USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Akira 0]

Spin! Spin! Spin!

Fact One (mentioned in your article): Bush said he would take care or any leak in his Administration, including possible jail time. Rove outted a CIA operative, a federal offense, and while he didn't specifically state her name, it didn't take a rocket scientist to know who he was talking about (his wife works for the agency etc).

Fact Two: Bush and Co. had plenty to talk about the case while it was on going, suddenly when Rove is discovered to be the leak, they have nothign to say...since its an ongoing investigation and all.

Lovely way your article though makes the outted agent and her husband the bad guys, for questioning the intelligence that took Bush to war...intelligence that has been completely discredited now.

Quote[/b] ]Now what would make you say that?

look at all the counties he has changed by his actions

Afghanistan

Iraq

Iran

Syria

Saudi Arabia

North Korea

Indonesea

Sri Lanka

Phillipines

Singapore

Pakistan

Lebenon

...and many more

sometimes it pays to pay attention

If that is sarcasm, bravo. If you are serious...

[walker 0]

Hi all

Clearly what needs to be top of this is how can TBA apologise to the CIA assets who will have been arrested and tortured or who are waiting for the knock on the door as a result of the traitorous act of telling TBA friendly Journalists that Wilson's wife was CIA.

I am suprised that anyone who would call them selves an American can associate themselves with the actions of traitor.

It is obvious that anyone who supports the actions of the traitor is acting against the USA, in supporting the blinding of US inteligence in this way.

I am happy to see that many true Conservative Republicans are pissed with erstwhile Republicans in the NeoConMan tendancy for associating the good name of Tradiational Republicanism with the actions and support of the un-American activities of traitors.

I feel sorriest for the American operatives and assets who have died are imprisoned or are on the run as a result of this tretchery. And as a consequence will no longer be able to serve America in the way they volunteered to.

That some who dare to call themselves patriots and who have never laid there lives on the line as these people have; now have the afrontory to attack Americas heroes.

Truly such people are the lowest of the low, they are the ass lickers of traitors.

Sadly Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Spin! Spin! Spin!

Woosh! Woosh! Woosh!

And a couple of lah-dih-dahs.

That's how we laugh the day away in the merry ol' land of Oz.

Quote[/b] ]Fact One (mentioned in your article): Bush said he would take care or any leak in his Administration, including possible jail time.

Bush's verbatim words were:

"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.  And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

What law did Rove violate? To which you answer:

Quote[/b] ]Rove outted a CIA operative, a federal offense, and while he didn't specifically state her name, it didn't take a rocket scientist to know who he was talking about (his wife works for the agency etc).

By all means! Waiting for an indictment, so we can all know exactly what legal Federal statute was violated here by Rove.

Quote[/b] ]Fact Two: Bush and Co. had plenty to talk about the case while it was on going, suddenly when Rove is discovered to be the leak, they have nothign to say...since its an ongoing investigation and all.

I believe it would be more damaging to the CIA, which is the last thing the US needs at this point.

Quote[/b] ]Lovely way your article though makes the outted agent and her husband the bad guys, for questioning the intelligence that took Bush to war...intelligence that has been completely discredited now.

Wilson was long ago discredited, as the article concludes:

Quote[/b] ]"Disinformation" is what Wilson gave Nick Kristof when he gave him (anonymously, and with his wife there at breakfast) the background for this column:

<ul>

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. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong - Dick Cheney did not ask for an investigation; his office did not receive the result.  Per both Tenet's statement and the SSCI report, Wilson's report was inconclusive.  And the forgeries Wilson masterfully debunked by pointing out the phony signature?  Wilson later wrote that he never saw them, which we believe since they were not in Washington until the fall of 2002.

And how did Kristof get so many points wrong?  There is an easy explanation - although, as a diplomat one might think that he is a professional communicator, Wilson explained to Paula Zahn that "those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me."  

Or disinformation.  Against which, Rove was pushing back.  Waiting for Wilson to auto-discredit took about a year.

[Akira 0]

How is that discrediting again? Especially since everything he said turned out right?

Quote[/b] ]Or disinformation. Against which, Rove was pushing back. Waiting for Wilson to auto-discredit took about a year.

Yes. Believe Rove and TBA who have been proven to have lied, and not the guy that has proven correct.

[theavonlady 2]

How is that discrediting again? Especially since everything he said turned out right?

Let me link it to you more clearly:

Washington Post: Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Read it all. Wilson's a blatant liar with a blatant agenda.

[walker 0]

Hi Avon

If you care to read through the report you quote it is clearly from before the Niger "yellowcake" uranium rumor was finaly scotched by the later Iraq enquiry hence the article has since been completly repudiated, the article even contains corrections in it, noted in a side bar.

Also we are not talking about the Ambasador we are talking about his wife who was outed by a White House official as a CIA agent thus placing herself and all her contacts in jepordy. That is why it is a crime, that is why the person who did it is a traitor. That is why George Bush senior made it a crime.

Avon I know this stuff is complicated but please try to keep up to date and on the point.

As an Israeli I am aware America's interest is not necasarily your own or in the interest of the country you live in. You as an Israeli are interested in casting an American hero in a bad light by casting aspersions on her husband a kind of smear by association.

As to others I am suprised that any American can so easily turn against their own CIA operatives and suport the actions of traitors. It leads me to the inevitable view that such people may be traitors themselves or at the very least put their own petty political activities above that of the security of America; if they so readily join in supporting trecherous activities.

Sadly walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

avon:

Quote[/b] ]I believe it would be more damaging to the CIA, which is the last thing the US needs at this point.

ahhh the good old scare tactic! trying to cover up the damage TBA has done with mention of national security.

is it me or is the WH suddenly shutting their mouth? When the news broke that Rove was involved, the WH refused to reiterate what Bush said. Maybe McKellen(?) is not as good as Ari Fleicher, but sudden inability to recap the words seems like the WH is feeling the guilt.

