Skip to main content

In my previous posting, I referred to the fact that Judith Miller anticipated, by a month, all the key judgments of the intelligence agencies about Iraq's nuclear program that went into the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. But, I left it to the reader to go to the sources and compare them. This led to some confusion. So, let me lay it out for you all again, and then put the two documents side by side.

On September 8, 2002, Judith Miller and Michael Gordon published an article entitled U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts. In the first week of October, the intelligence community produced the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. It was a report that was requested from Congress and it was used to justify their vote for the authorization of force. As you will see, it used almost the same language, and drew the same conclusions, to describe the state of Iraq's nuclear capabilities as Miller's article had used. In other words, Judith Miller had seen all the facts that went into this highly classified report a month before Congress did.

Now, fast-forward to July of 2003. Baghdad is occupied, but no one can find anything to back up either Judith Miller's reporting, or the reporting from the NIE (they are the same thing) on Iraq's nuclear program. Once again, Scooter Libby goes to Judith Miller. He shows her (again) the key findings of the NIE (as if she hadn't seen them back in September 2002). He also reveals Valerie Plames's name and occupation (apparently getting her department wrong).

Now he claims, in court, that he went and got specific permission to leak these documents to Judith Miller in July. But, who leaked them to her in September of 2002?

National Intelligence Estimate- Key Judgments. Created in October 2002, declassified on July 18th, 2003.

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

* If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.

From Judith Miller and Michael Gordon's article U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts. Published September 8, 2002.

American intelligence officials believe that Iraq could assemble a nuclear device in a year or somewhat less if it obtained the nuclear material for a bomb on the black market. But they say there are no signs that Iraq has acquired such a supply.

National Intelligence Estimate- Key Judgments. Created in October 2002, declassified on July 18th, 2003.

* Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

From Judith Miller and Michael Gordon's article U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts. Published September 8, 2002.

The Central Intelligence Agency still says it would take Iraq five to seven years to make a nuclear weapon if it must produce its own supply of highly enriched uranium for a bomb, an administration official said.

National Intelligence Estimate- Key Judgments. Created in October 2002, declassified on July 18th, 2003.

o Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

From Judith Miller and Michael Gordon's article U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts. Published September 8, 2002.

In addition to the special aluminum tubes, a senior administration official said Iraq had made efforts to purchase other equipment, epoxy and resins that could be used for centrifuges. A key issue is whether the items Iraq tried to buy are uniquely designed for centrifuge use or could have other applications.

Experts say the dimensions and precise specification of the aluminum tubes would provide a clear indication of its intended use.

National Intelligence Estimate- Key Judgments. Created in October 2002, declassified on July 18th, 2003.

o Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.

From Judith Miller and Michael Gordon's article U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts. Published September 8, 2002.

The attempted purchases are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms. President Hussein has met repeatedly in recent months with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and, according to American intelligence, praised their efforts as part of his campaign against the West.

Originally posted to www.boomantribune.com on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:54 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Before Bush leaked...I mean 'declassified' it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Alabama Bill
  •  Great timeline (12+ / 0-)

    and comparison of the two. You do incredible work Booman.

    Frodo failed....Bush has got the ring!

    by Alohaleezy on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:02:07 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for this BooMan23 (5+ / 0-)

    I've been wondering about all this and I missed your recent discusion. Don't have time to study it all very thoroughly right now, but I thank you for putting it out there.

    I hope this thread catches on because it could prompt some good discussion. For now, I go back to work... and life.

    Speaking as a scientist, etc.
    12,390+ days without shooting anybody in the face.

    by abw on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:03:21 AM PDT

  •  Laying it out like this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hollywood Liberal, zic, gabie, Bluesee

    allows my feeble mind to understand.  Good chronology!

    Oh, for a world where you can type in a sarcastic inflection

    by UberMitch on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:07:18 AM PDT

  •  Did Miller get (7+ / 0-)

    classified info from BushCo for her September 2002 article or did the October 2002 NIE get it's contents from Miller's article?

