|
Edited on Sat May-27-06 03:49 AM by Peace Patriot
here's why:
On July 14, 2003, they outed Plame (through Novak). Believable as political revenge, done in the heat of anger, maybe--and an effort to silence and to instill fear.
But eight days later, on July 22, 2003, they ADDITIONALLY outed Brewster-Jennings, the CIA front company for an entire, worldwide WMD counter-proliferation network, putting all of our covert agents/contacts at risk of death, and disabling all projects.
I think this second outing may have been the main goal, for which the explanation of Cheney's anger at an op-ed piece by a ex-diplomat is not sufficient motive. The Bush junta has near direct control of the war profiteering corporate news monopoly newsstream, and their control was even more "Iron Curtain"-like back in 2003. They could order anything "black-holed" or marginalized that they didn't want in the newsstream. The New York Times, you will recall, suppressed evidence of Bush felonies--illegal spying--until after the 2004 election. The NYT published all their lies about WMDs on its front pages, questioning nothing. WaPo and all of them were complete tools of government propaganda throughout this illegal and dreadful war, and not much better today. And anybody who got in the least uppity--like CBS--had 'black ops" run against them, to destroy their credibility. The idea that Cheney was worried about the newsstream seems rather absurd--and that he would order the destruction, and possible deaths, of a CIA counter-proliferation network, so vital to our national security, out of pique at a dissenting article, doesn't make sense. Any such outing is at minimum a felony. It is arguably treasonous. And, if he had any patriotism at all, he would not have permitted it. It is simply outrageous.
I think this is a coverup. And I think that Cheney's handwritten comments on the Wilson article might have been done as part of the cover story. I also suspect that it is not primarily Cheney, but rather Rumsfeld, who is the mastermind of whatever is being covered up--likely something to do with counter-proliferation/WMDs; say, a scheme to PLANT nukes in Iraq that went awry (got foiled), or plans to do something along those lines to instigate war on Iran. Plame and Brewster-Jennings were committed to counter-proliferation--to STOPPING the development, spread, illicit sale, and movement of WMDs. Their job was to prevent war, not to manufacture it. But the Bushites are into manufacturing war, including twisting evidence, lying about evidence, creating phony evidence, and trumpeting false charges.
It was recently revealed that Plame/BJ were working on counter-proliferation in Iran. Those eyes and ears are now gone--and the Bushites are free to make things up, and to even go in and plant evidence, or create incidents as an excuse for bombing them. So, the Iran motive has new weight. Other motives could be Cheney dirty arms dealings around the world, the 9/11 money trail, who the Bushites have been hiding and torturing (and/or killing) and other Bush junta crimes and cover ups of crimes. A covert network of honest counter-proliferation agents was NOT WANTED.
We also need to remember that this Niger thing goes way back to 2001, and the Rome meeting of Michael Ladeen and other rabid Neo-Cons (on the Bushite payroll--your tax dollars), Italian government fascists and the notorious Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. This meeting is likely where the "crude" Niger forgeries were cooked up--the ones with names and dates wrong, that were so easily detectable as forgeries. Someone then insisted that this easily disproven allegation be put into Bush's State of the Union speech. And this is what triggered Wilson's interest in the matter. Since he'd gone to Niger for the CIA and disproven the claim, he didn't understand why the Bushites were still pushing it, and putting Bush in the position of having told a provable lie. He spoke to people. He called various people (Condi Rice, for instance). He couldn't get them to disavow.
Now, you'd think that people who were so concerned about the newsstream WOULDN'T PUT A PROVABLE LIE IN THE STATE OF THE UNION. Why did they do it? Was it just hubris?--'we're the lords of the earth; we can say anything we want to, and get away with it.' Or some other motive?
The WMD-planting theory of Traitorgate is that these "crude" easily detectable forgeries were used deliberately to draw the CIA out into a known position of no-nukes-in-Iraq, later to discredit them--and make them more purge-able--when the nukes that the Bushites were planning to PLANT in Iraq were "found."
This theory is bolstered by--or rather ignited by--the astonishing coincidence of dates between the Plame outing and the death, under highly suspicious circumstances, of the British chief WMD expert, David Kelly. Kelly--initially a believer in ousting Saddam--had been whistleblowing anonymously to the BBC about the "sexed up" pre-war WMD intelligence, starting in late May 2003. He was mysteriously outed to his bosses in late June--parallel with the plotting of Libby, Rove, Judith Miller and others, to out Plame. He was interrogated at a "safe house" and threatened with the Official Secrets Act in the first week of July. On July 7, Tony Blair was informed that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" (--COULD say, not HAD said). Wilson had published his article on the Niger non-nukes the day before, July 6. And the news from Blair (that Kelly knew something more) could have been the real trigger--as opposed to Wilson's article (which was likely expected)--for what happened next; what appears to be a panicky, rushed, and highly risky effort to out Plame, involving many top Bushites and reporters. Plame was outed July 14. Kelly was found dead near his home, apparently having bled to death all night from one slit wrist, on July 18. His offices were searched and his computers confiscated. Four days later, on July 22, the Bushites ADDITIONALLY outed the entire CIA counter-proliferation network. Did Kelly find out about a foiled scheme to plant WMDs in Iraq? Is that what got him killed? Is that the real cause of the Plame/BJ outings? Unknown. It's just a theory--but a pretty good one. (There is also an intriguing connection to Judith Miller, an old friend of Kelly's. It was to Miller that Kelly wrote his last email, on the day he died, in which he expressed concern about "the many dark actors playing games.")
And, just thinking about the larger context of that period--the avid "hunt" for WMDs that everybody knew weren't there--and so much riding on that issue; the tightness of Bush/Blair at that time (daily phone calls); the horror of the unfolding war; Rumsfeld's "freedom equals the freedom to loot"; the torture that was taking place, prisoners tortured to death, thousands detained, the truckfuls of US dollars--helps place the Cheney scribblings on the Wilson article, and Libby's story about Cheney, in context. Was Cheney a bit insane at that point, obsessing over Wilson's op-ed? Was he so out of control that he would not just out Plame, and not just pick an unnecessary fight with an experienced cloak and dagger agency, but would put our own covert agents and contacts all over the world at great risk of getting killed, and destroy all of their work? Or is all this a made-up narrative with the purpose of misdirection? The context helps you starting asking the right questions, I think, so as not to be misdirected NOW.
There is another reason why Libby would be ratting on Cheney this way, and it is that this testimony is pre-planned for Cheney to "take the fall" on this matter, distance Bush from it, and protect their cleared off field for war with Iran (Rumsfeld). Cheney will take the blame and retire to his taxpayer fortified island in the Pacific, with its cellars full of gold from Fort Knox (I'm making this up). Bush will pardon Cheney (who probably has had a signed pardon all along, with blanks on it to fill in the felonies and high crimes). The Republicans will benefit with a fresh face as V-P. The "corrupt Democrats" ($90,000 thou in the fridge), hatred of immigrants, and Diebold and ES&S will do the rest. And all will be well in BushWorld.
Is this the "aspens" plan?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