Quote[/b] ]By all means! Waiting for an indictment, so we can all know exactly what legal Federal statute was violated here by Rove.

And when the indictment comes, I can bet that you will rely on 'innocent until proven guilty' statement again.

I guess it is ok for CONs to blackmail and harass others, but not otherway around.

Quote[/b] ]the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Read it all. Wilson's a blatant liar with a blatant agenda.

And TBA isn't a blatant liar with a blatant agenda? Remember that CIA was the one that supplied all the WMD claims that were not found. The difference between Wilson(if he is wrong) and TBA? TBA went to war and has no exit strategy.

come to think of it, Bush might have something up his sleeve. He had exit stragey from Vietnam.

[Sandman214155 0]

Afghanistan - duh

Iraq - duh

Iran - Caused mobilisation and is scared of Coalition invasion

Syria - Ally with Iran because of Iran being scared

Saudi Arabia - caused free elections

North Korea - making them point nukes at us

Indonesea - like us better because of tidal wave relief

Sri Lanka - same as above

Phillipines - joined the Iraqi coalition... friend

Singapore - same as above

Pakistan - civilians hate us but the gov doesn't now

Lebenon - put preasure on syria to get the free

if you want me to list the "many more" part you'll have to wait... a guy has got to eat  

[walker 0]

Hi all

What I would also like to know also is why Robert Novak the co-conspirator in the leaking of Valerie Willson's (nee Plame)secret identity as a chief operative in the CIA's anti WMD operations is not in jail; while a reporter who acted honourably and refused to be involved in the traitorous act of outing a covert CIA operative is jailed?

Quote[/b] ]Plame Case

South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board

Posted July 14 2005

ISSUE: The identification of a CIA official fuels a political whodunit.

More than two years after a serious breach of U.S. intelligence, it's past time to get to the bottom of the CIA leak mess.

Blowing the cover of a CIA official is serious business, particularly in a time of war and especially if political bullying was the motive. It's time to find out who told members of the news media that Valerie Plame, the wife of a U.S. diplomat critical of Bush administration intentions in Iraq, worked for the intelligence service.

Outing intelligence officers is a grave offense, and a federal grand jury is investigating this incident. But the probe has taken some puzzling turns.

For starters, one journalist, Judith Miller of The New York Times, has been sent to jail for not revealing the source, presumably a government official, who told her Plame worked for the CIA.

Curiously, Miller didn't publish the information. But Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak did and he walks free. Why? ...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news....itorial

Could it be that it is because he is a friend of TBA and so gets a get out of jail free card just the same as the civilian interigators did at Abu Ghraib.

It is interesting note that people who act honourably or under orders but who are not as well connected to TBA go to jail in America eg the Prison Guards at Abu Ghraib but not the interagators, Judith Miller of The New York Times but not Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak. So the well connected a*se lickers get off scott free under TBA. Truly it seems TBA becomes more corrupt by the day.

As it is George Bush is running scaired of sacking Rove, could it be because he knows where too many of the skeletons are burried? As a by line it is interesting to note how many people who had the dirt on TBA died in strange unforseen circumstances, just an odd occurance I have noted.

Kind Regards walker

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Saudi Arabia - caused free elections

Elections - yes. Free.. no.

Quote[/b] ]

Pakistan - civilians hate us but the gov doesn't now

Now why im getting a deja vu..

Right, now I remember.

[miles teg 1]

How is that discrediting again? Especially since everything he said turned out right?

Let me link it to you more clearly:

Washington Post: Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Read it all. Wilson's a blatant liar with a blatant agenda.

I read it all and I do not see how he is lying. He said that he believed that document was fraudulent but that there was zero evidence of Saddam trying to aquire uranium. Also while its not in the article, Wilson said that he had personally informed several members of the Bush administration. He did not say that the CIA informed the Bush administration about his findings.

Also so what if his wife recommended him? Is that a crime? CIA/diplomat husband-wife teams are not unusual. As far as I know that is not against any type of State Department policy and I don't see any conflict of interest. She simply recommended him. Bush could have found someone else. Obviously the Bush administration was aware of the husband/wife connection.

So here you are simply trying to pull a "Muslim" by trying to point the finger at others and push attention away from the actual crime just like some Muslims refuse to look at fanatics in their midst and instead point the finger at Western polices in the Middle East.

The fact of the matter is that someone leaked the fact that his wife was a CIA agent which is illegal and more and more it seems like Rove is responsible.

But... my guess is that Rove will get off with a little slap on the wrist and will keep his job after Bush Administration dammage control teams do their spin jobs along with supporters like yourself.

Finally, as others have said, they didn't find a shred of uranium in Iraq (or other equipment for making a nuclear weapon) other then all the DU crap that the US military spread all over Iraq from its DU ammunition. That spent DU ammunition will likely cause health problems for Iraqis and US military vets for many years to come. But who cares...soldiers are expendable and that'll just be less Jew hating Arabs for Israel to worry about right?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[walker 0]

Hi all

The latest news is that after first telling journalists that the wife of Wilson was a CIA agent. Rove then Confirmed the name of the agent to Robert Novak before Novac wrote his article this is his reported testimony to the grand jury.

So Karl Rove has admited under oath that he discussed with reporters the identity of CIA secret agent placing her in jepordy along with all her contacts and all those who used the same cover organisations and companies, as well as crippeling the whole US WMD inteligence operation in the most serious of ways.

