Hey, Ambassador Wilson! SUE THE BASTARDS!

[Octafish]

Dear Ambassador Wilson:

With all due respect, I believe you and your wife should sue certain members of the government of the United States. Two of the grounds for the suit are endangering the lives of your family and damaging your ability to work in your chosen fields. Defendants could include George "Smirk" Bush, Dick "Sneer" Cheney, Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove and I. Lewis "PNAC" Libby.

Furthermore, your attorney should also sue members of the news media who helped propagate the administration's campaign of lies and smears against you and yours. Defendants should include The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News Network, Robert "She Works at CIA" Novak and especially Robert "Not Much There" Woodward.

In all cases, sue their pants off. And may your attorney's get all the proceedings into the historical record.

Should you need money for a lawyer, I will help. I'm sure several thousand of my friends on the Internets will want to help, too.

Truly grateful for all you've done for our Country,

Octafish

[ewagner]

1. Bob Woodward

should have pretty deep pockets.....sue the hell out of him for not exposing the conspiracy....

[BJW]

2. FYI--Woodward

has two new nicknames--Wormtongue or Wormwood.

[Octafish]

3. Woodward should lose his job at The Washington Post for lying.

The guy protected Bush in his books and criticized Wilson for speaking out and called the damage from the outting of Valerie P and Brewster Jennings "minimal." Gee. All they were doing was working to stop the spread of WMDs from the former Soviet republics and who knows where else.

[ewagner]

5. Woodward has squandered

the only thing a Journalist has :

his integrity

[Octafish]

8. Absolutely, ewagner!

Gee. You almost took the wind out of my PT-109 sails.

I'm working on a post for the anniversary:

JFK: Man of Integrity

It's easy to contrast with what passes today for leadership.

[H2O Man]

6. Right.

He needs to be fired. He represents a cancer on journalism.

[Octafish]

10. The guy's lower than Novak, IMFO.

At least Novakula stood by what he said and testified before the Grand Jury, holding nothing back from what I've read.

Woodward, OTOH, was insidiously insisting that there was no damage from the Plame-BJA outting. And he kept lowering the boom on Wilson's basic truthfulness regarding Niger, yellowcake and Saddam the BFEE trading partner.

Perhaps Woody will be the subject along with the next major journalistic housecleaning of "All the Pretzeldent's Men."

[H2O Man]

12. The fact that Woodward

thinks he has the right to decide which federal laws he will avoid obeying puts him beneath Novak. Robert Novak is just a nasty poodle. Woodward is a snake.

[ewagner]

The second point:

"...criticized Wilson for speaking out and called the damage from the outting of Valerie P and Brewster Jennings "minimal."

is probably the most damaging. He was PART OF THE STORY he should have never agreed to appear as either a journalist or unaffected party to comment on the case. That is a breach of ethics.....as serious breach of ethics...and, in my opinion, a fatal breach of ethics.

He has forfeited his title as JOURNALIST

[seemslikeadream]

4. Not just a probe Mr. Wilson

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051117/ts_nm/bush_leak_dc


Plame's husband wants Post to probe Woodward
By Adam Entous
Reuters

Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized the leak investigation without disclosing his own involvement.

"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.

Woodward testified under oath on Monday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official casually told him in mid-June 2003 about Plame's position at the CIA.

The surprise testimony appeared to contradict Fitzgerald's assertion that Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was the first government official to divulge information to reporters about Plame. The disclosure could prolong the leak investigation as Fitzgerald pursues new leads in the case, lawyers said.

[Octafish]

13. Thanks, 'Dreamy! Entous has been all up and down Treasongate.

For example, the sleazy Italian SIMSI forgeries:

W.House disputes Italy role in Iraq uranium from Africa claim

By Adam Entous
Reuters Wed Nov 2, 2005 8:52 AM GMT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday disputed accusations that Italian intelligence in a 2002 meeting passed off fake documents, showing Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, that formed part of U.S. President George W. Bush's case for war against Saddam Hussein.

U.S. officials who attended a September 9, 2002, meeting with Italy's spy chief do not recall the issue coming up, said a spokesman for the White House National Security Council. The meeting is central to the accusations.

"No one who was present at the meeting remembers yellow cake (uranium) being discussed nor any documents being passed," spokesman Frederick Jones said.

Bush, in making a case for war in his 2003 State of the Union address, said there was evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa to further apparent nuclear-weapons ambitions.

