Libby says Bush ok'd Plame outing

[Jasper]

Raw Story Link (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_authorized_leak_of_Iraq_intelligence_0406.htm l)

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

Nothing illegal done, so what's the big deal, right?

[Squirrel Killer]

There are legal consequences and then there are political consequences.

[Brian Rucker]

Here's some more from The Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."

"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller _ getting approval from the president through the vice president to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval _ were unique in his recollection," the papers added.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333.html

However it's looking like things may be heading in that direction.

More from The National Journal:

Although not reflected in the court papers, two senior government officials said in interviews with National Journal in recent days that Libby has also asserted that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information to a number of journalists during the run-up to war with Iraq. In some instances, the information leaked was directly discussed with the Vice President, while in other instances Libby believed he had broad authority to release information that would make the case to go to war.

In yet another instance, Libby had claimed that President Bush authorized Libby to speak to and provide classified information to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward for "Plan of Attack," a book written by Woodward about the run-up to the Iraqi war.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

[Jasper]

Well right, there's no proof. Is anyone expecting proof? I rather expect Libby testifying before a Grand Jury is about as much as we can expect -- and more than enough to tack a few nails into Bush's political coffin.

[noun]

Bush and Cheney are invincible. Nothing has tarnished them, nothing will EVER tarnish them. We have written evidence that the Iraq war was fabricated and we have VIDEO evidence that he was warned Katrina would break the levees. The closest penalty he's had to suffer was a half-hearted censure attempt no one's brave enough to support. Cheney even got the person he SHOT to apologize to HIM.

We must have the Sopranos in the White House or something.

[Jason McCullough]

They're not invincible - Bush's polls have gotten into uncharted terroritory, and there's serious discussion of him losing both houses this fall.

I agree the political opposition is disorganized and ineffective at making the best use of the White Houses's constant missteps, of course. The media's hopeless, too.

[DeepT]

Well right, there's no proof. Is anyone expecting proof? I rather expect Libby testifying before a Grand Jury is about as much as we can expect -- and more than enough to tack a few nails into Bush's political coffin.

Whats the point? Bush has his 2nd term as president. What other poltical carreer would he want? You could destroy any chance of him ever holding a political office ever again and it would mean nothing.

No, the only way he could be damaged in any way is to hurt his legacy. If because of him the republicans lose controll over both houses of congress and the presidency (2008), I am sure they will not want to rename air ports after him.

[Jasper]

There's still more than 2 years left for Bush, and loss of political capitol from things like this limit the scope of the further damage he can cause. I'd be quite happy if his political career effectively ended before he left office. Plus the Plame scandal adds weight to the argument for impeaching Bush, even if he technically didn't break any law.

I also think it could well affect his legacy. Nixon's skullduggery had an affect on politics beyond his term, and while perhaps Bush won't get impeached before he's out of office, I think there's a solid chance the political spectrum will swing away from the overtly corrupt far right.

[Moore]

They're not invincible - Bush's polls have gotten into uncharted terroritory, and there's serious discussion of him losing both houses this fall.

I agree the political opposition is disorganized and ineffective at making the best use of the White Houses's constant missteps, of course. The media's hopeless, too.


He could wipe his ass with newborn babies and eat the severed breasts of teenage girls for dinner. On live TV, while fist fucking a parapalegic nun. And every jackass that voted him in would *love* him. Approval rating means nothing, it's been trashed for ages now and it affects *nothing*.
I mean, god speaks to him, so whatever it is, he didnt do it. Or if he did, it was the right thing to do.

[graller]

He has a 90% approval rating still from the Republicans - nothing has changed at all

[Ben]

He has a 90% approval rating still from the Republicans - nothing has changed at all

You just made that up right now, didn't you? Note that he won an election in 2004, and he has a 35% approval rating right now. Something changed.

[Glenn]

All the polls I've seen say he has 70%-ish support among Republicans, and at or below 20% among everyone else. Averaging out to around 35% overall.