Quote[/b] ]Rove 'discussed outed CIA agent with journalists'

Sarah Left and agencies

Friday July 15, 2005

White House adviser Karl Rove told a grand jury that he discussed with journalists the identity of an outed CIA operative whose public identification has caused a political storm, US media reported today.

Mr Rove told the grand jury that syndicated newspaper columnist Robert Novak had telephoned him and told him the operative's name, the Associated Press and the New York Times reported. Both AP and the New York Times quoted a person briefed on Mr Rove's grand jury testimony as the source of their stories.

The grand jury is investigating the outing of Valerie Wilson, a CIA operative and the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson. Ms Wilson, who has been referred to as Valerie Plame in many media reports, was named in a July 2003 article by Mr Novak. In the article, Mr Novak cited two senior administration officials as the source of his story.

It is a federal offence in some circumstances to reveal the identity of CIA operative, and the article sparked a justice department investigation to find out who had leaked Ms Wilson's name to journalists. The investigation has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

The story has also erupted into a political scandal for the US president, George Bush, as Mr Rove is a key adviser and the brains behind Mr Bush's presidential campaigns.

Democrats have claimed that the Bush administration was attempting to punish Mr Wilson through his wife in retaliation for Mr Wilson's public condemnation of faulty intelligence used to justify an attack on Iraq...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1529609,00.html

And an email From the

Quote[/b] ]Matt Cooper's Source

What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter.

By Michael Isikoff

Newsweek

July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

Scott Mclellan has been placed in an untenable position as reporters keep asking along with other questions whether this is like his answers on the Valerie Wilson case. leaving himonly able to stone wall on that question and unable to answer other questions put to him by the press as he is seen as tainted. I guess the best name for him is Commical McAli.

I would laugh if this matter were not so serious.

[EDIT]

*!*Breaking News*!*

The latest news being reported by CNN is that there is increasing evidense Karl Rove and others have broken one or more federal laws.

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't look good for Karl Rove

By John Dean

FindLaw Columnist

Special to CNN.com

Friday, July 15, 2005 Posted: 1842 GMT (0242 HKT)

(FindLaw) -- As the scandal over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity has continued to unfold, there is a renewed focus on Karl Rove -- the White House deputy chief of staff whom President Bush calls his political "architect."

Newsweek has reported that Matt Cooper, in an e-mail to his bureau chief at Time magazine, wrote that he had spoken "to Rove on double super-secret background for about two min[ute]s before he went on vacation ..." In that conversation, Rove gave Cooper "big warning" that Time should not "get too far out on Wilson."

Rove was referring, of course, to former Ambassador Joe Wilson's acknowledgment of his trip to Africa, where he discovered that Niger had not, in fact, provided uranium to Iraq that might be part of a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program.

Cooper's email indicates that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney; rather, Rove claimed, "it was ... [W]ilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [WMD] issues who authorized the trip." (Rove was wrong about the authorization.)

Only the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, and his staff have all the facts on their investigation at this point, but there is increasing evidence that Rove (and others) may have violated one or more federal laws. At this time, it would be speculation to predict whether indictments will be forthcoming...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/

Regards walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

As expected George Bush junior has done one of his usual indecisive flip-flops. Having first told us that we was going to act decisively and sack any one who leaked a covert CIA operatives identity he now says he wont sack his budy Karl Rove. George Bush Junior no longer views leaking covert operatives names as very important other than he thinks it is OK to do it to the spouses of any one who contradicts him.

Instead he has decided to wait until the person is convicted of the crime; kinda pointless there George Sacking a man after he is in jail   Still George is not renowned for being the sharpest pencil in the box.

In the cities and the backwaters of America the general opinion of Americans is that George Bush Junior should have kept his word and sacked Karl Rove for being one of those involved in the conspiracy to reveal a covert operatives identity.

Quote[/b] ]Bush should stand by word and fire Rove for outing agent

It now appears clear that President George Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, helped blow the cover of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent, endangering her life and our national security.

Rove discussed the identity of the undercover CIA agent with at least two reporters in an attempt to undermine the credibility of Plame’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who had publicly questioned the president’s contention in 2003 that Iraq had sought raw materials for nuclear weapons in Africa.

Rove’s own lawyer admits his client spoke about Plame with New York Times reporter Matthew Cooper. And Robert Novak cited two top administration officials when he outed Plame in a column. The New York Times Friday reported conversations between Novak and Rove regarding Plame.

Rove’s defense, to this point, is that he didn’t commit a felony because he didn’t specifically name Plame, but instead simply said she was Wilson’s wife. He also seems to be suggesting he didn’t initiate the leak, but merely confirmed Novak’s information...

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/07172005/editoria/53316.htm

The first signs of jittery GOP worries began last week with fears that "Traitorgate" was comming more and more to the attention of the voting public.

Quote[/b] ]Republicans fear Rove allegations hurt Bush image

GOP lawmakers defend president’s adviser.

Published Thursday, July 14, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans are nervously watching the fight over Karl Rove’s involvement in a news leak that exposed a CIA officer’s identity, fearing that President George W. Bush’s chief adviser has become a major political problem.

While the president passed up a chance yesterday to express confidence in his deputy chief of staff, his political team engineered a series of testimonials from members of Congress who praised Rove and condemned Democratic critics.

"The extreme left is once again attempting to define the modern Democratic Party by rabid partisan attacks, character assassination and endless negativity," said Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the GOP congressional committee. The Republican National Committee urged GOP lawmakers to go public.

Still, several top GOP officials - including some White House advisers - said the fight was becoming a distraction to Bush’s agenda. The GOP officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president might face a credibility problem because his spokesman said in September that anybody involved in the leak would be fired.