    The whole brouhaha about Miller getting info from a 'declassified' NIE in the summer of 2003 might just be a smokescreen to cover the fact the NIE contents were Miller's to begin with.

    Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (Georgie's Orwellian Party)!

    by high5 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:10:58 AM PDT

    •  Whole cloth? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high5, leo joad

      Doubtful. She had to be in bed with somebody on this. Er...at least figuratively.

      Was this some of the goods that Chalabi was giving to her?

      I am a Reform Democrat. Dean screams for me.

      by Mountain Don on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:27:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (21+ / 0-)

        this is just the information that went into the Key Judgments of the NIE.  She saw it and reported it almost verbatim a month before Congress saw it.

        Then that information was deemed classified until Cheney got restless and told Libby to leak it to Miller.  Except there is a problem.  She had already seen the Key Judgments.

        THe rest of the NIE remains classified.

        •  Key judgements (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snakelass, Bouwerie Boy

          This is where it gets confusing.  Are the other parts of the NIE (not the Key Judgements) still classified today, as we speak?  The NYT article today does not make this distinction.  Did Congress see the entire NIE or just the Key Judgements?    

        •  declassified then REClassified??? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leo joad, StrayCat

          did you just say that the NIE was declassifed in order to let judith miller see it and then it was REClassidied to keep it out of the view of congress???

          "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

          by KnotIookin on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:52:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  also classified: Judy's NYTimes severance deal (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eru, leo joad, Easterling

          which apparently enjoins the paper from reporting anything about Miller's role in taking this country to war. The New York Times could not report what's in this diary, for example. For that matter, the Times has still not retracted any of the (more than a dozen) editorials touting Miller as a first amendment martyr.

          "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." - George W. Bush on October 7, 2003

          by QuickSilver on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:07:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Key judgments (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StrayCat

          The key judgments do not affirm their claims about uranium from Niger, yet Scooter Libby was specifically told to tell Miller that the NIE showed Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" it.

          And we're supposed to believe this leak was done in the public interest?

        •  Then what was the new info in July 2003 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eru, leo joad

          that Scooter was authorized to spread? If it actually was favorable to the administration, and Scooter tried to cast doubt on Wilson, there seem to be only a few possibilities:

          1. Scooter is completely full of it, and is lying about the president's authorization (unlikely unless he is blackmailng Bushco with something bigger).
          1. The info was not new, and Scooter had disclosed all of it long before. Cheney knew Scooter was leaking, with his blessing, from the beginning (2002). In 2003, Bush ordered parts of the NIE disclosed to hurt Wilson, but Judy had already seen it. Thus, there was no story for her.
          1. Scooter gave Judy Valerie Plames's name and job.
        •  Key judgements (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TaraIst, QuickSilver

          It would help, I think to maintain the distinction between seeing, "the information that went into the Key Judgments" and seeing "the Key Judgments." If the SSCI is to be believed AT ALL, then they at least made a show of developing it as they normally would (albeit on an accelerated schedule). Which would mean the Key Judgements wouldn't be done at this point (moreover, while Judy references some of the other issues, such as BW/CW in the aluminum tube article, her coverage of the rest of these includes info not in the key judgments).

          That is, Judy was leaked (we don't know that she saw it, though I think it likely) the underlying intell, she wasn't leaked the document itself. Which is actually more problematic, because it means she's getting stuff closer to raw intelligence. (Which is not surprising, because she got raw intelligence at other times.)

          One more thing. Karen Kwiatkowski has said (I need to go back and find the link) that the Niger-uranium story did not come though OSP, but the aluminum tubes did. I think that's incredibly relevant here (particularly since she didn't include the Niger claims in her article). That is, she got leaked stuff that had been stovepiped via OSP all summer. Which may either support your argument about her getting this from Libby or may suggest itcame from Feith (I think either is just as likely, and doesn't affect the underlying issue, but my point is that it's very likely it came from OSP via WHIG).

