Comments on: Not a Question of If, But Who, Forged the Letter

By: pdaly

pdaly — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:24:49 +0000

wikipedia (I still blame my computer, not me, for my typos)

By: pdaly

pdaly — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:23:42 +0000

OT (not really!):

Here is Marcy Wheeler’s wikipdia entry.
Yay, emptywheel!

By: pdaly

pdaly — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:21:25 +0000

what were the political climate = ‘what was’ the political climate

By: pdaly

pdaly — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:20:29 +0000

Maybe a stupid question, but since the Iraq War (of Choice) had begun in March of 2003, what were the political climate swirling around Washington, DC that would have sparked the White House drive to commission a fake Habbush to Saddam letter linking Saddam to Al Qaeda?

Whom were OVP (and Bush, too, I suppose) trying to mollify? the public? or the DoJ looking into the Plamegate leak?

Since Plame had not found evidence of Saddam acquiring WMD, was the faked Habbush letter supposed to correct that factoid and stave off an investigation?

The most significant event in Dec 2003 that I can think of is Dec 30, 2003 when Fitzgerald takes over the investigation, and the next day Ashcroft recusing himself.

Had the Habbush memo been designed to (and ultimately failed) to stave off the CIA leak investigation?

Wondering if there is any way to prove OVP was involved in the yellow cake Niger forgeries produced before 2003 and used (via “British Intelligence’) in the 2003 State of the Union?

By: JThomason

JThomason — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:44:21 +0000

At first I thought the creamy white was needed as cover for Tenet but now it just seems like it was an outline, like Cheney’s news margin notes of what needed to be done.

Richer states it was White House stationary that might have some indication that it came from the OVP. Doesn’t sound like there was a signature to me either.

By: rkilowatt

rkilowatt — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:26:24 +0000

Tasking order on creamy stationery? Did I miss that there was no signature?

Per CIA charter , they are authorized to blah-blah-blah…and from time to time any projects specifically tasked by The Prez [or IIRC the NSC]. That last is the BigLoophole.

So all restrictions are off if the Prez specifically assigns the CIA with some task. No OVP or other source. But no signiture on the creamy paper means some kind of cut-out or bullsh going on.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:47:39 +0000

Understand that Bill Casey had his off-Company covert group. He was not much bigger a fan of CIA than Cheney is.

By: prostratedragon

prostratedragon — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:39:03 +0000

“Attempting” suicide with a jump into the bay underneath the GGB.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:18:03 +0000

Actually if there is a particular witness, and that witness has vouched for their own credibility I think evidence of a character for dishonesty is admissible in a court of law.

But we are still operating in the world of politics, will and perception at this point in the Habbush matter and without a culpable person instead pointing the finger at “the White House.” Something has to happen if there will be increased traction.

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:00:50 +0000

“It seems like the best argument continues to drive home the point that the administration is dishonest in all that it does. “

That argument doesn’t work in a court of law. It might work in an election campaign. And it could work in an impeachment– in theory. The Republicans basically wanted to do that to Clinton, but they still felt like they had to find an actual criminal offense to do the job, and of course it didn’t work.

Bob in HI