By Patrick Martin:
The Libby perjury trial and the Washington media establishment
3 February 2007
A parade of journalist-celebrities to the witness stand in the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, has put the spotlight on the incestuous connections between the media elite and the highest circles of the political, military and intelligence establishments.
Television, newspaper and magazine reporters drawn from the elite of the Washington press corps, who make six-figure and even seven-figure incomes, are all testifying in the case.
Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by lying to the grand jury investigating the unauthorized leak of the identity of former CIA covert operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
Wilson’s name and profession were leaked to the press by the Bush administration in retaliation for public criticism of White House lies about the war in Iraq by Wilson’s husband, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Testimony this week by journalists and former and current White House aides confirmed that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, Bush’s top political operative, played a leading role in disseminating the information about the ambassador’s wife.
Other testimony has strengthened the case against Libby, who told FBI agents as well as the grand jury convened by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he had learned about Mrs. Wilson’s CIA role from the press itself, and had played no role in spreading the information.
Both claims were flatly untrue, and have been refuted by more than a dozen witnesses.
Talking about US media: why their silence on Brzezinski’s Iran war warnings?
Brzezinski book review: here.
More on Iran war threat: here.
Anti Iranian hate mongering in the Murdoch press: here.
Murdoch’s finances: here.
*CBO: Iraq surge could actually total 50,000*
Posted by: “hapi22” hapi22@earthlink.net robinsegg
Fri Feb 2, 2007 7:35 am (PST)
Has Bush EVER told the truth about anything?
When he said he was sending “more than” 20,000 additional troops to
Iraq, was he COVERING up the FACT that he plans to send anywhere from
35,000 to 50,000 more troops to Iraq?
Were we supposed to believe he meant “21,000” when he said, “more than
20,000” troops?
OR was he trying to leave himself safe from future criticism by saying,
“more than” when he really intends sending tens of thousands MORE troops?
I’ll ask it again: Has George W. Bush EVER told the truth about anything?
The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the Iraq surge could total
50,000
>
———————————————————-
**CBO: Iraq surge could actually total 50,000**
/by Rick Maze
Army Times
Feb 2, 2007 /
A new congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops
for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to
50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region.
The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bases that
projection on the fact that the Bush plan is unclear about whether the
21,500 troops needed to quell violence are all combat troops or if that
number already includes support forces.
“Over the past few years, DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of
about 9,500 per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about
4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops,” says the
five-page report requested by Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the House Budget
Committee chairman, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the House Armed
Services Committee chairman.
Spratt, the budget committee chairman and the second-ranking Democrat on
the armed services committee, notes that about $379 billion already has
been spent on the war in Iraq and a request for an additional $100
billion is expected next week.
“An average of 170,000 military personnel has been maintained in the
Iraq theater of operations, and this high deployment level has taken a
toll,” he said, noting that last year, the Defense Department cut
troops’ time at home between deployments from two years to one so it
could have enough people to deploy.
Spratt said the report raises the question of whether even one year at
home between deployments can be guaranteed. “The Pentagon will probably
have to relax ‘dwell-time’ standards even more,” Spratt said, using the
military phrase to describe time at home between deployments.
Skelton said the report “appears to conflict with the estimate given by
the chief of staff of the Army in his testimony. We will want to
carefully investigate just how big the president’s troop increase really
is. Is it 21,500 troops, or is it really closer to 33,000 or 43,000?”
At a Jan. 23 hearing, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said he
believed the 21,500 increase included four support battalions. “Right
now, we do not anticipate there will be increased combat service support
requirements over what is now embedded inside of the brigade combat
teams we have,” Schoomaker said.
Army spokesman Lt. Col. Gary Kolb said Schoomaker’s Jan. 23 comments
before members of the House Armed Services Committee are “still accurate.”
The support needs of the additional five brigade combat teams will be
satisfied by the current support network in Iraq and the support units
embedded within those teams, Kolb said Feb. 1.