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:22:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not whole cloth, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snakelass, eru, wardlow, leo joad

        but the chicken and egg NIE/Miller scenario was exactly what I was thinking reading the article.

        Miller was getting her crap as fast as Scooter and Bushco could dish it out. Before anyone could contradict it, it was on the front page of the New York Times, gaining creedence as "conventional wisdom."

        The NIE was assembled hurriedly, at the request of Congress. Except for the DOE's face-saving dodge, it might as well have been assembled from Judy's press clippings from the previous month.

        BTW, who actually wrote the NIE?

  •  All very complicated, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrayCat

    but this is a wonderful resource. Thank you!

  •  What did this woman do (0+ / 0-)

    for BushCo other than carry all its water?

    The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

    by Overseas on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:43:34 AM PDT

  •  I repeat: (19+ / 0-)

    I said this somewhere else, but I thought I'd put it here for others to see:

    Sully has a nice summary, via Drum

    In this case, we're...talking about the following set of circumstances. A president is challenged in his public account of pre-war intelligence. The president authorizes a selective leak of classified information to rebut the challenge. He selects only those parts of the classified information that supports his case, and omits the rest that actually show parts of the government disputing his case. He authorizes the veep to authorize Libby to give the selected information to a pliant reporter for the New York Times. Meanwhile, his public statements reiterate an abhorrence of all unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
    ....It shows a conscious capacity to mislead people by selectively disclosing data that skews — for a while — the public's understanding of the facts. It proves that this president is capable of deliberately misleading the American people as a gambit in a Beltway spat

    "Why can't you and the idea of separation of powers just hug it out, bitch?" Wonkette

    by Hollywood Liberal on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:45:11 AM PDT

    •  And it was all done in the 'public interest,' (9+ / 0-)

      as Scotty said about 40 times in today's press briefing (no link yet available) and six times in the earlier gaggle.

      You know, to further the debate that the American people were having at the time.

      It's like overruling (and gagruling) scientists and economists, redacting reports, refusing to publish reports, planting fake news stories, etc., etc., etc. It's all about serving the public interest and furthering debate. The American people love a good debate.

      Speaking as a scientist, etc.
      12,390+ days without shooting anybody in the face.

      by abw on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:12:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry to the economists out there. You all are scientists, too. No snotty snideness intended.

        Speaking as a scientist, etc.
        12,390+ days without shooting anybody in the face.

        by abw on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:16:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If there was such a great public interest (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        abw, leo joad, StrayCat

        in this information, why the sneaking around?  Why not hold a press conference, with members of the Admin putting their names behind the info, and taking questions?

        It was leaked because they knew it was lies.

        •  Because (14+ / 0-)

          this is charade.

          Libby was a 'former hill staffer' not because they didn't want to admit the info was coming from the White House, but because they didn't want to reveal a connection between Miller and the OVP.

          She was given security clearance to see classified information so that she could make the case for war in the New York Times.  She was given that clearance back in 2002.  So, when Libby shared classified intelligence with her in July 2003, he wasn't doing anything new.

          However, once Fitz got ahold of her notes they had to create a cover story to explain why she received the classified information.  That's why we have all these shifting explanations.

          Miller was read into the program from the beginning.  She knew exactly what was going to go into the NIE and she reported it almost word for word.  

          There is no reason for Libby to leak that info to her again in July 2003.  He was meeting her because she was an agent of the OVP and they needed her to do damage control.

        •  Remember this? (7+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pb, abw, SarahLee, TaraIst, viget, subtropolis, leo joad

             In my grand jury testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald repeatedly turned to the subject of how Mr. Libby handled classified information with me. He asked, for example, whether I had discussed my security status with Mr. Libby. During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment "embedded" with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons.

             Mr. Fitzgerald asked if I had discussed classified information with Mr. Libby. I said I believed so, but could not be sure. He asked how Mr. Libby treated classified information. I said, Very carefully.

             Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to examine a series of documents. Though I could not identify them with certainty, I said that some seemed familiar, and that they might be excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq's weapons. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether Mr. Libby had shown any of the documents to me. I said no, I didn't think so. I thought I remembered him at one point reading from a piece of paper he pulled from his pocket.

             I told Mr. Fitzgerald that Mr. Libby might have thought I still had security clearance, given my special embedded status in Iraq. At the same time, I told the grand jury I thought that at our July 8 meeting I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq.

             Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know.

          •  Do you think... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pb

            ...that she actually did have a security clearance to see the NIE in July of 2003?  Would Scooter be willing to lie to protect their covert journalist agent and her clearance and risk destroying the admin in scandal?

            Of course, if he told the truth, that might have been even more explosive.  But then Rove could have swept it under the rug by saying it was the work of a few "rogue" intelligence analysts over at DoD, and the Preznit and the Veep knew nothing about this.

            People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

            by viget on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:17:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  of course (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pb, TaraIst, subtropolis, leo joad, StrayCat

              she had a security clearance.  Maybe not one that would be recognized by the CIA, but certainly one that was respected by Cheney and Rumsfeld.  That's what this diary shows.

                 According to Pomeroy, as well as an editor at the Times, Miller had helped negotiate her own embedding agreement with the Pentagon--an agreement so sensitive that, according to one Times editor, Rumsfeld himself signed off on it. Although she never fully acknowledged the specific terms of that arrangement in her articles, they were as stringent as any conditions imposed on any reporter in Iraq. "Any articles going out had to be, well, censored," Pomeroy told me. "The mission contained some highly classified elements and people, what we dubbed the `Secret Squirrels,' and their `sources and methods' had to be protected and a war was about to start." Before she filed her copy, it would be censored by a colonel who often read the article in his sleeping bag, clutching a small flashlight between his teeth. (When reporters attended tactical meetings with battlefield commanders, they faced similar restrictions.)

                 As Miller covered MET Alpha, it became increasingly clear that she had ceased to respect the boundaries between being an observer and a participant. And as an embedded reporter she went even further, several sources say. While traveling with MET Alpha, according to Pomeroy and one other witness, she wore a military uniform.  New York Metro

              •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pb

                but did she still have it as of July 2003?  And if she did, why hide it from Fitz?  It would have made Scooter's life a lot less miserable.

                One other thing, not that Scooter's necessarily telling the truth, but according to Fitz's latest filing, he said his meeting with Miller was the first time he could recall being tasked by the VP (or prez) to specifically leak classified info.  He seemed very careful with classified info before.

                So, I kind of doubt he was leaking to Judy in fall 2002.  But of course that's predicated on the fact that he's telling the truth here (as oppposed to other places).

                Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right.  I just can't believe that the WH would rather concoct such outrageous lies to protect Rove and Libby, rather than give up Miller.  Yeah, it would have been embarassing, but Rove could have made it go away by claiming the preznit and VP knew nothing about this, and it was all Rummy's and rogue neocons over at DoD's fault.

                People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

                by viget on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:37:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here is what you are missing (16+ / 0-)

                  They can't admit that Judy Miller was not a reporter but an agent.  The press would go beserk.  It would clearly violate laws against domestic propaganda.  It would unleash an enormous ball of wax that they could never contain.

                  They will go to any length to conceal the actual relationship between the WHIG and the contract agents in the press.  

                  Think about what they are admitting to.  Nothing.

                  The President has the authority to authorize the release of classified intelligence.  We may think it was a stinky nasty thing to do, or that he did it without going thru responsible channels.  But is nothing compared to admitting that they gamed the NYT's with a planted expert on WMD.

                  No sir.  It's a no-brainer.

                  •  Hmmm... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pb

                    ...so then maybe this should be "Millergate" rather than "Plamegate."  Is Valerie Plame then just the window-dressing to get the press to notice and not spill the beans on Miller?