These Republicans said they were surprised and disappointed when Bush stopped short of publicly backing his longtime aide.

A survey of Republicans outside Washington revealed similar concerns. "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a GOP state senator from Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor.

Meanwhile, Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, called on Bush today to fire Rove, saying that the president’s confidant had engaged in an "abuse of power."

In an interview broadcast on NBC’s "Today" show, Wilson decried what he called a White House "stonewall" in the wake of the Rove revelations.

Bush said yesterday that he would not discuss the matter further until a criminal investigation is finished.

"This is a serious investigation," the president told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, where Rove sat just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."

Later in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Rove did have Bush’s support.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jul/20050714News015.asp

The result is reflected in the plumeting George Bush Junior's approval rating which has dropped into the thirties. Even normaly rabid right wing media are starting to say Karl Rove is realy hurting TBA and want rid of him.

Quote[/b] ]...Those who have grown tired of the Republican Party's willingness to lie down with any breed of dog will be very happy if Rove, too slow to make it over the wall, finds himself caught there just long enough to make a big splash, should the President be forced to send him to the pavement below.

Many look forward to standing there with smiles on their faces as the yellow from his egghead runs over the bricks. They will try to tell us if Rove's career was fueled by pus, by chemically sweetened Christian lemonade or by the old yellow stains of cowardice...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news....7c.html

Many others fear Karl Rove will take others with him and start dishing the dirt on TBA. Commical Mclellan is already holed below the water line and Scooter libby seems like he may be in worse legal hot water than Rove already is. Even Robert Novak who rolled over to the special prosecuter could be taken in on a conspiracy charge as the secondary and more likely charge will be a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes.

On the another note there is of course the very real risk that others as well as Rove may be also be charged with by the Special Prosecutor the very same charges that lead to Watergate and so much trouble for Clinton.

Quote[/b] ]...There is no solid information that Rove, or anyone else, violated this law designed to protect covert CIA agents. There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated. In particular, I have in mind the laws invoked by the Bush Justice Department in the relatively minor leak case that it vigorously prosecuted, though it involved information that was not nearly as sensitive as that which Rove provided Matt Cooper (and possibly others).

Leak prosecution precedent

I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a Ph.D. in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA.

Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)

Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, count one of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush administration would handle leakers.

Precedent bodes ill for Rove

Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super-secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Rove.

Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

"In my view," he explained, "it is a very serious offense because of the risk that comes with it, and part of that risk is because of the position" that Randel held in DEA. But the risk posed by the information Rove leaked is multiplied many times over; it occurred at a time when the nation was considering going to war over weapons of mass destruction. And Rove was risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert, Valerie Plame Wilson.

Judge Story acknowledged that Randel's leak did not appear to put lives at risk, nor to jeopardize any DEA investigations. But he also pointed out that Randel "could not have completely and fully known that in the position that [he] held."

Is not the same true of Rove? Rove had no idea what the specific consequences of giving a reporter the name of a CIA agent (about whom he says he knew nothing) would be--he only knew that he wanted to discredit her (incorrectly) for dispatching her husband to determine if the rumors about Niger uranium were true or false.

Given the nature of Valerie Plame Wilson's work, it is unlikely the public will ever know if Rove's leak caused damage, or even loss of life of one of her contracts abroad, because of Rove's actions. Dose anyone know the dangers and risks that she and her family may face because of this leak?

It was just such a risk that convinced Judge Story that "for any person with the agency to take it upon himself to leak information poses a tremendous risk; and that's what, to me, makes this a particularly serious offense." Cannot the same be said about Rove's leak? It dealt with matters related to national security; if the risk Randel was taking was a "tremendous" risk, surely Rove's leak was monumental.

While there are other potential violations of the law that may be involved with the Valerie Plame Wilson case, it would be speculation to consider them. But Karl Rove's leak to Matt Cooper is now an established fact.

First, there is Matt Cooper's e-mail record. And Cooper has now confirmed that he has told the grand jury he spoke with Rove. If Rove's leak fails to fall under the statute that was used to prosecute Randel, I do not understand why.

There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/

I would laugh at TBA's stupidity were it not for the fact that this action of leaking a covert CIA operatives identity for petty political advantage were such a serious and traitorous matter.

sadly Walker  

[Sophion-Black 0]

I say give the power to the branch that should get it, the Judicial. they should judge on what should happen. after all, it makes sense to give it to a branch that deals with judging.

I would say its no loner in the pres hands and send the case on "up"

[walker 0]

Hi all

Traitorgate continues to fill the news in the USA with the latest people to comment being senior ex-members of the CIA voicing their expectation that the traitorous actions of the people who leaked a covert operatives secret identity should feel the full weight of the law and warning George Bush Junior it had better be the case.

Quote[/b] ]Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak

President Bush is jeopardizing national security by not disciplining Karl Rove for his role in leaking the name of a CIA officer, and has hampered efforts to recruit informants in the war on terror, former U.S. intelligence officers say.

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson used the Democratic Party's weekly radio address Saturday to reiterate comments he made Friday to a panel of House and Senate Democrats.

At that event, Johnson and others expressed great frustration that CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was made public. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy.

"Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson," Johnson said in the radio address.

Johnson, who said he was a registered Republican, said Bush has gone back on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak.

Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine.

Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller — who never wrote a story about Plame — has been jailed for refusing to testify.

Bush said last week, "I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well."

Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.

Johnson said he wished a Republican lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" he asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."

___

On the Net:

CIA:

http://www.cia.gov

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....D72.DTL

On the matter itself the list of leakers looks set to expand. It apears the special prosecutor is now looking at at least three major TBA players for criminal charges plus 2 or 3 reporters and a few whitehouse employees.