[Squirrel Killer]

He could wipe his ass with newborn babies and eat the severed breasts of teenage girls for dinner. On live TV, while fist fucking a parapalegic nun. And every jackass that voted him in would *love* him. Approval rating means nothing, it's been trashed for ages now and it affects *nothing*.
I mean, god speaks to him, so whatever it is, he didnt do it. Or if he did, it was the right thing to do.
Keep telling yourself nothing can be done. I'm sure that attitude will change the world.

[jeffd]

SK it's an exaggeration but it's basically true. If you work based off of what conservatives traditional values are (small government, responsible fiscal policy, upholding individual rights) Bush's approval rating ought to be in the toilet.

Of course that's not what the Republicans are about any more. If you work from the angle that most Republicans these days are about biblical literalism and immanent eschaton Bush's 70% approval rating makes more sense.

[Rob Beschizza]

immanent eschaton Bush's 70% approval rating makes more sense.

I think you mean imminent, but that's actually a pretty cool typo, immanence being the presence of a spiritual or metaphysial force in everyday physical life that causes people to do things. Ergo, one can find God wherever one seeks God, or wherever one might place Him. Such as in a nuclear bomb.

[Andrew Mayer]

All the polls I've seen say he has 70%-ish support among Republicans, and at or below 20% among everyone else. Averaging out to around 35% overall.

Notice that this is combined with a shift of people calling themselves "independants" instead of "Repubicans"

So he's less popular amongst a smaller group of people.

[Ed Solomon]

Notice that this is combined with a shift of people calling themselves "independants" instead of "Repubicans"

So he's less popular amongst a smaller group of people.
Or as Spinal Tap would say, his appeal has become more selective.

[shift6]

I also think it could well affect his legacy. Nixon's skullduggery had an affect on politics beyond his term, and while perhaps Bush won't get impeached before he's out of office, I think there's a solid chance the political spectrum will swing away from the overtly corrupt far right.
Here's hoping. If there is a silver lining to the last 5 and next 3 years, this is it.

[Jasper]

Approval rating means nothing, it's been trashed for ages now and it affects *nothing*.
I don't think that's really truly. Bush's low approval rating and all the scandals have had an effect, and lessened the impact of Bush's 2nd term quite a bit. If the current level of discontent had existed before the last election (e.g. The New York times doesn't sit on info about the illegal NSA spying, etc), I think Bush would have soundly lost -- even to such a pathetic challenger as Kerry.

Polls do tend to correlate with election results, despite such complications as voter turnout, gerrymandering, etc. Less and less people count themselves as republicans, and even prominent right wing figures are turning away from Bush. Nationalists love a "War President" who brings home easy victory, but they're much less forgiving of those that lose -- as Bush has done.

[Jasper]

Here's hoping. If there is a silver lining to the last 5 and next 3 years, this is it.
Unfortunately the "opposing" Democrats' policies are in practice pretty right wing as well, so I fear the balance won't shift back far.

For me the silver lining is that Bush has pretty much used up all of the US's economic and foreign diplomatic capitol, and I suspect the US will have trouble exerting the sort of imperialistic influence abroad that it has in the past. This is already beginning to play out (most notably in South America).

Unforunately, this also portends some very messy problems for those in the US who aren't in the top 5% income bracket, which I don't think we can avert without the sort of New Deal-esque drastic action that both Republicans and Democrats have proven adverse to.

[Squirrel Killer]

SK it's an exaggeration but it's basically true. If you work based off of what conservatives traditional values are (small government, responsible fiscal policy, upholding individual rights) Bush's approval rating ought to be in the toilet.

Of course that's not what the Republicans are about any more. If you work from the angle that most Republicans these days are about biblical literalism and immanent eschaton Bush's 70% approval rating makes more sense.
I wasn't very clear. So much for the short, snappy response. My apologies.