But the additional support troops included in the budget office
estimates are based on the possibility that Schoomaker is wrong, an
armed services committee aide said. “While Schoomaker initially said it
wouldn’t take extra support troops, CBO doesn’t believe that is
possible,” said an aide to Skelton.
The key point of the report is to try to determine how much the new Iraq
strategy might cost. The report estimates it would cost $9 billion to
$13 billion for a four-month deployment and $20 billion to $27 billion
for a one-year deployment of the additional 21,500 troops. Those
expenses would be on top of the $8 billion to $13 billion a month for
the current force of about 135,000 deployed in Iraq.
The report says the Pentagon “has identified only combat units for
deployment” and has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed.
“Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and
desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical
practice would indicate,” the report says. “Even if the additional
brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests,
those units would still represent a significant additional number of
military personnel.”
Under the administration’s plan, the force increase — already under
way — will reach its peak in May. The plan calls for a three-month
buildup with a similarly gradual decline when the mission is done. The
report does not try to estimate how long the mission might last, looking
at only the cost to sustain it for various lengths of time.
Skelton said in a statement that cost is a major issue. “We were
concerned that the full financial cost of the escalation would never be
made clear to the American people,” he said.
“What the CBO found concerns me,” Skelton said. Part of his worry is
based on Schoomaker’s assertion that additional support troops are not
needed. Skelton worries combat troops might not have the combat support
and combat service support needed if the administration tries to hold
down the number of deployed troops.
Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., chairman of the House Armed Services
subcommittee on oversight and investigations that has launched a review
of Iraq-related costs, said he also is concerned. “I am disturbed that
the administration’s figures may not be fully accounting for what a true
force increase will entail; if combat troops are deployed, their support
needs must not be shortchanged,” Meehan said in a statement.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Staff writer Matthew Cox
contributed to this story.
Read this at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNScbosurge070201/
2.
*Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns*
Posted by: “hapi22” hapi22@earthlink.net robinsegg
Fri Feb 2, 2007 8:26 am (PST)
Bush has done his darnedest to keep the National Intelligence Estimate
OUT of the hands of Congress and the American people (for whom he works)
Now we know why.
/
/The Washington Post//
//February 2, 2007/
A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to
President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an
increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little
control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration,
according to sources familiar with the document.
In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the
90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of
improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty
about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian
interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national
institutions and end rampant corruption.
The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain
a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the
primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals.
Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing
Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.
Completion of the estimate, which projects events in Iraq over the next
18 months, comes amid intensifying debate and skepticism on Capitol Hill
about the administration’s war policy. In a series of contentious
hearings over the past two weeks, legislators have sharply questioned
Bush’s new plan for the deployment of 21,500 additional U.S. troops and
the administration’s dependence on the government of Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
[NOTE FROM ME: This NIE was written BEFORE it became known that Bush
may be sending 21,000 additional FIGHTING troops BUT also an
additional 15,000 to 25,000 SUPPORT troops.}
In acid remarks yesterday to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the departing
U.S. commander in Iraq, Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.)
noted that “things have gotten markedly and progressively worse” during
Casey’s 2 1/2 -year tenure, “and the situation in Iraq can now best be
described as dire and deteriorating. I regret that our window of
opportunity to reverse momentum may be closing.” Casey was appearing
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to be Army
chief of staff.
NOTE FROM ME: The Blame Game is going forward full tilt now. For
McCain, and some others, the targets will be the generals (who were
doing Bush’s bidding in Iraq and NOT asking for more troops even if
they thought that might help), but for Bush the BLAME will be heaped
on those pesky Iranians who are in Iraq. Nothing will ever be Bush’s
fault. Nothing. I’m not exactly sure WHY it’s morally okay for US to
be in Iraq, which is hardly our neighbor, but it’s not okay for Iran
to see to its national safety or national interests regarding a
neighboring country. Where is the morality of that? I’m not saying
I’m fond of the idea of Iran having increased influence in the
region, but that is what Bush “accomplished” by invading and
weakening Iraq. If Iran is now stronger and even dominant in the
region, it is ALL thanks to George W. Bush — unless, of course, he
wants to put the BLAME on God for “telling” Bush to invade Iraq.