Quote[/b] ]Conflicting Stories

By Dan Froomkin

Special to washingtonpost.com

Friday, July 22, 2005; 1:22 PM

New reports today indicate that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is zeroing in on conflicting stories officials and reporters have provided his grand jury, lending credence to the theory that he may be considering obstruction of justice or perjury charges against top White House officials.

Bloomberg and the New York Times move the ball forward today, courtesy of what appear to be a growing number of leakers.

And here, culled from those and other reports, are what would seem to be some of the harder-to-reconcile contradictions in the case, which started out as an investigation into who leaked a CIA agent's identity -- but which now could be turning into another testament to the Washington maxim that the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

· White House chief political strategist Karl Rove reportedly told the grand jury that he first learned of Valerie Plame's identity from columnist Robert Novak -- but Novak's version of the story is that Rove already knew about her when the two spoke.

· Rove didn't mention his conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to investigators at first and then said it was primarily about welfare reform. But Cooper has testified that the topic of welfare reform didn't came up.

· Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby apparently told prosecutors he first heard about Plame from NBC's Tim Russert, but Russert has testified that he neither offered nor received information about Plame in his conversation with Libby.

· And former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer apparently told prosecutors that he never saw a classified State Department memo that disclosed Plame's identity, but another former official reportedly saw him perusing it on Air Force One...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....79.html

Mean while that other casualty of Traitorgate Comical Mclellan continues to veer between oratory constipation of stone walling and spouting verbal diarrhea answers that have nothing to do with the question asked, in an attempt explain George Bush Juniors dithering and flip floping over whether he should sack someone who has admited to leaking the identity of a CIA covert operative.

here is a sample of Comical Mclellan speak

Quote[/b] ]...After a bit of chatter about the London bombings, Hearst columnist Helen Thomas started things off with a bang:

Thomas: "Why does Karl Rove still have security clearance and access to classified documents when he has been revealed as a leaker of a secret agent, according to Time magazine's correspondent?"

McClellan: "Well, there is an investigation that continues, and I think the President has made it clear that we're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation."

Thomas: "You already have the truth."

McClellan: "We're not going to prejudge the outcome of that investigation through --

Thomas: "Does he have access to security documents?"

McClellan: " -- through media reports. And these questions came up over the last week -- "

Thomas: "Did he leak the name of a CIA agent?"

McClellan: "As I was trying to tell you, these questions have been answered."

Thomas: "No, they haven't."

David Gregory, NBC News: "Let me ask -- "

McClellan: "Go ahead, David."

Gregory: "And they most certainly haven't. I think Helen is right, and the people watching us know that. And related to that, there are now --"

McClellan: "Let me correct the record. We've said for quite some time that this was an ongoing investigation, and that we weren't going to comment on it, so let me just correct the record."

Gregory: "If you want to make the record clear, then you also did make comments when a criminal investigation was underway, you saw fit to provide Karl Rove with a blanket statement of absolution. And that turned out to be no longer accurate --."

After a while, McClellan had this to say about the whole line of questioning: "I thank you for wanting to proceed ahead with the investigation from this room, but I think that the appropriate place for that to happen is through those who are overseeing the investigation. The President directed us to cooperate fully, and that's exactly what we have been doing and continue to do."...

Ibid

I guess what we are all waiting for now are the charges and the court case that one would hope and I think the security services would expect after one of their own has their name leaked when they are a covert operative.

In the UK here papers and their proprieters know they will go to jail if they reveal an operatives identity they even smudge out the faces of body guards on the TV here. I would have thought the US media particularly those on the suposed right wing would have the same values. Instead it apears they put petty partical advantage above the security of the nation.

Sadly Walker

Kind Regards Walker

[EiZei 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....86.html

Quote[/b] ]

Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate

By Peter Baker and Peter Slevin

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Page A01

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

I am.. speechless, just plain speechless.

[Balschoiw 0]

It´s on thing to believe in nonsense. It´s another thing to be president of the USA and try to spread that nonsense among pupils. Alternative theory ? It´s more than wishful thinking for the bible belt to have this "theory" implemented in scholar system.

Well, had to be expected from a fanatic like Bush anyway...

Maybe he should recheck his "family" album once more

[Guest The Cobra]

OK then ralph

It is probably his index-(not pointing ) finger

[walker 0]

Hi all

CNN SUSPENDS NOVAK

The Traitorgate investigation is already starting to bite the leakers of covert CIA operative Valerie Wilson's (nee Plame) identitity.

The triaterous act was placed in a news paper article by Robert Novak long time known associate of Karl Rove. As was noted earlier this week in the New York Times and in the most bizare of twists Novak tried to denie he new Karl Rove! I sh*t you not.

Quote[/b] ] ...even though Mr. Novak has said on CNN"I can't tell you anything I ever talked to Karl Rove about, because I don't think I ever talked to him about any subject, even the time of day, on the record."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005....omepage

This despite the fact he used to have dinners with Karl Rove in Austin since the early 90s, has quoted him as a source, has been filmed and photographed with Karl Rove on numerous occasions and that both he Rove admit they talked about Valerie Wilson's (nee Plame) covert identitity.

Both now say it was the other who told them Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) was a covert CIA operative. This blame game is perhaps why Robert Novak lost his cool on air during a grilling by CNN correspondent Ed Henry.

As a result CNN have now suspended Robert Novak

Quote[/b] ]CNN suspends journalist Robert Novak

Columnist apologizes for on-air outburst

Friday, August 5, 2005; Posted: 10:20 p.m. EDT (02:20 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Journalist Robert Novak, whose publication of a CIA officer's name in a 2003 column has sparked a federal investigation, was suspended by CNN after he swore and walked off the set during a live telecast.