                    If this is true, the NYT editors have to know.

                    And this clearly violates the ban on agents using a journalist as cover.  Isn't that a prosecutable crime (as well as the ban on covert domestic ops)?

                    People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

                    by viget on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:51:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  ... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pb, Sanuk

                    I also think this Admin. did not expect this investigation to last this long. I would guess they expected Ashcroft to sweep it under the rug. The longer this goes the greater the danger for all those involved with Admin. If enough is uncovered, there can be a "rapture" the neo cons seem so preoccupied with.

                  •  Holy crap. (0+ / 0-)

                    You blew my mind with that one.

                    You know, I'm constantly amazed at the level of deceipt that Bush and his cronies will go to. I sure hope your theory isn't right - I want to believe that the President wouldn't be that blantantly anti-American to do such a thing. However, he never ceases to amaze me at what depths he will go to in order ot get his way.

                    I remember a time when our President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

                    by land of the free on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 05:47:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  John Dean is right...... (0+ / 0-)

                    This IS worse than Watergate.  Admirable work, BooMan.

                    "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

                    by Lying eyes on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:34:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  that Metro article (0+ / 0-)

                is fucking brilliant! I never tire of linking to it for people.

                -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

                by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:24:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Security clearance (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pb

            This aspect of Miller's testimony has always puzzled me.  Looking at it now after reading your diary, and in light of the newly released Libby testimony - well it's all coming together!  It looks like Fitz has been onto this from the very beginning.  The Valerie Plame leak somehow seems like a sideshow now.  Hey, maybe Woodward's comment has merit, that it was all Washington gossip :-).

            •  her clearance (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee

              may—or may not—relate to the NIE she was allowed to see. But it almost assuredly has to do with the MET Alpha group that went into Iraq after the invasion. She was given clearance—direct from Rumsfeld—in order to tag along.

              -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

              by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:27:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

                This is just the cover story that Libby (and Cheney and Bush) concocted for Miller.  How else to explain her meeting with Libby and her corresponding notes.  As Booman says, she is actually an agent (not a journalist).

                •  depends on your definition of agent (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes, i agree that she was acting as Cheney's agent, in that they were using her to advance their goals. But i do not think she was ever an official, badge-and-everything, special agent of the US govt.

                  -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

                  by subtropolis on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:02:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I'll take it one further... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pb, averybird, StrayCat

          ...it was all the bogus intel coming out of Feith's Office of Special Plans.  And the CIA was forced into accepting it and putting it into their NIE.

          If this is indeed sourced to OSP (which I'd bet the still classified portions would show), it explains very nicely how Miller might have seen it before (from Chalabi, from a sympathetic NeoCon at DoD, from Franklin, maybe?)

          People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

          by viget on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:12:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think so (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pb, viget, leo joad, StrayCat

            look at the similarity of the construction of the sentences.

            Miller saw early drafts of the NIE, or what became the NIE.  At least she saw the parts related to nukes.

            Dollars to donuts she got it from Libby.  

            •  I agree... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pb, wardlow

              ...I guess what I'm trying to say is that these pieces of the NIE might have actually been written by OSP folk (possibly over the objections of other intel agencies), and the CIA was forced to include it in their NIE.

              Lt. Col. Janet Kwiatkowski (sp?) has accused OSPers of such behavior at least with the DIA.  They (the OSPers) would distribute bulleted talking-points that DIA analysts were ordered to include in their reports, even if they didn't agree with the conclusions.

              I could see the same thing happening at CIA, especially if Cheney was breathing down the analysts' necks while they were typing up the NIE.

              People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

              by viget on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:21:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Just to be sure people understand the importance (35+ / 0-)

    of this....

    When Andy Card said you don't roll out a marketing campaign in August, he wasn't fooling around.  

    They brought in Miller over Labor Day and showed her the selective intelligence (sans dissents) that they intended to use to make the case for war to Congress.