Yeah, that’s it … it’s all God’s fault now.]
.
Although McCain supports the additional troop deployments, he has
proposed a Senate resolution including stringent benchmarks to gauge the
progress of the Iraqi government and military. McCain’s resolution and
other nonbinding, bipartisan proposals that would express varying
degrees of disapproval of Bush’s plan will be debated on the Senate
floor next week.
Legislators have been equally critical of the intelligence community,
repeatedly recalling that most of the key judgments in the October 2002
NIE on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were wrong. That assessment
concluded that Saddam Hussein had amassed chemical and biological
weapons and was “reconstituting” his nuclear weapons program. It became
the foundation of the Bush administration’s case — and congressional
authorization — for invading Iraq.
[NOTE FROM ME: Of course, we NOW know that that specific NIE was the
result of pressure from Cheney to give the White House the
“intelligence” it wanted. Cheny and/or Lewis Libby made at least six
trips over to the CIA to guarantee that the White House would get
the “results” they wanted in the report. They leaned on the CIA
analysts until the analysts brought forward as a certainty every
unproven or unsubstantiated allegation they could lay their hands on.]
.
“One of the sort of deeply held rumors around here is that the
intelligence community gives an administration or a president what he
wants by way of intelligence,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) told Navy Vice Adm. John M. McConnell, Bush’s nominee to be
director of national intelligence, during McConnell’s confirmation
hearing yesterday.
Without directly accepting Feinstein’s premise, McConnell replied that
the intelligence community had learned “meaningful” lessons over the
past several years and that “there’s very intense focus on
independence.” McConnell and others made clear that the new NIE on Iraq
had been subjected to extensive competitive analysis to test its
conclusions.
One senior congressional aide said the NIE had been described to him as
“unpleasant but very detailed.” A source familiar with its language said
it contained several dissents that are prominently displayed so that
policymakers understand any disagreements within the intelligence
community — a significant change from the 2002 document, which listed
most key dissents in small-type footnotes.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond
(R-Mo.),
vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, pointedly told
McConnell that “we are not going to accept national security issue
judgment[s] without examining the intelligence underlying the judgments,
and I believe this committee has an obligation to perform due diligence
on such important documents.” Previous committee attempts to obtain
material to back up a 2005 NIE on Iran, Bond said, had “run into
resistance.”
NOTE FROM ME: Don’t you just love it when a Republican who has been
in office throughout the Bush years gets all uppity about ensuring
that there are FACTS underlying the CIA’s assessments and
assertions? I think it’s hilarious … this indignation from the
Republicans who slept through the Bush years and did NO oversight
and asked NO questions. Hilarious but frightening. Were they afraid
— as Hitler’s minions were –that if they asked questions of the
White House, they would end up in concentration camps? Or were they
just opportunistic COWARDS? Yeah, the latter.]
.
The outgoing director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte,
briefed the president on the Iraq NIE yesterday, and the document will
be made available to Congress early today. A two-page declassified
version of its key judgments will then be posted on the DNI Web site.
Sources familiar with the closely held estimate agreed to discuss it in
general terms yesterday on the condition that they remain anonymous and
not be directly quoted. But Negroponte and others in the intelligence
community have made frequent references to its conclusions in recent
testimony.
On Tuesday, Negroponte referred to the NIE in testimony before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Iraq is at a precarious juncture.
That means the situation could deteriorate, but there are prospects for
increasing stability” that depend on the commitment of Iraqi government
and political leaders to take steps to end Sunni-Shiite violence and
“the willingness of Iraqi security forces to pursue extremist elements
of all kinds,” he said.
