More from the CIA's Director of European Operations about Iraq Intel & Bush Admin:

[Ninong]

Der Spiegel recently published an interview with Tyler Drumheller, who was the CIA's head of European Operations from 2001 to 2005. It has been published in Salon.com.

Excerpts:

"...never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office."

"Curveball was an Iraqi who claimed to be an engineer working on the biological weapons program. When he became an asylum seeker in Germany, the BND questioned him and produced a large number of reports that were passed here through the Defense Intelligence Agency."

"Very senior officials in the BND expressed their doubts, that there may be problems with this guy. They were very professional."

"There were also questions inside the CIA's analytical section, but as it went forward, this information was seized without caveats. The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing -- they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting." [It's deja vu all over again right now with the run-up to our pending attack on Iran.]

"I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy, John McLaughlin, that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then-CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey, Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Don't worry about that."

"I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it." [He's implying that the White House or the State Department ignored it but Colin Powell insists that George Tenet misled him. Remember that Powell insisted that Tenet sit behind during the U.N. presentation. Within days, some would say hours, after Powell's U.N. speech, Tenet started calling Powell retracting some of the claims Powell had been persuaded to put forward in his speech.]

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: 'You guys must have something else,' because you always think it's the CIA. 'There is some secret thing I don't know.' He said: 'No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this.'"

"In the beginning, the administration was very excited that we had a high-level penetration, and the president was informed. I don't think anybody else had a source in Saddam's cabinet. He told us that Iraq had no biological weapons, just the research. Everything else had been destroyed after the first Gulf War. But after a while we didn't get any questions back. Finally the administration came and said that they were really not interested in what he had to say." [He's talking about Naji Sabri, Iraq's Foreign Minister. As it turned out, everything he told them was the truth!]

There is really nothing new in this article that hasn't already been reported online in blogs but it's worth hearing it again direct from the mouth of someone who was directly involved.

The Scooter Libby trial is turning out to be much more interesting than I had ever imagined it would be for the same reason. I was surprised that Libby's defense would be that there really was a conspiracy in the White House to discredit Joe Wilson but that he was only doing what he was told and it was really all Karl Rove's fault. I can't wait for Patrick Fitzgerald to question Big Time under oath. Unless he refuses to answer certain questions, he will find himself between a rock and hard place. Or should I say between perjury and admitting that he directed the entire operation. In fact, the Libby trial is providing even more evidence that Cheney is the one who calls the shots in the White House, not our puppet boy king.

Remember that Cheney insisted that he be present when the 9/11 Commission interviewed Bush! He wanted to make sure that Bush didn't throw him under the bus about who authorized the shooting down of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. It wasn't shot down but it was Cheney who authorized shooting it down without first talking to Bush. The Vice President has no executive powers or commander-in-chief powers under the Constitution. Bush lied to protect Cheney.

P.S. -- What would happen if Dick Cheney dies? Answer: George W. Bush would get to be President of the United States.

[zhenya]

Well, what does it really tell us, though? That our country attacked another nation without any reasonable cause? I kinda thought most people know it by now. I'm interested to know if anyone is liable to answer for it.., I doubt that will ever happen.

[Ninong]

Gene,

What is so interesting about the current Scooter Libby trial is that his defense is based on an admission that the White House was involved in a conspiracy to discredit former ambassador Joe Wilson because it was feared that Wilson's attack on the Administration's claims about Iraq attempting to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger would lead to closer examination of the Administration's other claims about Saddam.

Libby is now trying to say that he was only doing what he was told and that, at the most, he suffers from a lousy memory. Furthermore, he's asserting that Karl Rove is the one who should be prosecuted, not him. There is even a memo in evidence -- in Cheney's handwriting -- that states exactly that! Words to the effect that they are not going to let their guy (Libby) get put through the "meat grinder" to save Rove.

We talked about this a long time ago in the "Who Did It?" thread and way back then I speculated that the reason the White House freaked out over the Wilson Op-Ed piece in the N.Y. Times was because it could lead to the discovery that the White House (actually the OVP) was fabricating evidence justifying the invasion of Iraq.