    Then they waited for her column to appear.  Once it appeared on a Sunday morning, they had already lined up the roll-out.  Rice, Cheney, Powell, (and, I think, Cheney) all went on Sunday morning or afternoon programs and cited Miller's piece to raise the specter of a mushroom cloud.

    Now, in July, when Libby claims he received specific permission to show the NIE key judgments to Miller, the problem is that he (or someone else) had already shown her the Key Judgments.

    Look at  this.  The 2002 NIE is still classified, except for the Key Judgments.  The reason Judy saw this was not because they had declassfied it, but because she was already read into the WHIG program.

    •  Aspen. Leaves. Whigs. Traitors. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patricia Taylor, eru

      Lucky me! Not everyone can afford to be poor.

      by killdiebold on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:12:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Understood (7+ / 0-)

      and frightening.  This means that the new disclosure about Libby's testimony implicating Bush and Cheney for authorizing the "leak" of parts of the NIE is a smokescreen for what really happened back in August, 2002.  That looks to me like conspiracy on a grand scale.  Could this be where Fitzgerald is taking us?  I hope so...

      •  Bingo (15+ / 0-)

        once you realize Judy was written into the program from the beginning, the whole cluster of aspens makes sense.

        And don't forget she was also written into the Pentagon when she went to Iraq to hunt for WMD.  

        She was a mole in the New York Times, and when she talked to Libby she wasn't doing it as a reporter, but as an agent.

        The President didn't have to give permission for Libby to leak to Miller.  They concocted a cover story for Fitz to explain why she was receiving classified intelligence at the St. Regis Hotel.

        Does the disclosure start to make sense now?  

        •  It sure does (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Easterling

          make sense.  Due to the fine investigative work done by Fitzgerald, Bush and Cheney had no choice but to disclose this "leak" (through Libby) and take the heat.  This is nothing compared to the much greater crime at the root of it all.    

        •  Miller published known classified info in 09/02 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Easterling, StrayCat

          Lets say it's true that Judy Miller was written into the WHIG from the beginning and so she could see the classified intel. Does this give her the freedom to include this known classified intel in her articles?

          The article she wrote in September 2002 included the same information that is in the NIE a month later. But Miller knows this information is classifed. Just because no one else knows where she got it seems a moot point. The only relevant thing is SHE KNOWS. Why can she publish it riskfree? Isn't it illegal to reveal intel that she knows is classified. I must be missing something.

          •  but she's getting it from the Whitehouse (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee, averybird

            She has little to fear if Cheney & Libby are feeding it to her. They're the ones in charge, after all.

            The way that i think she saw it, the admin trusted her to help them get the word out about what was really going on. All the stuff that was too sensitive, according to those fence-sitters at CIA. Her ego was stroked in a big way, and she lost sight of her journalistic smarts (not to mention her integrity). She was led to believe that she was the chosen vehicle through which the admin would explain the seriousness of the situation.

            She was a pawn, in other words.

            -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

            by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:40:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  marketing campaigns in August (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, averybird, Sanuk

      Funny—i was just reminiscing about Card's remark just the other day.

      Nice work, BooMan. I missed your earlier post, but seeing the excerpts side by side is quite interesting. (Minor nit: i think you should put the attributions inside the blockquotes. As it is, it's a little confusing).

      re the Sunday morning talk-show push: Cheney was on Meet the Press. From NewsHour's NY TIMES WMD COVERAGE:

      A Sept. 8, 2002, account, written by Miller and military reporter Michael Gordon, dealt with aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq, allegedly for its nuclear weapons program. That same Sunday, the vice president appeared on NBC's Meet the Press, and pointed to the article, which relied heavily on administration officials, as proof positive of Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

      VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: He now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs.

      TIM RUSSERT, Host of Meet the Press: Aluminum tubes.

      VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning -- this is, and I want to attribute to the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources -- but it's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring, through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge.

      I guess Cheney wanted to make sure the quid pro quo was taken care of.

