P-Day: from the war room [ovp]…

Posted on Sunday 25 February 2007

For some, the weekend crossword puzzle or a Sudoku is a good way to spend a morning. But not for Marcy Wheeler [emptywheel of FDL Libby Trial live-blogging fame and author of Anatomy of Deceit]. She offered up one of the Libby Trial documents instead – an annotated Maureen Dowd piece from July 13th, 2003, that Scooter [Libby] and Shooter [Cheney] had marked up good and proper. It’s probably from P-Day [Monday, July 14th, 2003], the day Novak’s article came out. Libby had marked five paragraphs:

More and more, with Bush administration pronouncements about the Iraq war, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

W. built his political identity on the idea that he was not Bill Clinton. He didn’t parse words or prevaricate. He was the Texas straight shooter.

So why is he now presiding over a completely Clintonian environment, turning the White House into a Waffle House, where truth is camouflaged by word games and responsibility is obscured by shell games?

The president and Condi Rice can shuffle the shells and blame George Tenet, but it smells of mendacity.

Mr. Clinton indulged in casuistry to hide personal weakness. The Bush team indulges in casuistry to perpetuate its image of political steel.

Dissembling over peccadillos is pathetic. Dissembling over pre-emptive strikes is pathological, given over 200 Americans dead and 1,000 wounded in Iraq, and untold numbers of dead Iraqis. Our troops are in "a shooting gallery," as Teddy Kennedy put it, and our spy agencies warn that we are on the cusp of a new round of attacks by Saddam snipers.

Why does it always come to this in Washington? The people who ascend to power on the promise of doing things differently end up making the same unforced errors their predecessors did. Out of office, the Bush crowd mocked the Clinton propensity for stonewalling; in office, they have stonewalled the 9/11 families on the events that preceded the attacks, and the American public on how — and why — they maneuvered the nation into the Iraqi war.

Their defensive crouch and obsession with secrecy are positively Nixonian. (But instead of John Dean and an aggressive media, they have Howard Dean and a cowed media.)

In a hole, the president should have done some plain speaking: "The information I gave you in the State of the Union about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa has been revealed to be false. I’m deeply angry and I’m going to get to the bottom of this."

But of course he couldn’t say that. He would be like Sheriff Bart in "Blazing Saddles," holding the gun to his own head and saying, "Nobody move or POTUS gets it." The Bush administration has known all along that the evidence of the imminent threat of Saddam’s weapons and the Al Qaeda connections were pumped up. They were manning the air hose.

Mr. Tenet, in his continuing effort to ingratiate himself to his bosses, agreed to take the fall, trying to minimize a year’s worth of war-causing warping of intelligence as a slip of the keyboard. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," he said, in 15 words that were clearly written for him on behalf of the president. But it won’t fly.

It was Ms. Rice’s responsibility to vet the intelligence facts in the president’s speech and take note of the red alert the tentative Tenet was raising. Colin Powell did when he set up camp at the C.I.A. for a week before his U.N. speech, double-checking what he considered unsubstantiated charges that the Cheney chief of staff, Scooter Libby, and other hawks wanted to sluice into his talk.

When the president attributed the information about Iraq trying to get Niger yellowcake to British intelligence, it was a Clintonian bit of flim-flam. Americans did not know what top Bush officials knew: that this ”evidence” could not be attributed to American intelligence because the C.I.A. had already debunked it.

Ms. Rice did not throw out the line, even though the C.I.A. had warned her office that it was sketchy. Clearly, a higher power wanted it in.

And that had to be Dick Cheney’s office. Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, said he was asked to go to Niger to answer some questions from the vice president’s office about that episode and reported back that it was highly doubtful.

Like many, I made guesses along with other commentors [mine were off the mark]. But last night, I looked again and read the comments. It now appears to me that this was a Monday morning review of the spin that was in place for the new week, scratched onto Dowd’s article.

C.I.A. had already debunked it: "-Not us. – Tenet, Rice (VP)" They hadn’t told the Administration. This charge had been countered by Tenet’s statement [7/11] and Rice [she’d spent 7/13 on the talking head shows lying] but not the Vice President.
questions from the vice president’s office: "K Pincus  Novak(7/14)  Fleischer  Tenet-CIA on own  WH  S  D"  This is the part Cheney was obsessed with, that he’d sent Wilson. Pincus and Novak had received leaks about Valerie Plame. Novak‘s article was due out on the day of this meeting. Tenet had already taken responsibility that it was a CIA operation only. Fleischer had denied the OVP sent Wilson [Gaggle]. And it wasn’t just the OVP interested in Niger. The White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department were interested too.
reported back: "?   1) Not to us – Fleischer 7/7 Tenet 7/11 Sanger·Rice  2) i" Wilson had not reported back to the OVP. Fleischer covered this in his Gaggle. Tenet’s statement said it. It was mentioned in Rice’s interview with Sanger. And our intelligence [i] said otherwise.
it was highly doubtful: "Tenet: Did resolve  Sanger·Rice: Not ?????ted" Wilson doubted the Niger claim, but Tenet had said his report did not resolve the issue, and Rice had told Sanger that his report was not accepted [or something like that].