One question that still remains unanswered is whether the OVP (via the Office of Special Plans in the DoD) was behind the fabrication of the Niger letter. We know it came from Italian Intelligence but we don't know for sure who put them up to it. It was an incredibly amateurish job but the White House nonetheless concealed its existence for several months before turning it over (actually a copy) to the IAEA. The IAEA pronounced it a clumsy forgery but that was in March 2003 and we were determined to invade anyway.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that the Italian courts are actually planning to try the head of Italian Intelligence for his authorization of the CIA kidnapping of that alleged terrorist imam from the streets in Italy and his extraordinary rendition to Egypt for interrogation and torture. A total of thirty-five people have been indicted -- 26 alleged CIA agents and 9 Italians, including the head of Italian intelligence. And another 13 alleged CIA agents have been indicted in Germany for an extraordinary rendition of a German citizen. He, too, was tortured but by Americans in Afghanistan, not Egyptians. His case was one of mistaken identity.

P.S. -- As a reminder, the letter in question was on the wrong letterhead and signed by a Nigeran (Nigerois) minister who had been out of office for twelve years and several words were misspelled. It was in French. (What the hell is the correct spelling for the adjective describing something or someone from Niger? It can't be Nigerian because that's used for Nigeria. Niger is French and I have seen Nigerois used and it would be the correct adjective in French but I'm not sure what's the correct English adjective.)

Of the two uranium mines in question, one has been flooded for years and the other is under French control.

[Ninong]

P.S. -- The Times-Picayune is the New Orleans newspaper.

[Ninong]

What's amazing about this is that these very revealing notes, in Cheney's own handwriting, seem to implicate Bush himself.

Follow that link to see pictures of the actual notes.

Excerpts from that article:

Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced at trial by attorneys prosecuting former White House staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak case.

Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any member of his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The ex-envoy's stinging rebukes of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson's wife's covert CIA status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.

But Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday during Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question the truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador raises the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's undercover role with the CIA?

Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney's comments not only hints at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the scapegoating of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging Libby to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby's lawyers articulated in their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal involvement by Bush.

Last week, Libby's attorney Theodore Wells made a stunning pronouncement during opening statements of Libby's trial. He claimed that the White House had made Libby a scapegoat for the leak to protect Karl Rove - Bush's political adviser and "right-hand man."

"Mr. Libby, you will learn, went to the vice president of the United States and met with the vice president in private. Mr. Libby said to the vice president, 'I think the White House ... is trying to set me up. People in the White House want me to be a scapegoat,'" said Wells.

Cheney's notes seem to help bolster Wells's defense strategy. Libby's defense team first discussed the notes - written by Cheney in September 2003 for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - during opening statements last week. Wells said Cheney had written "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others": a reference to Libby being asked to deal with the media and vociferously rebut Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration knowingly "twisted" intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq.

However, when Cheney wrote the notes, he had originally written "this Pres." instead of "that was."

P.S. -- The strike out is still there in the original handwritten note -- IN CHENEY'S HANDWRITING! That would make it read: "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others."

[Ninong]

What happens when Cheney takes the stand? That's the big unknown. Will he answer ALL of the questions truthfully or will he invoke some sort of privilege, other than the Fifth Amendment, in refusing to answer certain questions?

Is it possible that a sitting Vice Presdent would actually invoke the Fifth Amendment? If so, he would almost certainly have to resign.

If he is less than truthful in his answers, he runs the risk of perjury. There is no question in my mind that Fitzgerald is withholding information that could substantiate a perjury conviction against Cheney should he lie under oath. That information would not have to be turned over to Libby's defense team if it was not used in Libby's prosecution.

If I'm not mistaken, it is Libby's defense team that is insisting on calling Cheney as a witness. That will open him up to cross examination by Fitzgerald.

P.S. -- It is obvious from Libby's defense strategy that they do not expect a pardon from Bush. Unless this is a clever way to put pressure on Bush to call a halt to the trial by issuing a full presidential pardon before Cheney takes the stand. Doing that would be devastating to the Bush Administration and only lead to more aggressive investigations by the Democratic controlled Congress.

P.P.S. -- Another complication for Bush is that anything that results in Cheney leaving office will make it that much more likely that he himself might be impeached. Any replacement for Cheney would be subject to confirmation by the Democatic controlled Senate. It would have to be a non-controversial, safe choice, such as was the case when Gerald Ford replaced Spiro Agnew. No one would be all that interested in impeaching Bush if it meant Cheney would take his place.

[zhenya]

Yeah, it is very interesting developements. Will Chaney's testimony be televised you think? I would love to hear his truthful answers... :eek3:

I think it was you who once explained to me that none of the people elected to public office can be prosecuted for anything they've done while in the office( official business that is- like lying in front of Congress and sending troops to war and having solders killed as a direct result of their lies). Or am I wrong in assuming this? There has to be a way to make people like this to answer for things they had done. I don't buy any of those cracks that they use, like "I did it for the good of the country".