What I was trying to say was that what I perceived as Moore's "Fuck it, there's nothing we can do" attitude was a recipe for failure. You want to see the D's lose big? Convince people that the elections are rigged and that there's nothing they can do. Take away "efficacy" and voting rates drop through the floor.

[Houngan]

Ok, so Bush's attorney and a few others have said that the Pres has an inherent power to declassify on the fly. Fine. The declassification, by itself, relieves the immediate question of whether releasing the NIE information was illegal. However:

1. Bush declassified information to discredit real information that would have prevented war.

2. Bush was directly responsible for outing a covert agent.

3. Bush fabricated evidence, suppressed evidence, and then lied about doing so in order to go to war.

4. Bush repeatedly lied to the press and America about his knowledge of how a covert agent's cover was blown.

5. Bush lied about prosecuting those responsible, since he knew who it was the entire time.

I fail to see how any of these, individually, is better than lying about a blowjob. Impeach the lying, traitorous fucktard. How hard is it for the press to ask "Did President Bush lie about X?" and pin this down?

H.

[Brian Rucker]

More context from the WP:

The White House did not challenge the prosecutor's account of Bush's and Cheney's role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday. Both Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, but the details of what they told him are unknown. Fitzgerald's new account is based on Libby's grand jury testimony that Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure of some of the information.

Bush has been a major critic of leaks of classified information, and his aides have repeatedly said they want to "get to the bottom" of who leaked the name of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the media, which touched off Fitzgerald's investigation . But in the past 33 months the White House has never disclosed Bush's apparent involvement in the deliberate disclosure of information meant to undermine Wilson.

Three months before Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003, Bush said at a news conference that "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. . . . If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with wrongdoing in the initial leak of Plame's name. In the new filing, he did not allege that Bush authorized that disclosure, and he said Bush was "unaware of the role" that Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff, played in discussing her name with a number of reporters.

The revelation of Bush's role in the disclosure effort set off an intense political debate yesterday over the propriety of the White House's use of intelligence information to undermine a critic. Democratic lawmakers lined up to demand that Bush explain his involvement in an affair they called unprecedented.

"If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking. The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Legal scholars and analysts said yesterday that the president has the authority to selectively declassify intelligence reports But they also said it was highly unusual for senior officials at the White House to take such an action so stealthily, without notifying Cabinet officials or others in the administration, including the CIA authors of the National Intelligence Estimate.
Libby, who was indicted last year for allegedly lying to the FBI and a grand jury about what he said to reporters about his contacts with the media, wants the materials because he thinks they will show that his misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated administration campaign to discredit Wilson, according to his court filings.

Fitzgerald's brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. In light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."
Libby told Miller, among other things, that the NIE concluded Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium," according to Fitzgerald's filing. In fact, the CIA did not believe this allegation, which came from the Defense Intelligence Agency and remains unproved to this day, according to intelligence analysts.

Libby told investigators that he never mentioned Plame's name in this conversation, but the grand jury indicted him on charges of lying about this.

Miller did not write an article about the information in the National Intelligence Estimate and Fitzgerald has asserted that Cheney authorized Libby four days later to talk about "the NIE and Mr. Wilson" to other reporters. On that day, Fitzgerald said, Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment for the first time with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and for the third time with Miller.

Cooper wrote an article repeating what Novak had disclosed about Plame, though Miller never did.

Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan instead issued a more guarded statement, under pressure from Cheney, that Libby and Rove "assured me they were not involved in this," according to Fitzgerald's account. But as Libby approached his first FBI interview, Fitzgerald said, he knew the White House had "publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Mrs. Wilson" and that the president had vowed to fire leakers.

In that context, Fitzgerald said Libby lied about what he said to reporters and "repeated the story in a subsequent interview and during two grand jury appearances."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333.html

[Jake Plane]

"I fail to see how this is a problem. What Bush did was perfectly legal. And to suggest that he somehow broke the law is simply ill-informed. Anyone who criticized our sitting commander in chief during a time of war is a traitor to this country and is giving comfort to the terrorists."