Then down below "‘A9-  Rice (Fix) 7/13: speechwriters had NIE & wrote it" I don’t kow about ‘A9-. I wondered if it were a page number in the same NYT, but I’m not a Times Select person so I couldn’t check it out. But below that, there’s a note about Rice – that the speechwriters had the NIE when they wrote it (SOTU). And it says "Fix." My guess was that this was a Talking Point/Spin that Rice had failed to mention on either Face the Nation or Blitzer [CNN] the day before. It needed to be fixed (Never drop a Talking point, I always say).

Those notes seem to be a review of the spin already spun. Just checking to be sure all of the damage control was getting out there. But then there are [at least] two more things. My guess is that they are an Action Plan for future-spin – issues not yet taken on in public statements.

a higher power wanted it in. And that had to be Dick Cheney’s office: "(I) Not OV" This referred to the inclusion of the 16 words in the SOTU – and suggests that it was at Cheney’s bidding. The Scooter/Shooter point was that the Office of the Vice President had not pushed for the 16 words.
"(II) ~Notebooks" We don’t know what this refers to because the underlining has been redacted. There are two possibilities: 1. Rice’s responsibility to vet the intelligence facts [SOTU] and the allegation that 2. Powell had to actively fight the OVP to keep such things out of his UN speech. I vote for number 2. because Cheney is specifically defensive [offensive] when personally attacked. But I don’t know what "Notebooks" mean, unless they refer to the documents Powell used in writing his UN speech – Libby’s rejected drafts:
In late 2002 and early 2003, according to former government officials and several published accounts, Mr. Libby was the main author of a lengthy document making the administration’s case for war to the United Nations Security Council. But in meetings at the Central Intelligence Agency in early February, Secretary Powell and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, rejected virtually all of Mr. Libby’s draft as exaggerated.

I’ve reproduced Marcy’s post here because I think really she’s onto something big, and there are lots of implications:

  •  These notes, written probably before Novak’s article came out, or shortly thereafter, imply a minute to minute knowledge of their well-placed leaks in the previous week [leak week]. They knew Pincus had been called [7/12, by Fleischer] and they knew Novak’s article was coming [7/14, faxed on 7/11 by Hohlt].
  • The OVP wasn’t busy with the  War in Iraq as Libby claims in his faulty memory defense. They were busy with their own war using the Press to control our opinions. Everything in here is about the Press and masterminding it: Dowd’s piece [NYT], Wilson’s oped [NYT], Pincus [Washington Post], Novak [Chicago Sun], Fleischer [Press secretary] , Sanger [NYT], Rice’s interviews and T.V. appearances [CNN][CBS], Tenet’s statement [to the Press]. They’re obsessed with the Press…
  • The epicenter for the Plame Leak and other responses to Joseph Wilson’s accusations was the OVP with Lone Ranger Cheney leading the show supported by his trusted Tonto Libby. Rice and Tenet were an intimate part of their response – Fleischer too. Reporters were being played as [probably unwitting] pieces in the operation.
  • We’ve all called George W. Bush a puppet at one point or another. But notice that there’s no mention of him with the SOTU, or the response to Wilson. He’s a figurehead. It’s hard to imagine FDR or JFK being so completely out of the game as George W. Bush is in this business. Decider? hah!

I hope the jurors are looking at this piece of evidence and I thank emptywheel for calling it to our attention – better than a Sudoku

  1.  
    2strange
    February 25, 2007 | 1:54 PM
     

    Great analysis, your points make alot of sense

  2.  
    dc
    February 25, 2007 | 5:37 PM
     

    The plot sickens. Interesting timing for another neo-shill to chime in. Isn’t this guy a L. Mylroie / Benador Bud. Why now? This reeks. As you (likely) know, I’ve often thought the D. Kelly connect was Judith Judith Judith’s prime motivation to vie for a limited line of questioning before agreeing to testify @ Scooter’s trial… M, can you guys pick up “BBC Two”?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6390981.stm [Excerpt]

    A former colleague of the weapons inspector, former UN weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, tells the programme he believes the scientist was murdered by the Iraqis.

    Mr Spertzel, who was America’s most senior biological weapons inspector and who worked alongside Dr Kelly for many years in Iraq, believes the Iraqi regime may have pursued a vendetta against Dr Kelly.

    “I believe that David was probably a victim of Iraqi Intelligence Service because of long standing enmity of Iraq towards David,” he says.

    “A number of us were on an Iraqi hit list. I was number three, and my understanding, David was only a couple behind that.

    “And none of the people on that hit list were welcome in Iraq. Immediately after David’s death, a number of the other inspectors and I exchanged emails saying, ‘Be careful.’ ”

    The Conspiracy Files is on Sunday, 25 February, at 2100 GMT on BBC Two.

  3.  
    dc
    February 25, 2007 | 5:50 PM
     

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003688
    AFTER THE WAR

    The Politics of Mass Destruction
    Of course Iraq had forbidden weapons.

    BY RICHARD SPERTZEL
    Sunday, June 29, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

    also: http://www.namebase.org/main4/Richard-O-Spertzel.html
    and: http://www.benadorassociates.com/spertzel.php

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.