It will be interesting to see if talks of removal from office will surface again...

[Ninong]

Yeah, it is very interesting developements. Will Chaney's testimony be televised you think?

No, it won't be televised.

I think it was you who once explained to me that none of the people elected to public office can be prosecuted for anything they've done while in the office( official business that is- like lying in front of Congress and sending troops to war and having solders killed as a direct result of their lies). Or am I wrong in assuming this?

Gene, I'm sure we were talking about Bush and Cheney and I believe I pointed out that they would have to be impeached and convicted for crimes committed while in office. Any criminal prosecutions would have to wait until after they were removed from office.

If I remember correctly, I pointed out that it was in doubt whether Paula Jones' sex harrassment claim against Bill Clinton could proceed while he was in office or if it would have to wait until he had left office. The court ruled that since it was something that happened before he assumed the office of the presidency, it could go forward and he would be required to give a deposition. And we all know what happened after his deposition. I remember mentioning something about Spiro Agnew's problems being similar in that it was something he had done prior to assuming the office of the vice presidency.

I'm not a constitutional expert by any means but I believe you have to bring a bill of impeachment in the House and then get a conviction by a two-thirds majority in the Senate if you want to charge a sitting president or vice president with "high crimes or misdemeanors." I'm pretty certain that state or federal criminal charges would have to wait until AFTER removal from office. It's a separation of powers issue.

There has to be a way to make people like this to answer for things they had done. I don't buy any of those cracks that they use, like "I did it for the good of the country".

Yes, there is. It's called impeachment but it is a political process more than a criminal one.

Criminal charges could be filed later on, after impeachment and conviction in the Senate, or after the president or vice president had left office. I would imagine that it's theoretically possible to bring civil charges if you are in an injured class but extremely unlikely that you would get anywhere going that route.

A more interesting question is whether any other countries might persue charges for crimes against international law, either in the International Criminal Court or in their own federal courts. A few countries brought charges against Pinochet in their own federal courts. The Bush Administration has refused to join the International Criminal Court or recognize it's jurisdiction over Americans in spite of the fact that we pushed for this court at the Nuremberg trials following WWII.

It will be interesting to see if talks of removal from office will surface again...

I'm sure they will but I'm not sure what will come of it. Right now very few people are even paying attention to the Libby trial. It's sort of like old news. I'm sure the Bush Administration is thankful that the media is not following it all that closely.

We still don't know what will come of the various House and Senate investigations. The Democrats have to be extremely careful how they handle those. They don't want to turn Bush into some sort of martyr. From the standpoint of justice, it would be nice to see everything come out. From a strictly political standpoint, it may be better for the Democrats to not persue impeachment of the president or the vice president.

As things stand right now, the Democrats are poised to make more congressional gains in 2008 and quite possibly take the White House. Why do anything to upset that dynamic?

As it stands right now, Republicans are divided on the Iraq war and the possibility of war with Iran. More than half of them do NOT support the president's policies in Iraq but it is extremely difficult for them to actually say so publicly. If the situation gets worse in Iraq (which is likely), then more and more Republicans will desert the president and become more outspoken in their criticism. An impeachment resolution in the House would just cause the Republicans to unite and rally round the president. The Nixon situation was unique in that he was on tape!

[zhenya]

Thanks Ninong!
I knew I can count on you to remember it correctly, I understand now how it needs to work if people would want to ask for justice.
As an aside, I was listening to senator Kerry speaking on the floor of the Senate, trying to get the members to vote on something that would have no power at all, only to show their disapproval of how GW had manage the war so far. Pretty passionate speech he had going... Did you see it?

[Ninong]

Gene,

I know what Kerry's position is but I didn't see his speech.

[Ninong]

As you may know, the court has allowed a couple of bloggers to attend the trial along with select members of the main stream media. The following is an interesting post by one of those bloggers reporting on the replay of a portion of Libby's grand jury testimony. It concerns the previously unheard of "doctrine" that if the president tells you to leak a classified document, it is ipso facto instantly declassified.

In this particular instance, the document in question was "officially" declassified some ten days later and when the request was made to the DCI to declassify it, no mention was made of the fact that the president had previously declassified it personally. I previously mentioned in the "Who Did It?" thread that since the president does in fact have the authority to declassify documents, it follows that he can do so with or without informing anyone else. This seems only fitting since our boy king claims to have been anointed by God to carry out this sacred crusade. If the Pope can name a new cardinal in pectore without ever informing the cardinal himself or anyone else, then the Decider can declassify a document without ever telling anyone else about it. Just because no previous president has exercised this power in this particular manner doesn't mean it can't be done. Besides, it has a certain medieval quality to it that seems to fit in with this administration's world view.