For the record, I was just trying that on for size. I can't imagine anyone actually saying that with a straight face, but guaranteed, there will be several knee jerk partisans who will.

Bottomline - No one who is thinking about this rationally (i.e. without their party hats on) can honestly defend this.

[Brian Rucker]

From David S. Broder's Live Chat

Fort Myers, Fla.: Hello Mr. Broder:

As the guy who's generally regarded as "The Dean" of Capitol Reporters, I've got to ask you what you think the fallout will be from the revelation that George Bush privately authorized the leaks he has publically deplored.

A brief list (from Think Progress) of his public statements about Valerie Plame:

Sept. 30, 2003: "There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." Oct. 8, 2003: "I want to know the truth ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

Oct. 28, 2003: "I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information."

Are you personally offended when you hear a president condemn the media for doing its job while at the same time he's playing the media for his own purposes?

David S. Broder: As you can tell from the current White House briefing by Scott McClellan, the administration is having a hard time squaring the disclosure of the president's role in leaking informationm adverse to Ambassadfor Wilson with Mr. Bush's prior statements decrying the leaks of any intelligence information. The contradictions are glaring--and so is the damage to his credibility.

And my favorite so far:
Clearwater, Fla.: What is your opinion about Bob Woodward's comments last year about the Valerie Plame case ... When "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

David S. Broder: Subsequent events do not appear to be supporting that forecast.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/31/DI2006033101099.html

In your face, you bootlicker! :D

[Brian Rucker]

And here's the Post's story on the briefing Broder refers to:

President Bush's chief spokesman said today the president has the right to declassify sensitive information whenever he chooses and that when he does, it is effective immediately.

In an often testy exchange with the White House media, spokesman Scott McClellan refused to explain the administration's role in the 2003 disclosure -- described in a federal prosecutor's legal document -- of highly sensitive intelligence information about Iraq. The spokesman said it has long been the administration's policy not to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

McClellan's heated exchange with the press came a day after Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in a court filing that White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had told a grand jury that President Bush, acting through Vice President Cheney, directed him to leak information from a classified October 2002 intelligence report to the news media. Fitzgerald characterized the disclosure as part of an administration effort to discredit a veteran diplomat whose criticism of Bush undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

The filing for the first time placed Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear .

"The president can declassify information if he chooses," McClellan told reporters. "It's inherent in our Constitution. The president would never authorize the disclosure of information that he thought could compromise the nation's security."

Asked whether Bush was against the practice of leaking, as he has indicated in the past, McClellan said the president opposes the leaking of classified material.

Pressed repeatedly on whether the material was classified at the time it was leaked, McClellan refused to discuss details of the case, saying it was an ongoing legal proceeding.

The information that was leaked by Libby, according to the court filing, was contained in a National Intelligence Estimate, one of the most closely held U.S. analyses of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040700190.html

[Jazar]

It's obviously not leaking if the President says it, it's declassification.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

So Jake called it. Either that, or Jake gave them the idea.

PS -- Does the government routinely declassify information via Robert Novak?

[Jasper]

Nice one Jazar, not even 3 hours after Jake parodied you in advance.

[Moore]

Keep telling yourself nothing can be done. I'm sure that attitude will change the world.
Never!

I don't feel liek changing the world and have no interest in doing so. I will however, complain al lthe way to hell.

[jfletch]

Scott McClellan has to have one of the worst jobs in the USA.

That is, if he has a soul.

[Raife]

You know, it reminds me of something...

http://www.morsa.net/minister.gif

[Slothrop]

I really wasn't expecting Libby to give up Cheney and Bush so easily. Why isn't he just clamming up and waiting to be pardoned, or something?

[MatthewF]

ONGOING BLEEP BLOOP BLEEP INVESTIGATION BLOOP BLEEP WHIRRRRR.

