Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Bush Hides 'Plame-gate' Testimony

By Jason Leopold
July 16, 2008

In the latest twist in the “Plame-gate” scandal, President George W. Bush has asserted executive privilege to block release of Vice President Dick Cheney’s interview with a special prosecutor about possible criminal violations in the leaking of a CIA officer’s covert identity.

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, promptly denounced the White House legal reasoning as “ludicrous,” noting that executive privilege covers advice that an aide gives the President, not responses to legal questions posed by a prosecutor about a possible crime.

Read on.

3 comments:

Barbara Honegger said...

Jason Leopold concludes this excellent piece by stating that by his claim of executive privilege in an attempt to block Vice President Cheney's FBI testimony in the Plame leak matter, Bush clearly intends to keep the American people from ever getting to the bottom of what's really behind the Plame Scandal. But there is sufficient information in the open press to point to the shocking reality of what did really happen: 1) The true purpose of leaking Valerie Plame's identity was not to 'ruin her career' -- which was as a CIA officer WHO RAN A WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) INFORMANT NETWORK -- BUT TO 'BURN' THAT VERY INFORMANT NETWORK, which was INTENDED to happen when her intelligence cover was publicly blown. The main question thus becomes 'What KIND of WMD 'Informant Network' DID Plame RUN? There are three key possibilities, all with major geopolitical consequences. Did she, for instance, run an informant network ON IRAQI WMD, and therefore know, via her
sources who were 'burned' and almost certainly killed/silenced when she was outed, that Iraq HAD NO Weapons of Mass Destruction? And/or did she run an informant network on PAKISTANI WMD with sources on the inside of the A.Q. Khan Network? And/or did she run an informant network on IRANIAN WMD CAPABILITIES? Any of these, or any combination of these, has explosive consequences. Additional facts in the public domain are also key. Plame is reported to have 'worked' the same Turkish-American group that 9/11 whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has revealed worked hand in glove with Israel and Pakistan's ISI and was a cover for infiltration of U.S. military and intelligence agencies. And, perhaps most intriguingly, it was recently revealed in brief articles in the mainstream press that Bush's Dept. of Defense just successfully removed 530 TONS OF YELLOWCAKE FROM IRAQ, which the Administration knew full well was there BEFORE Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. That is, the official story OF BOTH the Bush Admin. AND Wilson and Plame -- that Wilson had to be sent to Niger to see if reports that Saddam was trying to get some yellowcake from that country were true -- is absurd. Wilson, having been the senior U.S. official meeting with Saddam just before the initiation of Bush Sr.'s first Gulf War against Iraq, himself knew full well, FROM HIS WIFE'S WMD INFORMANT NETWORK AND FROM OTHER TOP LEVEL INSIDE INTELLIGENCE, THAT SADDAM ALREADY HAD OVER 500 TONS OF YELLOWCAKE and didn't need any more from Niger or anywhere else.
It's also important to recall the little known fact that the official mandate of the so-called IRAN/Contra Committee, was to investigate everything known about 1980s arms shipments, both overt and covert/illegal, to BOTH Iran AND IRAQ.
Given all of the above, it is likely that the real story is that Plame and the White House secretly cooperated in the 'leak' of her CIA identity, to bring her in from the cold while intentionally burning her
WMD Informant Network -- the very sources/witnesses with the proof the Administration's war propaganda against Saddam were lies. It was Plame's WMD informant network, not her husband Joe Wilson's New York Times editorial, that was the real threat to Bush and Cheney's public rationale for an invasion of Iraq.
Barbara Honegger
Former White House Policy Analyst
barhonegger@aol.com

Robert Velez said...

Surely, Barbara, your comments are just the absurd rhetoric of yet another 'disgruntled' former White House employee?

Your analysis of Plume is by far the most rational and plausible I've come across yet.

Thank you for the insight.

Anonymous said...

When will Plame be indicted for Perjury (telling Congress under oath the she never suggested...recommended her husband)?

Sadam had banned WMD's...over 500 chemical munitions.

Sigh, listen again to the Bush Speech..."The British Government has learned that Sadam..."