Bush cited British intelligence as the source of the information. But U.S. officials have said in the past that the information was partly traced back to Italian sources.

CONTINUED...

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-02T065236Z_01_ALL224742_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-BUSH-LEAK-ITALY-20051102.XML

PS: Good to read you, seemslikeadream.



Missed seeing you.

[Spazito]

7. They are wise, imo, to wait to launch a civil suit

Waiting until the official investigation is complete and all charges against those indicted have been adjudicated through the court system, they will have all the evidence collected and in the public pervue to use in any civil suit they may choose to pursue.

[Octafish]

16. Absolutely wise, Spazito! I just want to remind folks how big this is.

This being the conspiracy to mislead the nation into war, which was (at least one of) the reason(s) for smearing Wilson and outting his wife.

OTOH: There are reports Cheney and the BFEE were trying to run WMDs into Iraq to show the world Saddam had 'em. Brewster Jennings, doing their job, stopped 'em.

[Spazito]

18. Yes, I do find it interesting that NO media is touching the

Brewster Jennings/WMD aspect to this. I, like you, believe it is a pivotal piece of the conspiracy puzzle.

[seemslikeadream]

9. Secret Admirers: The Bushes and the Washington Post

Secret Admirers: The Bushes and the Washington Post

By Michael Hasty

Even before Woodward put the finishing touches on the Post's post-9/11 portrait of George W as a fearless wartime leader, the paper's staff was otherwise busily enhancing the mythic status of Junior's persona—first by downplaying and fogging over the media recount of the voting in Florida, which showed that the only circumstance in which Bush could have occupied the Oval Office was what had actually happened, with the US Supreme Court halting the original vote recount; and then on December 12, 2000, crowning Bush "King of the Christians" in a front page article announcing, "Pat Robertson's resignation this month as President of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush."

Almost as important as 9/11 in bestowing a Post imprimatur of legitimacy on the Bush regime's occupation of the White House and on its "war on terror" was the newspaper's fierce encouragement of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The pro-war drumbeat on the Post's editorial and op-ed pages was so markedly one-sided that a number of media analysts felt compelled to write about it. Colin Powell's presentation of US "evidence" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council was not only reproduced word-for-word next day in the Post, but it received unreservedly glowing reviews on the front page, the editorial page, and from the Post's entire stable of establishment pundits, from liberal Mary McGrory rightward. The paper richly earned its prewar reputation as "the most hawkish newspaper in America."

<snip>

The most important propaganda stage the Post has built for George W to act the role of "president" upon was, of course, what the corporate media still prefers to portray as the "defining moment" of Junior's reign—the events of September 11. The challenge was made more difficult by Bush's Fredo Corleone performance on the day the attacks occurred. After acting clueless enough to dawdle in front of a classroom of second-graders for nearly a half-hour following the crash of the second plane, he then spent the rest of the day flying erratically around the country ("Just trying to get out of harm's way," as he later told a reporter), and appearing perplexed and too small for his suit as he addressed a national television audience that night.

This was a job for Superman—which the Post provided in the form of its premier Washington insider, presidential chronicler and US Navy Intelligence veteran, the legendary Watergate reporter, Bob Woodward. Along with Post reporter Dan Balz, Woodward employed his impeccable journalistic fellatio in an eight-part, front-page series of articles giving a moment-to-moment White House account of the first days of the "war on terror," inflating the image of a cowardly dauphin into that of a credibly decisive commander-in-chief. The articles became the basis for Woodward's subsequent bestseller, "Bush At War"—which is probably best viewed as a sequel to his book about the first Gulf War, "The Commanders," featuring many of the same characters.

Woodward's relationship to the Bush family is particularly interesting (see Part 1 of this series for more details). For the uninitiated, Woodward fairly successfully inoculated himself from any future suspicion that he might be too close to the subjects of his writing with his historic coverage of the Watergate scandal. In the matrix of the corporate media, Woodward is still portrayed as the archetypal intrepid investigative reporter who, with his scruffy partner, Carl Bernstein, spoke truth to power and brought down a president.

In the real world, Woodward has proven to be uncannily close to the highest centers of power.

