connecting*the*dots

It goes real deep.

“I could squish your head if I wanted to… I squish your head!”

Murray Waas - National Journal
Cheney Authorized Leak Of CIA Report, Libby Says

Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak to the media portions of a then-highly classified CIA report that Cheney hoped would undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, according to Libby’s grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case and sources who have read the classified report.
The March 2002 intelligence report was a debriefing of Wilson by the CIA’s Directorate of Operations after Wilson returned from a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger to investigate claims, later proved to be unfounded, that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation, according to government records.

The debriefing report made no mention of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, then a covert CIA officer, or any role she may have played in her husband’s selection by the CIA to go to Niger, according to two people who have read the report.

The previously unreported grand jury testimony is significant because only hours after Cheney reportedly instructed Libby to disclose information from the CIA report, Libby divulged to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper that Plame was a CIA officer, and that she been involved in selecting her husband for the Niger mission.

Both Libby and Cheney have repeatedly insisted that the vice president never encouraged, directed, or authorized Libby to disclose Plame’s identity. In a court filing on April 12, Libby’s attorneys reiterated: “Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson [Plame] by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else.”

But the disclosure that Cheney instructed Libby to leak portions of a classified CIA report on Joseph Wilson adds to a growing body of information showing that at the time Plame was outed as a covert CIA officer the vice president was deeply involved in the White House effort to undermine her husband.

A spokesman for the vice president declined to comment.

[…]

Okay, so I’m to believe that Cheney told Libby to leak certain aspects of the CIA report, but nothing about Wilson’s wife? I’m sorry, but no man nicknamed “Scooter” would have the temerity to out a CIA agent all on his own, especially within the 2-hour window between receiving his marching orders from his boss and speaking with the press.

How dumb do they think we are?

Patrick Fitzgerald is getting deeper and deeper in this mess and one step closer to the truth. Payday has to be coming around the bend.

Photo by Emily Geoff

Associated Press (Newsvine)
Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK’d Leak

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.

Bush’s political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby’s testimony.

“The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Libby’s testimony also puts the president and the vice president in the awkward position of authorizing leaks — a practice both men have long said they abhor, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration’s launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The authorization involving intelligence information 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.

If this weren’t such blatent and reckless disregard for our National Security, I’d be fun to watch the right try to spin this bombshell into obscurity.

Bush and Cheney consistently play to the American voter’s fear of a National Security breech, creating a hardline image of them being the “protectors” of leaking classified information to the media.

So when someone else leaks classified information (regarding the NSA warrantless wiretapping program authorized by the President of the United States) they launch a criminal investigation. Fair enough. They wanna play hardball and they have the Justice Department in their pocket to do so.

But I do hope they fully realize that they’ve now set a precedent. If they go after the “leaker” of the NSA program with any degree of vigor, they had better damn well be ready to accept accountability for this authorized leak of classified information.

The difference between the two?

This leak didn’t lead to the uncovering of a questionable government wiretapping program; it directly fed the propaganda machine that greased the skids for launching the war in Iraq.

All I want for Christmas is an article of impeachment.

UPDATE: It looks like the administration is going to argue that when the president tells someone to leak information, the process of declassifying the information is automatic and understood. Or some bullshit like that.

From the sound of his press conference today, it seems as though he’s ready to wrap up and move on, as his investigation was compromised by Libby. How bad do I want him to be the Eliot Ness to clean up this administration? I think he knows, as he kept asking the public to sit back and let the process of justice run its course.

Fitzgerald made an interesting analogy today when talking about the indictments served to Libby. He waxed poetic about a pitcher in baseball hitting a batter in the head, whether it was on purpose or the ball slipped. He mentioned that since the catcher kicked sand in his eyes (referring to Libby’s lies), as a prosecutor, he would have to interview people in the dugout to understand the mentality of the pitcher when the act occurred. Interestingly, he didn’t talk about finding out whether or not the manager ordered him to bean the batter.

I know this might sound strange to some "Americans," but this investigation is clearing up a lot of my blockage in trusting the ethical, moral state of our justice system. "Scooter" Libby lied for a reason, either his own or one from the administration. Fitzgerald handed down these lesser felony charges, because Libby committed a crime (perjury, obstruction and false statements) directly to his face regarding a breach of National Security.

As this errand boy is taken care of the truth will bubble to the surface… one way or the other.

America, can we all put down our Coors Light and X-Boxes for a moment?

Thanks.

Now let’s dig back into our collective Cowboys and Indians past and pretend that every injustice in American history didn’t occur.

That’s right, every atrocity from the Vietnam War to the destruction of the Native American population never happened; no Tuskegee experiment; no slavery; anti-women suffrage; industrial age child labor, etc.

Did you find your happy place yet?

Good.

Now let’s wallow in our newly formed self-righteous goodness as a nation and take a look at the chant we were all required to recite in school, specifically the last part of our Pledge of Allegiance”

“…one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Are those words now fresh in your gray matter?

