, “I do not look on the press as an asset. Frankly, I looked on it as a problem to be managed.” [17]  During the second Gulf conflict, more than 600 reporters were “managed” as “embeds,” agreeing to sign contracts with the military limiting when and what they could report. Each was able to provide a small slice of the war almost instantaneously; access was good, and the general feeling was that it worked well for both sides. [18]  But were they able to draw the line between propaganda and journalism?

   Daniel Pipes – Middle East Forum – Judith Miller
   The article having leapt from The Times’ front page, my dissection of it below will not be the first. Any reading of the piece should perhaps occur in light of Miller’s relationship with the Middle East Forum, run by the controversial Daniel Pipes, who has been in the news of late as a Bush nominee to the congressionally chartered U.S. Institute of Peace. A non-profit, the forum was founded in 1994.

   ▼ ▼ ▼

6. 

   Oui on October 18, 2005 at 5:56 pm

   .
   SURPRISE!
   Special note to neoconnedagain – as per request ::

   SourceWatch — Judith Miller

   The links of Judith Miller with the Pentagon are not new. In 1986, she wrote numerous articles on Libya, thus contributing to a massive disinformation campaign on Khadafi which was coordinated by Admiral John Poindexter. Bob Woodward has written a major article in the Washington Post on this strategy.

   John Poindexter & Oliver North – Hostile Witnesses
   By Arthur L. Liman
   August 16, 1998

   When John Poindexter And Oliver North took the stand in the Iran-Contra hearings, they kept the lid on a Presidential scandal far more serious than today’s. [Monica Lewinski scandal – Ed.]

   Poindexter :: TIA Darpa Project – Resignation Letter 2002

   Judith Miller of The New York Times:
   You Did The Crime, Now Serve The Time
   by Habib Siddiqui – Tuesday August 09 2005

   “The role of a good reporter is like that of an intelligence analyst who digs for the truth, and not of a stenographer who simply reports what he/she hears without verification.”

   Miller was essentially the megaphone for disseminating Bush administration’s `intelligence’ and in promoting its agenda on Iraq. Indeed, she wrote the first article, entitled «Threats and Responses : The Iraqis ; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts», on Saddam Hussein’s WMD programme, mentioning “aluminium tubes” that could be used for nuclear weapons. That was on September 7, just a few days after Vice-President Cheney delivered the first speech in which he presented Iraq as Washington’s next target.[10] [Interestingly, the forged documents on Niger uranium mystery first surfaced in Italy, via an Italian journalist who works for the Berlusconi-owned Panorama magazine.[11] Was Berlusconi asked to help Bush and Blair “fix” the intelligence to start war in Iraq, and the forged Niger documents were his government’s contribution? [12]]

   Miller’s links with the Pentagon are not new. In 1986, she wrote numerous articles on Libya, thus contributing to a massive disinformation campaign on Muammar Gaddafi which was coordinated by Admiral John Poindexter.[13] During the first U.S.-led war in the Persian Gulf, Miller co-wrote a book with Laurie Mylroie, titled Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf. Miller and Mylroie have both been clients of Eleana Benador, whose PR firm has represented many leading pro-war figures that have appeared prominently on television and in other public venues. She has also worked closely and uncritically with Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, in developing her reports on Iraq.

   Judith Miller: 3 Decades of Disinformation ◊ by Grand Moff Texan
   Fri Jul 8th, 2005 at 13:00:32 PDT

   ▼ ▼ ▼