More of Part 1:http://www.onlinejournal.org/Media/020504Hasty/020504hasty.html




Part 1 of a two part-series
Secret admirers: The Bushes and the Washington Post

By Michael Hasty
Online Journal Contributing Writer

February 5, 2004—Ever since the days of the Watergate scandal, when a series of front-page articles by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, the Post has had a reputation among many Americans as one of the elite bastions of the "liberal media."

This opinion is especially prevalent among conservatives, who also fault the Post for its publication (along with that other "liberal" icon, The New York Times) of the Pentagon Papers—an action they correctly view as having made a major contribution to undermining domestic support for the war in Vietnam. During the '70s, there was an angry conservative boycott of the paper in the Washington, DC, area, with "I Don't Believe the Post" bumper stickers appearing on cars and WP vending boxes.

At the heart of the Post's "liberal" reputation is the sense that its coverage represents the thinking of what used to be known as the "Eastern Liberal Establishment" back in the days when Republicans could be liberals (with a favorable view of internationalism and the welfare state) and before the Establishment moved to Texas and got saved by Jesus, its favorite political philosopher. This was the same period when the Central Intelligence Agency, still dominated by the Establishment Ivy Leaguers who organized the "oh-so-social" OSS in World War II, was also widely seen as a "liberal" institution.

With a 21st-century perspective, where internationalism has become globalization, and monopoly capitalism is so powerful it no longer needs to mask its agenda with welfare programs, we can see the Establishment's "liberalism" for the ruthless neoliberalism it has always been. Yet the more powerful and elite the ruling class, the greater its need for an effective propaganda system to maintain that power; and the Washington Post remains, as writer Doug Henwood described it in 1990, "the establishment's paper."

More of Part2:http://www.onlinejournal.org/Media/021104Hasty/021104hasty.html

[Octafish]

17. Thanks loads, seemslikeadream. Here's what Consortiumnews adds...

Gee. You'd think the way Smirk talks he really does believe he didn't mislead the nation into thinking Saddam was behind 9-11:

Bush's Rewriting of History

By Robert Parry
November 16, 2005

For decades, the well-connected Bush family has been treated like a kind of American royalty in which a petulant king or prince can stamp a foot and insist that whatever the evidence says the truth is otherwise. Their subjects are expected to bow in acquiescence, while dissenters can expect a good thrashing.

George H.W. Bush did this during the early Iran-Contra scandal, insisting he was “not in the loop” despite extensive evidence that his vice presidential office was a hub for the secret operations in both Central America and the Middle East. Rep. Lee Hamilton and other bipartisan-seeking Democrats gently let Bush off the hook in the congressional Iran-Contra report, clearing him for the 1988 presidential election.

When Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh finally broke through the Bush cover-up in 1992, Walsh was pilloried across Washington as a crazy old man, a Captain Ahab pursuing the White Whale. George Bush Sr. then destroyed Walsh’s investigation by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants in December 1992.

Now Bush’s eldest son, George W. Bush, is turning to this tried-and-true family tactic to extricate himself from his own web of lies and distortions about the Iraq War. In a Veterans Day speech on Nov. 11, Bush accused those who question his alleged misuse of pre-war intelligence of being the real guilty ones who have distorted the facts.

“It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” Bush scolded his critics. “These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/111505.html

If all whores who're guilty are sentenced, we really might have to build more jails.

[oasis]

11. Weasel Woodward is losing credibilty at faster rate than his hero Bush.

The Hall of Shame isn't big enough to hold the both of them. :puke:

[Octafish]

20. There's a little thing called History...

...which the BFEE think they write. Unfortunately, they are wrong:

Woodward Role Alters CIA Leak Timeline, May Not Undermine Case

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward's disclosure that he learned the identity of an undercover CIA agent more than two years ago adds an unexpected new element to the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide without greatly altering the substance of the case.

Woodward is a best-selling author whose reporting on the Watergate scandal helped drive President Richard Nixon from office in 1974. He apologized to executive editor Leonard Downie for not informing him and other Post editors about what he learned from a Bush administration official in June 2003: that Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in his Oct. 28 indictment of I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, said the vice president's chief of staff lied when he testified that he learned of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity from NBC reporter Tim Russert.

``The impact on the case is probably minimal,'' former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder said. ``The question before the jury will be whether Libby lied, and whether or not Bob Woodward had a conversation about Plame with another source doesn't have a great impact on the determination the jurors will be making.''

SNIP...

While Woodward's revelation alters Fitzgerald's timeline, Libby still has significant legal hurdles to overcome in his effort to avoid conviction, said Holder, now a lawyer at Covington & Burling in Washington.