Good.

So, as an absolutely righteous nation with a Godly pledge, let’s take a look at one way our government reacted to the mother of all terrorist attacks.

So Much For “Indivisible”

Patrick Fitzgerald — the man who took down the 1993 WTC bombers, the 1998 bombers of the US embassy in Africa and John Gotti of the Gambino mafia family — is quite possibly going to hand out indictments to a chunk of the current administration for crimes of treason, including cover up perjury and obstruction of justice.

This is not an isolated case of misdoings; these charges have everything to do with the war in Iraq, and are even more telling of our government’s character.

For those of you that have been enjoying all the freedoms that this country provides, but with blind faith and limited involvement regarding our government, take a moment to review the following time line of our divisive leadership:

2001: An Italian intelligence report had Iraq purchasing uranium yellow cake from Niger, in defiance of United Nations sanctions. Dick Cheney contacted the CIA to look into its validity (since then, it’s become public knowledge that the report was forged)

February 2002: Unbeknownst to Dick Cheney, former-US ambassador Joe Wilson is dispatched by the operations unit of the CIA to Niger in order to verify the report provided by the Vice-President

March 2002: Wilson briefs the CIA and the State Department African Affairs Bureau to his findings, which turned out to be a complete contradiction of the forged Italian report; no such uranium sale had been made

September 2002: The British government publishes a “white paper” asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger, citing Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium from an African country

December 2002: The State Department publishes a fact sheet that mentions the Niger case

January 2003: Bush follows up his lies to Congress by addressing the American people and the world, stating that there was explicit evidence that Saddam had purchased yellow cake uranium in Niger

March 2003: The United States of America invades Iraq via Shock and Awe

June 2003: Discovered in October 2005, Scooter Libby’s notes show that Dick Cheney asked George Tenet — the post-9/11 decorated former CIA Chief — about Joe Wilson

July 6 2003: Joe Wilson writes an op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled What I Didn’t Find In Africa, which contradicts the administrations entire version of the Iraq, yellow cake and Niger story

July 14 2003: Directly following the printing of Wilson’s op-ed, Robert Novak identifies Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative in column titled, Mission To Niger. He attributes “senior administration officials” as his sources.

September 14 2003: On Meet The Press, Dick Cheney denies receiving any brief about Joe Wilson’s findings, adding “I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson.”

October 1 2003: Joe Wilson tells Ted Koppel on Nightline that Washington reporters told him that senior White House adviser Karl Rove said his wife was “fair game.” Wilson “plans to give the names of the reporters to the FBI,” which is conducting a full-blown investigation of the possible leak.

Outing the identity of an unofficial covert CIA agent is not only a threat to the lives of the agent and his/her colleagues, but it is an explicit act of treason, as it potentially threatens our National Security.

So here we have an administration espousing American values left and right, yet crafting false evidence to justify war with a sovereign nation. The same administration then attacks Wilson’s wife — and our safety as a nation — because Wilson made it crystal clear that the administration disregarded his official briefing in order to back false evidence and rally support for the war.

Bully tactics, plain and simple.

Back to the anthem; where exactly does the term “indivisible” fit into the equation here? How about that “one nation” concept? I can see “under God,” “liberty” and “justice for all” at work over in Iraq…

There’s a lot riding on Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation.

Holding individuals accountable for treason, perjury and obstruction of justice will begin to show American citizens and people around the world that the promise of the American Republic is still alive. Exposing the motivation behind these actions would go far in exposing the criminal cabal responsible for launching this war.

Look, I’m a realist, I know accountability is tougher to score than a 70-yard field goal. Unfortunately, I’m also at a point of my life where I perceive the motivations of the federal government as being one and the same with corporate America: short-term growth at any cost.

So while the potential reality of my perception of our government could be dangerous to the environment, individuals rights, the national economy and the shores of any sovereign nation with natural resources, the perception itself is even more disconcerting; for it is this perception of reality that rages as the unlimited and intangible natural resource that powers terrorism from oversees.

I stopped crossing my heart and blindly chanting the American jingle a long time ago for these exact reasons.

Haven’t you?

A few months back, I finally stepped out of my dead bolted existence within Ameritrade and began to digest the current state of this Web 2.0 explosion, and as soon as I did, the Semantic Web seemed so much closer to fruition than it did just a few years prior.

Much of the renewed push and entrepreneurial spirit that has driven this industry-wide rebirth seems to have been driven simply by our economic recovery from the dot-com crash. On the surface, that answer is sufficient, but something deeper is at at play. So, with my newly created free-time, I headed down a 2.0 rabbit hole to take me on a journey for clarity.

What I’ve come to realize isn’t anything particularly shocking (unless you’ve been a corporate slave for the past three years).