CNN correspondent Ed Henry said afterward that he had been about to ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which Novak has repeatedly refused to comment on aside from some references in his column.

The incident occurred Thursday as Novak and Democratic professional campaigner and strategist James Carville were analyzing the U.S. Senate candidacy of former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.

"Let me just finish, James, please," Novak continued. "I know you hate to hear me, but you have to."

Carville, addressing the camera, said: "He's got to show these right wingers that he's got a backbone, you know. It's why The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em that you're tough."

"Well, I think that's bull---- and I hate that," Novak replied. "Just let it go."

As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.

A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak's behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/05/novak.cnn.ap/

rumours that Fitzgerald is considering conspiracy charges may be the cause of Novak and others panic.

Novak got up and left the show before CNN anchor Ed Henry could ask him questions about his role in the growing scandal that has involved top White House officials, including Bush confidant Karl Rove. Henry told his audience after Novak's on-air tantrum, "Bob Novak obviously left the set a little early. I had told him in advance that we were going to ask him about the CIA leak case. He was not here for me to be able to ask him about that." "Apparently, Robert Novak was afraid to answer questions in an open forum or perhaps he had to meet with his lawyer," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Either way, he needs to come clean about his conversations with Karl Rove, 'Scooter' Libby, and any other administration officials, and help get to the bottom of this breach of national security."

If Novak had stayed, here are some of the questions Henry could have asked:

The Questions Bob Novak did not want to answer on CNN

Question 1: During his last appearance on CNN, why did Novak lie to CNN Anchor Candy Crowley when asked if he had ever spoken to Karl Rove on the record? Novak Says He Never Talked To Rove on the Record - But He Did. In an interview with Candy Crowley, Novak was asked whether he ever told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent. He replied, "I can't tell anything I ever talked to Karl Rove about, because I don't think I ever talked to him about any subject even the time of day, on the record." But he has printed on the record quotes from Rove in at least two op-ed pieces - one on the Iowa caucuses, and the other on judicial nominations. (CNN, 7/26/05; The New York Post, 5/3/99, 6/18/99)

Question 2: If Novak had high ranking CIA officials telling him that his story was not true and should not be printed, who was powerful enough to convince Novak to print it any way? Did Novak tell his administration sources of his conversation with Harlow? We already know that Novak talked to Rove, who else did he talk to? Novak Says No One Told Him That He Shouldn't Reveal Plame's Identity - But He Was Warned. Novak stated that that no CIA official ever told him in advance "that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody else. But Bill Harlow, a former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. (Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Question 3: Why has Novak cited his lawyers advice for so long in order to avoid answering questions, only to write an op-ed selectively releasing new information? Novak Refused To Comment On Plame Leak Except To Benefit Himself, Or To Convince Random People on the Street. Novak has repeatedly stated that he cannot comment on the leak of Valerie Plame's name because he was following the advice of his attorneys. However, he recently wrote a column explaining some of his actions, in order to protect his "integrity as a journalist." In addition, news reports indicate that he was willing to comment to strangers about the CIA agent's identity. Joe Wilson said in a recent interview that he had known that Novak was interested in him a week or so before the column appeared because a friend who saw Novak on the street reported that Novak told him, "Wilson is an asshole and his wife works for the CIA." (Houston Chronicle, 7/31/05; Los Angeles Times, 7/18/05)

Question 4: Which one is it, Mr. Novak? Did you read it in a book? Or did you hear it from the Administration? Novak Changes His Story on How He Got Plame's Name. Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. 'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." But he then suggested in an op-ed that he got it from the book Who's Who in America, saying that "Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.'" (Newsday, 7/22/2003; Houston Chronicle, 7/31/05)

Some of the effects that the traitors actions have had

For the record, Valerie Wilson's (nee Plame), was among the deepest cover agent's the CIA has she worked as so called  "nonofficial cover" agent, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonofficial_cover a select group of operatives who know that if they are caught, the U.S. government will disavow any connection with them.

Valerie Wilson's (nee Plame) life and that of her family is now permanently in jepordy from any one of the people who she ran a covert operation against as now they will know who it was and will be looking for payback.

Millions of dollars are spent to train and support this select group of "nonofficial cover" agents. All those millions are now lost and irecoverable.

There is then of course the question of how many other covert operatives and assets in the field have also been compromised as a result of the traitors act.

The company Brewster Jennings & Associates that was used by the CIA as a cover for multiple operatives was compromised directly as a result of the leak by Novak and others in The White House. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_%26_Associates

All those agents who used that company as cover have now had their cover blown. There will be obvious ripple effects similar to Valerie Wilson's (nee Plame) cover being blown for each of those agents as well.

All of Valerie Wilson's (nee Plame) contacts held in security files round the world are now at risk of arrest, imprisonment and torture.

Further the CIA's ability to recruit foreign agents has been severely damaged because potential recruits fear coming in contact with Americans and do not trust this administration to protect their identity.

The key thing we have to remember about this is that the traitors have esentialy blinded the CIA to inteligence on WMD at a time when with Iran and North Korea and Al Qaida are a giant risk because the traitors have named the covert head of inteligence on WMD for nothing more than petty party political advantage.

Sadly Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

The mother of a soldier who died in Iraq is asking the question Bush most feared; why did her son have to die?

With all the proof in that there never was any WMD in Iraq and that Al Qaeda never had a link to Sadam or bases in Iraq until the US invited them in with an open border policy.

That the situation in Iraq is getting no better with over 2000 coalition casualties dead over 6000 maimed and wounded over 20,000 innocent Iraqis killed and untold tens of thousands maimed and wounded.

No one now believes a word TBA say.