CONTINUED...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMwmZBXAnMLI&refer=us

Lots of turds "Poppy"ng up to the surface these days.

[Just Me]

14. I think a Wilsons' Civil Case Fund is a fabulous idea!!!!

:bounce:

And, yes, as a former civil practitioner, I would STRONGLY encourage them to sue the britches off every single potential defendant out there!!

:bounce:

[Octafish]

21. I'd trust you with the account, Just Me!

There's going to be some kind of printing fee. The defendants listed on the complaint alone would run about 500 pages.



Then again, they may find themselves subject to the same, uh, techniques of "Justice" they employ.

[Canuckistanian]

15. But first, start with Valelly

Scum of his kind should be shut down to prevent any others from trying.

And also, to end that myth once and for all.

[Octafish]

23. Gen. Vallely's a slimy nutjob, at the very best.

For those new to the turdball Valelly, there are a couple more floaters:

Hume misquoted Mitchell in defense of Fox contributor under fire for Plame claim

On the November 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Washington managing editor Brit Hume misquoted NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell, attributing to her the claim that CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity was an "open secret." Hume's misrepresentation of Mitchell's comments in an October 2003 interview on CNBC served to corroborate a claim made by Fox News contributor ret. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely. In fact, Mitchell's full quote, which Hume did not read, makes it clear that she was referring to reporters actively looking into a February 2002 trip to Niger by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and not, as Hume suggested, all reporters covering the intelligence community.

Vallely recently claimed in a series of inconsistent statements that Wilson told him in 2002, when both appeared on the Fox News Channel -- long before syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak outed Plame in his July 14, 2003, column -- that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. The right-wing news website WorldNetDaily.com and ABC Radio Networks host John Batchelor reported evolving variations of this claim, and Vallely offered his own version on the November 7 edition of The Sean Hannity Show. After WorldNetDaily posted a story on Vallely's claims on November 5, Wilson's attorney, Christopher Wolf, contacted Vallely and WorldNetDaily, stating that Vallely's claims were untrue and demanding a retraction.

Wilson's attorney also mistakenly forwarded to WorldNetDaily an email between himself and Wilson, in which Wilson said, " is a bald faced lie. Can we sue?"

On the November 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Hume reported that Vallely was demanding that Wilson apologize for calling him a liar and explained the email snafu. At the end of the report, Hume added, "General Vallely, by the way, isn't the first to call Valerie Plame's job at the CIA an open secret. In 2003, NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell said Plame's CIA job had been, quote, 'widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community,' end quote."

Hume was quoting from an October 3, 2003, appearance on CNBC's Capital Report. Host Alan Murray asked Mitchell "how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" Mitchell responded, "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it."

CONTINUED...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090013

Why does it seem that former hawkish Generals are always looking for work?

When they retire, don't they get to keep their Rolodex?

[cassiepriam]

19. I think we all should sue, I want my taxes back.

They weren't legally elected and the war is illegal.
And I want damages for my pain and suffering. And as an American
my image is tarnished abroad.

[Just Me]

22. Too bad WE don't get back misused federal funds!!!

x(

Of course, HUGE restitution could be charged against all those cronies who profiteered and those monies would be returned to the budget. Of course, I'm getting into way out wishful thinking on that.

[cassiepriam]

25. yah, name Halliburton and the big fat cats too

They have have taken the US treasury, lock stock and barrel.
We want it all back, all of it.

[Octafish]

24. Now THERE's a class-action suit that could bring down the BFEE.

Thanks, cassiepriam! Most excellent idea!

BTW: I haven't approved of the way they've spent taxes since 22 November 1963 -- and my contribution since 1973.

[cassiepriam]

26. The people of the Unites States suing bush and cheney.

For malfeasance and dereliction of duty. And the damages run into the many $$ billions.

[Octafish]

27. Wow! Someone may've beat us to it via PNAC...

Check this out, courtesy of DUer IndependentLiberal:

http://www.wallacevbushlawsuit.com/

Thanks, though, for your ideas outlining the case, cassiepriam. Even withouth PNAC, the criminal conduct and criminal derelection of duty has resulted in the loss of many tens of thousands of innocent lives and many hundreds of billions of dollars -- if not tens of trillions -- from the National Treasury. I want it back.