[NOTE FROM ME: Yeah, it is “possible” sl-Maliki will bring stability
to Iraq, and it is “possible” pigs will fly over my house on their
way to their vacation spot in Cancun.]
.
Congress, which requested the Iraq NIE last August, has pressured the
intelligence community to complete it in time for consideration of
Bush’s new strategy. Intelligence officials have insisted that their
best experts were working on the project at the same time they were
meeting the demands of policymakers for current intelligence reports.
NIEs comprise input from across the community and are written by the
National Intelligence Council.
Read this at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101152.html
DNI website at: http://www.dni.gov/
*Iraq National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
“Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead”
Unclassified Key Judgments
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070202_release.pdf
LikeLike
*daily updates on the Scooter Libby trial*
Posted by: “hapi22” hapi22@earthlink.net robinsegg
Fri Feb 2, 2007 11:29 am (PST)
One of the really great sites to get the daily updates on the Scooter
Libby trial is Dan Froomkin’s column.
Here’s today’s:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
LikeLike
*The price of war*
Posted by: “hapi22” hapi22@earthlink.net robinsegg
Fri Feb 2, 2007 11:49 am (PST)
While Bush is busy proposing a $65 Billion CUT in “entitlement” programs
for the elderly and the sick (programs like Medicare and Social Security
that we have paid into all our working lives — but that Bush has stolen
to give tax breaks to the wealthy), he is simultaneously demanding
hundreds of $Billions more for his contractor friends in Iraq who have
already ripped off the taxpayers by Billions of dollars.
As long as you and I have a single dollar left in our savings accounts,
Bush will not rest … he is not through with lining the pockets of his
friends who profit from death.
Even at that, Bush has LIED from Day One about the money he is throwing
away in Iraq. His contractor friends cannot even build a building that
doesn’t leak sewage and/or have major cracks in the floors and ceilings.
It’s the RIP-OFF of ALL TIME.
I do not know if America can survive another two years of this criminal
regime.
Anyone who believes a word Bush says is a fool.
Remember when his gang told us this Iraq war would cost us “nothing”
That the oil revenues would pay for the war?
Well, we’re now out about a half TRILLION dollars (with no end in sight)
— and most of it NO one can account for.
———————————————————-
**The price of war**
by Tim Grieve
Salon.com
Feb. 2, 2007/
Last July, the White House projected with “modest confidence”
that the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan
would cost $110
billion in Fiscal Year 2007.
Congress approved $70 billion of that money in September. And now, the
Associated Press
is reporting, the White House is about to ask for $100 billion more.
If you’re quick with the math, you’ll note that $70 billion plus $100
billion is $170 billion, and that $170 billion is, oh, about 55 percent
more than the $110 billion the White House had projected.
No worries, though: The White House is requesting only $145 billion for
Fiscal Year 2008, and it’s projecting that the wars will cost just $50
billion in Fiscal Year 2009. After that? According to the White House’s
budget projections, at least, the wars will be free, gratis, no charge
to you and me.
Hey, you’ve got to balance the budget somehow.
Read this WITH LINKS at:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/02/money/index.html
LikeLike
Pingback: Bush commutes prison sentence of convicted perjurer and Iraq war conspirator I. Lewis Libby | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Try Bush for war crimes, ElBaradei says | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: USA: will Bush pardon ‘Scooter’ Libby for perjury? | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Green Zone film, not critical enough of Iraq war | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Fox News warmongering in the USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Blair’s Iraq war lies ‘based on taxi driver’s gossip’ | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: French neocolonial uranium war in Niger | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Commemorative plaque for Tony Blair’s victims | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: US Army Secretary Francis Harvey resigns, wounded troops’ hospital scandal | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: British media in ‘Venezuelan WMD’ gaffe | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: USA: will Condoleezza Rice talk about ‘African uranium for Iraq’ hoax scandal? | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Google censorship of critical Internet sites worsens | Dear Kitty. Some blog