Quote[/b] ]Angry Mom Protests President

(Page 1 of 2)

CRAWFORD, Texas, August 6, 2005

CBS/AP) The angry mother of a fallen U.S. soldier staged a protest near President Bush's ranch, demanding an accounting from Bush of how he has conducted the war in Iraq.

Supported by more than 50 demonstrators who chanted, “W. killed her son!†Cindy Sheehan told reporters: “I want to ask the president, 'Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?â€'

CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller reports that the passion of Sheehan’s message reflects the polarizing effects of war and may be why some in the administration tried late last month to call the conflict something else...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/06/national/main763672.shtml

The looming political consequences of the failed Iraq war are starting to set in with mutterings of; will the American voters ever trust a republican again? And with talk of TBA being the most corrupt and deceitful administration in American political history.

Sadly Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4850961/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush's standing with an American public anxious about Iraq and the nation's direction is lower than that of the last two men who won re-election to the White House - Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton - at this point in their second terms.

But solid backing from his base supporters has kept Bush from sinking to the depths reached by former presidents Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bush's father. Truman decided not to run for re-election. Nixon resigned. Carter and the first President Bush were defeated in re-election campaigns.

"This president should be glad he's not running for re-election," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst from the American Enterprise Institute. "But the president is clearly holding his base. It's very important for him to keep the base support in terms of getting things done."

Indeed, Republicans in Congress already are starting to fret about the 2006 election. If Bush's approval ratings sink lower, more of them may be unwilling to go along with his major initiatives for fear it could cause backlash for them with voters.

Bush's job approval in recent polls ranges from the low- to mid-40s. It was 42 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll. His ratings on everything from handling Iraq to the economy to Social Security and other domestic issues are at their lowest levels so far.

Reagan was at 57 percent at this stage of his presidency and Clinton was at 61 percent, according to Gallup polling at the time.

The partisan divide for Bush is stark - 80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve.

Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally, said Republicans are sticking with Bush for two reasons: personal affection and loyalty.

"I haven't seen anything like it since Reagan," he said. "Bush follows through on issues that are largely popular with the base, even when it's not popular with the general public to do so."

Bush may have a hard time pushing up his numbers because issues like the violence in Iraq and gas prices are largely out of his control.

But Bush's efforts to put conservatives on the Supreme Court and overhaul the federal tax code are likely to please his conservative base.

Other presidents have seen their political bases dissolve, in Gallup poll figures:

Truman's approval dipped to 24 percent in the late spring of 1951 after he removed popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from command in Korea.

Nixon's approval dropped to 31 percent in August 1973 as the war dragged on in Vietnam and revelations of administration misdeeds kept spilling out of the Senate Watergate hearings.

Carter's approval plunged to 29 percent in the early summer of 1979 amid economic troubles and news of increasing problems with new Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

George H.W. Bush's approval sank to 32 percent in July 1992 as his presidential rivals Clinton and Ross Perot gained momentum in the campaign and the jobless rate rose.

For the current president to fall to those levels, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents would have to abandon him in large numbers. So far there's no indication that is happening, though there are some rumblings of discontent.

"I voted for Bush," said Jerry Fleming a GOP-leaning independent from Athens, Ala. "I feel like he's pretty much a straight-shooter as far as his religious background. I respect that part of him.

"But if the situation in Iraq keeps dragging out for a long period of time with no hope for peace, I would eventually get fed up with it," Fleming said.

For Trisha McAllister, a Republican from Grenada, Miss., Bush's willingness to ignore public opinion wins her over.

"I may not approve of every single thing he does," McAllister said, "but he's a true leader because he's not leading by the polls."

Presidential scholar Charles Jones cautioned against reading too much into low poll ratings for a president at a given point of his term.

"Truman got some of the lowest poll numbers any president ever got," said Jones, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Now when we look back on Truman, he's the highest ranked of the post-World War II presidents."

a very mized message indeed. in other words, if Bush screws up even more, then he is going to be a big lame duck.

[walker 0]

Hi all

*!*Breaking News*!*

Inteligence that TBA new that Mohammed Atta was a terrorist before 9/11 was suppressed from the view of the 9/11 commision.

Quote[/b] ]Officer: 9/11 panel didn't receive key information

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 Posted: 1656 GMT (0056 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former member of a classified Pentagon intelligence unit told CNN on Wednesday that information he tried to provide to the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks never made it to the panel's members.

Publicly identifying himself for the first time, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said he worked this year with Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, and they determined "there was a significant amount of information that was totally deleted or not provided to the 9/11 commissioners."

Shaffer was part of the task force that supported Able Danger, an intelligence unit that was looking for al Qaeda terrorists.

The lieutenant colonel said Able Danger uncovered information in 2000 about lead hijacker Mohamed Atta by searching through public databases and looking for patterns.

Shaffer declined to be specific about what kind of documents linked Atta to al Qaeda, saying intelligence units continue to use such processes.

On Tuesday, Weldon told CNN that Shaffer set up meetings with FBI officials in 2000, but they were canceled because lawyers for the Special Forces unit -- of which Able Danger was a member -- allegedly were concerned military authorities could not legally share information with domestic law enforcement about potential terror suspects in the United States.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Shaffer told The New York Times on Wednesday.

In a statement Friday, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice chairman of the now-defunct 9/11 commission, said that Able Danger "did not turn out to be historically significant, set against the larger context of U.S. policy and intelligence efforts that involved [Osama] bin Laden and al Qaeda." (Full story)

Shaffer told CNN he had not come forward earlier because he believed there may have been a classified addendum to the commission's report or there might be some other reason why the information was not disclosed to the public.