[Andrew Mayer]

I really wasn't expecting Libby to give up Cheney and Bush so easily. Why isn't he just clamming up and waiting to be pardoned, or something?

He's been made a scapegoat by the administration and he's not happy being the firewall on that.

[Cosmic Hippo]

Everyone's known from day 1 that the guys up top were behind the Plame thing. It's only been a matter of time for it to slowly leak out from the realm of "we know" to that of "we officially know." Still, I'm happy to watch it happen. The 2004 primaries and election sucked a greater part of the soul out of my politicking, giving all of the time and effort I forced myself to throw behind Kerry - whom I never liked - only to watch him fail anyway, but I'm still capable of enjoying watching Bush's administration dissolve, damnit!

[Bob Cherub]

oops

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWzxmYKN1bpY&refer=us

Libby Says Bush, Cheney Didn't Authorize CIA Agent's Name Leak

[Jason McCullough]

That depends, of course, on what's meant by this:

Cheney also directed Libby on July 12, 2003 to provide ``background'' to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about a trip Wilson took in 2002 at the behest of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq tried to buy nuclear material in Niger, according to Fitzgerald.

[Stroker Ace]

Sweet, I'm so relieved. I was worried that the President was a liar for a minute.

[Andrew Mayer]

oops

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWzxmYKN1bpY&refer=us

Libby Says Bush, Cheney Didn't Authorize CIA Agent's Name Leak

Which wasn't the leak he was accused of in the earlier story, so...

[bmulligan]

cool, I'm relieved too. I was woried for a minute that the press would lie or print a misleading headline to paint Bush in a bad light.

[Raife]

I was woried for a minute that the press would lie or print a misleading headline to paint Bush in a bad light.

It's unnecessary; he does fantastic self-portraits.

[Gichin]

Ok, so Bush's attorney and a few others have said that the Pres has an inherent power to declassify on the fly. Fine. The declassification, by itself, relieves the immediate question of whether releasing the NIE information was illegal. However:

1. Bush declassified information to discredit real information that would have prevented war.

First, for the record, I agree this whole Plame thing is a total mess and that the administration should be criticized. I disagree, however, that tanking the use of the yellowcake references "would have prevented war". The basic issue here is the use of the yellowcake reference in the NIE to rebut Wilson's position.

2. Bush was directly responsible for outing a covert agent.

This seems to be under vigorous debate right now. I cannot claim personal knowledge on CIA classifications, et c but I have heard a lot of debate over whether she was really classified. It also sounds pretty shaky on whether it was Bush or not.

I think in the end, the special prosecutor will not be able to prove a criminal violation ... but that is a really high standard (I think it has to be intentional). Criminal or not, what happened with the release of info to Novak was at a minimum utterly stupid and most likely morally and ethically reprehensible. But likely not criminal.

3. Bush fabricated evidence, suppressed evidence, and then lied about doing so in order to go to war.

From what I have read on this, it seems more like they set up a stovepipe with no controls on veracity of information and then paid attention to only what they wanted to hear. No less troubling for our long term safety, but short of fabricating evidence. The reality is there is so much background noise, you likely can find some intelligence information in support of a theory no matter how harebrained ... there needs to be some sifting, weighing and quality control. When Rumsfeld and Cheney short circuited the typical channels, they eliminated the required squelch factor.

4. Bush repeatedly lied to the press and America about his knowledge of how a covert agent's cover was blown.

5. Bush lied about prosecuting those responsible, since he knew who it was the entire time.

I am with you on these two. Ultimately, all Presidents lie ... perhaps the best judge of their character and leadership is what they chose to lie about.

FDR lied about getting us into WWII. He knew we really needed to do so to save Europe. I am cool with that one.

Clinton lied about getting sucked off by an intern. What a waste. Also what a total non-sequitor. He lost his bar license for perjury, what an embarrassment. Still, not exactly earthshattering.