We’re living in tumultuous times. The air we breathe is being compromised more and more every day. Poverty around the world is increasing exponentially. Our country is knee deep in another Vietnam, another occupation, another struggle for gaining natural resources at any cost. People are becoming polarized by important and moral, personal and social issues, seemingly on a daily basis. All of this is occurring during the reign of an administration that has even the staunchest of conservatives questioning whether we, the people, are living within the midst of a dictatorial democracy, rather than a thriving Republic, built on the principles of political discourse, government checks and balances, fiscal responsibility, the separation of church and state and the power of the individual voter.

So where does this leave us as a people?

Personally speaking, I’ve decided to refocus my effort to publish my views, opinions, perspectives, experiences, etc., in an effort to make even the slightest dent in the discourse surrounding our roles as American citizens.

What motivates me? Pick your poison: the War on Terror; the Rove/Plame/Wilson scandal; the Bolton push-through appointment; the Cindy Sheehan vigil. It seems that every day a new flow of bullshit only fuels the righteous indignation I’ve come to hold regarding this administration.

Is it even possible to imagine a more visceral description of an Aristocracy at play?

For me, the complete disregard of the intelligence and voice of the American citizen begins to explain the groundswell of blogging that has occurred over the past four years, specifically the political blogs and mainstream media watchdog sites.

Sure, the potential for capital gains plays a large role in the motivation to advance technology or any other industry. The web, though, is a bit different due to it’s low cost of entry, so I believe that moral conviction plays a role in both driving the evolution of technology and the passion to leverage it to it’s fullest degree.

So what’s the connection between geo-political events, blogging and the tactical fervor of Web 2.0? (social bookmarking, tagging, open source, open content, etc.)

In a nutshell: everything.

Without a true social democracy in the real, we’ve evolved to create one on-line — where boundaries can be broken down, hierarchies can be dissolved, control can be minimized, etc.

I blog in order to get my voice out into the ether of this new social construct; I tag my blog posts to provide context and semantic relationships on numerous levels, yet with a similar purpose:

1. On the base object level to provide a succinct description of how I perceive this content from a conceptual perspective, perhaps creating a) a greater connection with the reader on a discernible level and b) connections on associative & relational levels with other objects (within my domain and elsewhere)
2. On the categorization level to establish context within a particularly defined category or across a faceted classification scheme. If I were an actual brand, this would be how I’d ensure my position was reflected within my editorial construct and navigation scheme.
3. On the retrievable object level to allow for more avenues of findability (four, well-thought descriptive tags exponentially increase the odds of object retrieval rather than none or even one, either in straight queries or in contextual presentation on the base object level)

These are tactical strategies in the information revolution.

The same principles apply to tagging even more granular object such as photographs, video and sound files, as well as the macro-level social bookmarking of URLs. The effort, I believe, is based on the desire of individual voices to be heard amidst the shelling of the mainstream media. While technically speaking, Web 2.0 is about the creation of richly defined object models and attributes — the more good data we entrench within our objects (be it content, files or URLs themselves), the better the chance for a semantic web experience — the movement behind it is much more compelling, much more philosophical in nature.

After leaving Ameritrade in April, I spent a month digesting Noam Chomsky’s Understanding Power, which introduced me to the specifics of his propaganda model thesis, which I fully digested by watching the documentary Manufacturing Consent. Recently, Dave Sifry (CEO, Technorati) posted a graph on the Technorati Blog displaying the impact that blogs are making within the once dominated realm of entrenched, funded, mainstream media.

I’m only guessing that if Chomsky has studied the progression of the web, he’s smiling up in Cambridge right about now.

The legitimization of the individual (creative and political) perspective is being sustained in the 21st century by the conviction of the blogosphere, passionate focus on the possibilities of 2.0 revenue models and domains, such as Technorati, taking a leadership position. The concept of social dialog, networking and organization and the elemental foundation of capitalism are beginning to shift in exciting ways.

Imagine a near future where:

• Individual perspectives can be made more readily sustainable through a common revenue model, reversing the big money/power structure of publication and media saturation? How would that impact the politics of our nation? Our wage labor practices?
• Algorithms and interfaces allow for rich, precise retrievals of topical queries, with just as precisely retrieved contextual objects presented within a usable format, based on better clustering techniques and taking richer and more valuable attributes into account? How would this impact the way we learn and connect to one another?
• Information domains allow topically defined objects to be rolled up into navigable concepts by users (through customization) instead of predefined categories by information architects? How could this seamlessly raise the bar for common folk in their efforts to research online? To manage information across numerous domains?
• Mainstream media articles and blog posts are presented on the same level (query or article), ensuring checks and balances of mis/disinformation, without a partisan bias? How important is it for check and balances to be rooted within the last bastion of traditional governmental checks and balances — the media?

And the great thing is that we’re not too far away from this revolutionary existence.

Blogs are beginning to bridge the social and communication gaps between nations. My peers are thinking differently when developing this medium, even in traditional business development circumstances. The tactical approach to producing, managing, sharing, finding and using information objects — defined from the bottom up — is finally getting it’s due.

Yes, these are tumultuous times, but they’re exciting as well.