The 9/11 panel -- officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- released its final report in a nearly 570-page book in July 2004...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005....ex.html

The Article goes on to say that Able Danger the inteligence group responcible for spotting the hijackers before 9/11 only to be ignored by TBA were then shut down by somone from someone high up in the administration when the 9/11 commitee became aware of their evidence; this despite protests from the inteligence community that Able Danger was the countries best Inteligence Asset on Al Qaida.

Gobsmacked Walker  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Article goes on to say that Able Danger the inteligence group responcible for spotting the hijackers before 9/11 only to be ignored by TBA were then shut down by somone from someone high up in the administration when the 9/11 commitee became aware of their evidence; this despite protests from the inteligence community that Able Danger was the countries best Inteligence Asset on Al Qaida.

What article are you reading, Walker? Able Danger was not shut down by TBA but by Congress...

Quote[/b] ]

One of the intelligence officers urged the commission to look into Able Danger and complained that Congress had "ended a human intelligence network he considered valuable."

Furthermore, if you read

Quote[/b] ]

On Tuesday, Weldon told CNN that Shaffer set up meetings with FBI officials in 2000, but they were canceled because lawyers for the Special Forces unit -- of which Able Danger was a member -- allegedly were concerned military authorities could not legally share information with domestic law enforcement about potential terror suspects in the United States.

Quote[/b] ]"The officer being interviewed said he saw this material only briefly, that the relevant material dated from February through April 2000, and that it showed Mohamed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn," the statement said.

"The officer complained that this information and information about other alleged members of a Brooklyn cell had been soon afterward deleted from the document because DOD lawyers were concerned about the propriety of DOD intelligence efforts that might be focused inside the United States."

But the officer "could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification. Nor could the interviewee recall, when questioned, any details about how he thought a link to Atta could have been made by this DOD program in 2000 or any time before 9/11," the statement said.

The intelligence was in the Dept. of Defense but, in the article, there is no mention of TBA receiving this info. Furthermore, the article highlights the failed cooperation of two agencies in 2000. So, I guess Clinton knew about Atta and his boys because it says there was a meeting that supposedly identify Atta and a Al-Q. cell in 2000... Just admit the blame goes around already and beyond the TBA...

Edit: Also, the article shows the "wall" in action that existed before TBA.

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

The Congress that ended Able Danger was of course a Republican one and it did so at the behest of the then Republican Administration as it was going to point out that TBA had been briefed about Al Qaida and Atta before 9/11. The problem was TBA were not paying attention to real intel it did not interest them too many figures and lots of complex motivations; they had their great plan for fantasy intel operations: The Office of Special Plans.

Game to me I think.

And there is the usual GOP trick of blame 9/11 on Clinton bored now.

9/11 was long after Clinton left power and after the Clinton Administration had warned the incomming TBA to watch Al Qaeda which of course TBA ignored.

The wall act you so hate of course endorsed and used by TBA and Ashcroft no less http://mirrorimageorigin.collegepublisher.com/media....h1t.pdf updated and expanded it after 9/11 thus alowing King Faisal's lawyers to protect him with it; from being sued by the families of the 9/11 dead. So that one dont wash.

The wall act you complain about is just the GOP talking point that has been on so many GOP web sites in the terified run up to the realease of the revelations that TBA new about Atta and four other bombers before 9/11 something TBA has always tried to say they did not know when now we see plainly proveably they did.

Set to me I think.

TBA was being informed about the threat as it was a potential government in September of 2000 that is normal. The oposition candidates are told about the threat assesment as part of the process of transition to power. Of course we all remember TBA staff could not be bothered to attend the threat assesments and rubished the threat of Al Qaida as they wanted to start a pointless war in Iraq.

That was how 9/11 was allowed to happen in the first place.

2nd set to me I think.

The reason TBA did not see the inteligence report is the Reason they never saw any inteligence they did not want to see it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

They wanted to set up the Office of Special Plans. Which as we all remember was set up by TBA to ensure that the only intel TBA saw was what they wanted to see. You know the stuff the fantasies about Iraq having WMD.

So because TBA was too busy getting stoned on the fantasy world of the Office of Special Plans.

America was attacked while TBA was suposed to be on watch

America went and fought the wrong war.

And it is also why gas at the pump costs so much.

Game Set and Match to me I think.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Congress that ended Able Danger was of course a Republican one and it did so at the behest of the then Republican Administration as it was going to point out that TBA had been briefed about Al Qaida and Atta before 9/11.

Again, you are guessing that Atta was pointed out in a briefing to TBA. Operation "Able Danger" was shutdown in Feb. of 2001 (little bit after Bush got in to Office) by Congress and that is more than a year before OSP existed. Should I put my tin fold hat on?

Quote[/b] ]The wall act you so hate of course endorsed and used by TBA and Ashcroft no less http://mirrorimageorigin.collegepublisher.com/media....h1t.pdf updated and expanded it after 9/11 thus alowing King Faisal's lawyers to protect him with it; from being sued by the families of the 9/11 dead.

And? The wall was up before TBA and it prevented the FBI from getting info. about Atta and some of his boys in 2000.

Quote[/b] ]

That was how 9/11 was allowed to happen in the first place.

You can go back all the way to 1996 because if the Clinton administration listened to the State Department analysts, incidents like the USS Cole and 9/11 won't be heard of. However, granted, hardly nobody knew about Bin Laden at the time. In 2000, Clinton and co. was on Defcon 1 when Atta was supposedly identify with a terrorist cell in the United States. But, the law came first to some SOCOM (?) lawyers. Do I blame Clinton or Bush solely for 9/11? No, there are many reasons why 9/11 happened and they range from Bush being very passive on the threat to the Wall to Atta and co. being just evil. There are various dots that connect to make 9/11 and it is no one dot (TBA).