Bush's are different from those above ...

I fail to see how any of these, individually, is better than lying about a blowjob. Impeach the lying, traitorous fucktard. How hard is it for the press to ask "Did President Bush lie about X?" and pin this down?

H.
Not sure the impeachment discussion is really a good use of time. Opponents of the current regime really would be better served by thinking long term, taking back the house or the senate, and picking an electable candidate instead of Hillary to run in 2008.

[Brian Rucker]

3. Bush fabricated evidence, suppressed evidence, and then lied about doing so in order to go to war.
From what I have read on this, it seems more like they set up a stovepipe with no controls on veracity of information and then paid attention to only what they wanted to hear. No less troubling for our long term safety, but short of fabricating evidence. The reality is there is so much background noise, you likely can find some intelligence information in support of a theory no matter how harebrained ... there needs to be some sifting, weighing and quality control. When Rumsfeld and Cheney short circuited the typical channels, they eliminated the required squelch factor.

That's accurate in so far as it goes. But I think what we need to know is why they felt such a need to go after Iraq. This is troubling to the extent we know the philosophy of the people, neoconservatives, around Rumsfeld and Cheney. A goodly chunk of the core ideology, as I understand it, does center around the notion of misleading the public for the public's own good. The need to create enemies to elevate society beyond its "petty" concerns. And the individuals involved in gathering this intelligence up to and including Cheney were all for deposing Saddam back into the 90's. Not just limpwristed political posturing but seriously going in with troops and doing it. The core neocons, including Pearle and Wolfowitz, did work for the Israeli government advocating the same thing far earlier (See "Defending The Realm"). Within hours of the planes hitting the towers the planning was already in the pipeline for Iraq, which had zero to do with the event, and being pushed by Wolfowitz and even Bush shortly after.

And the disinformation so gathered (Chalabi, OSP) and disseminated (Miller, et al) was used to start a war. A war they engaged in, knowingly I believe based on how hardcore Bush is about prosecuting it, and proceeded to utterly cock up because they based planning on ideology and not real intelligence. They ignored warnings from State and many others about questionable WMD information and the likelihood of civil war and insurgency. And they shredded all of State's postwar planning to give Rumsfeld and his neocon supporters all dibs on reconstruction in Iraq. At the time, speculation was, it was so The Pentagon could install Chalabi and his allies with a minimum amount of interference, they did fly him and his militia in with great fanfare to absolutely no reception, from other branches of government (not to mention our unilaterialism to cut meddling foreigners out of the loop). Of course, they didn't count on Chalabi having lied about his support along with just about everything else.

And where did Chalabi come from? How did he get into a position to be potentially installed as the next ruler of Iraq? Do your homework. Same damn fools who wanted to invade Iraq to protect Israel, by using it as a beachhead against Syria and Iran, believed he'd deliver them an Israel friendly ally.

The utterly fucked up part is that these people are still around, making policy and getting promoted. Cheney and Rummy knew who they were and precisely what they were up to. This goes to Bush and what Bush wanted. He's protecting the neocons and now the neocons are moving on to Phase II come hell or high water. They will never get another chance to see things through and they know it.

So if I seem very upset about the calm rhetorical shoulder shrugs, with dutiful historical footnoting, towards what is clearly a disasterous government and foreign policy I suspect that's the only rational approach at this point in time.

How can I trust a word from any of these people about Iran knowing what they were predisposed to do about it even before we invaded Iraq? Sure, Iran's leader is loony and in ten years (or more depending on actual capability) they could have a nuke. One. But it would really come down to a serious endorsement of military force by a broad array of other countries, say a real Coalition rather than a paper one (see - that kind of trifiling bullshit wordplay is what makes Bush and Co. liars - they habitually misrepresent and lie and coverup facts to sway the public to their side - I'm allowed to be furious) then I'd reconsider.

Right now? Hell no. We need to clean house before we have another party like the last one.