Here is what that blogger had to say about a certain portion of Libby's grand jury testimony that was played in court yesterday:

Scooter Libby and the Amazing Insta-Declassification Doctrine

I believe Patrick Fitzgerald was shocked (and possibly awed as well) when, in the course of questioning Libby before the grand jury about his July 8 meeting in the St. Regis Hotel with Judy Miller, he stumbled upon the amazing insta-declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Today in the courtroom, the jury heard audio of Fitzgerald asking Libby no fewer than 17 questions on the topic. Here’s a (paraphrased) account:

F: Was it a declassified or a classified document that you were authorized to release to Miller?

L: Declassified, because the President authorized it.

F: Had you ever been authorized before to talk with the press about a classified document?

L: No.

F: Have you been authorized to do so since then?

L: No.

F: This was the only time in your career when this happened?

L: Yes.

F: How clear were you in describing the situation when you consulted with Addington about the legality of what you were contemplating?

L: Addington told me that if the President tells you to leak something, then it’s declassified.

F: You told him that you were going to talk to the press about a classified document?

L: Yes.

F: Did you ask whether the President could overrule the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) if the DCI refused to declassify a document?

L: He said the President has the authority.

F: Did Addington express any reservations [regarding the new insta-declassification doctrine]?

L: No.

F: What did the Vice President tell you regarding the classification status of the portions of the NIE that he wanted you to leak?

L: He said he had talked to the President, and that the President had authorized it.

F: When did this authorization happen?

L: I don’t know.

F: Was it the day before July 7? [Libby had said he set up the July 8 meeting with Miller on July 7]

L: Maybe. Or it might have been earlier.

F: Who else knew that it had been declassified?

L: Only the President, the Vice President, and me.

F: Was the CIA immediately notified that the NIE had been declassified?

L: No.

F: Did you participate in a meeting with Hadley, Rice, and Card, in which they discussed declassification of the NIE? [It was eventually formally declassified on July 18]

L: Yes.

F: During that meeting, you knew that it had already been declassified, and yet none of them knew?

L: Yes.

F: [incredulous] Is it unusual for the National Security Advisor, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the White House Chief of Staff to be kept in the dark?

L: The Vice President tells me a lot of things that I’m not supposed to tell anyone else.

F: Have there been other times this has happened?

L: Yes. [he goes on to describe a case in which the President does something without everyone else knowing about it first]

F: Has it ever happened before that the press has been in possession of a document that other government officials still thought was classified?

L: This happens…
—–
When I heard the above exchange, I immediately recalled that Judge Walton had instructed the jury that the prosecution had stipulated that the NIE had been legally declassified. Was that the result of a bargain between Fitzgerald and the defense, who may have asked for that jury instruction in return for letting Fitz put this stuff into evidence? Who knows? But it’s obvious that back in March 2004, Stickler-For-Proper-Procedures Fitzgerald thought that what Libby had done–or claimed to have done–was highly illegal. The question is, why didn’t he prosecute? Marcy Wheeler (aka emptywheel), who wrote a whole book on this stuff, thinks that Libby made up the whole I-leaked-the-NIE-to-Miller story to hide the inconvenient fact that the instruction in his notes to leak something to Miller on July 8 was really about the Plame leak. He invented the NIE leak to cover himself, and then that was the inspiration for the completely unprecedented insta-declassification doctrine. Marcy’s theory is partly based on Murray Waas’s report that Bush denied knowing that Libby had covertly leaked classified information to the media. In other words, Fitzgerald didn’t pursue this crime, because maybe it didn’t really happen.

[Ninong]

Dick Cheney will NOT be testifying in the Scooter Libby trial!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor Lewis "Scooter" Libby will testify in Libby's perjury trial, the defense announced in court Tuesday. (Posted 2:48 p.m.)

P.S. -- I always suspected that neither Scooter nor the Shooter would ever take the stand. Patrick Fitzgerald would have crucified them. They would have been forced to acknowledge all of their previous lies or run the risk of perjury.

P.P.S. -- Libby's attorney will now try to convince the jury that Libby learned something and then forgot it, and then later on when he heard it again, he didn't remember that he had ever known it before.