      -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

      by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:32:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What do you mean... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eru, StrayCat

    he got Plame's department wrong? From what I've heard all along he and Cheney were aware that she worked for the under the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

    From the Libby Indictment.

    June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA. This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations

    That is not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from. Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.

    Vyan

    •  but Miller's notes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eru, QuickSilver

      show WINPAC.  That was not correct.

      •  Interesting... (0+ / 0-)

        is that what Libby told her, or a mistake she made on her own?

        If Libby told her this, then he might have been under the impression that she was an analyst, not an operative.

        Vyan

        •  Judy wrote 'WINPAC' with a question mark (7+ / 0-)

          This may have been because Libby was suggesting a way Miller could float around the idea that Plame worked for the CIA, but not the actual truth, so that Valerie Plame (or "Valerie Flame" or "Victoria Wilson") could be outed by people who were sniffing around for the truth.

          Believe me, Miller left this meeting with Libby and spread the bullshit far and wide. That's why she was busted, even though she never wrote a story.

          Ari Fleischer, in a similar vein on the Africa trip, was suggesting that reporters look around for the person who "sent" Joe Wilson to Africa. It was all a part of a concerted effort to out Valerie Plame, while disguising and obscuring the plot against Wilson and how everyone was involved in it. They wanted reporters to go "find" her. Fleischer, like Miller, was given a lot of tips about how to put reporters on the right track.

          Emptywheel's reading of Judy's account (one I largely agree with) makes a careful analysis of the varying uses of discourse, direct and indirect, as well as the question marks in Miller's notes. There's a very good reason why Fitz has subpoenaed Miller's drafts for her New York Times account of her testimony.

          "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." - George W. Bush on October 7, 2003

          by QuickSilver on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:27:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  or it was her guess (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            QuickSilver, Sanuk

            That is, Libby didn't tell her that much, and it was just something she thought she'd follow up. Although i've always wondered if Libby told her the name was "Valerie… Flame, or something like that. Yeah, sounds like Flame."

            I'm still not so certain, either, that the main effort was to out Ms Plame. I think it's still quite likely that the target was always Wilson, and the connection to Plame (the introduction at CIA, etc) was seen as a really convenient way to rubbish the importance of his findings. Remember—these are the Swift Boat types. They love this sort of shit. And the damage he could do was probably still quite uncertain to them. He had a lot of credibility, and the uranium (tied very closely to the centrifuge fairy-tale) was their excuse du jour at that time.

            I think the fact that Plame was doing Really Important Work might have just been another example of this admin stepping in shit no matter which way they (oh-so over-confidently) turn.

            Doesn't straighten out, in my mind, though. I say hang the lot of 'em.

            -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

            by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:54:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  They also say.. (0+ / 0-)

        ...bureau, not division.  There are no "bureaus" at CIA, as far as I know.  There are bureaus at the State Dept.  Emptywheel and I have been speculating that Plame at the time of the leak was transitioning to official cover, and quite possibly was working at State, possibly in the Nonproliferation bureau (Bolton's old shop).

        Now wouldn't THAT make an interesting story!

        People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

        by viget on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:26:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  connecting the blaring dots... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smhbubbles, hrh, snakelass, MP Three

    how far can patrick fitzgerald go in his investigation?   can he look at more then just the leak of plames name? can he connect the dots and open the investigation up a bit wider to include leaking alot of intell to make a false case for immediate war with Iraq?

    one thing i have noticed about Saint Patrick is that he never reveals anything unless and until he has even more information...and then he lets a little bit come out in his filings in order to let those in the crosshairs KNOW he already knows stuff that they are hiding or lying about....

    like dropping the bit on the public about possible archival problems with white house emails when he already had the emails that supposedly disappeared....and mentioning libby's accusations about cheney and bush...what does he also know that he hasnt revealed about the participation of those two in the plame case?  

    can he step outside of the plame box and widen the scope?  

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:51:14 AM PDT

  •  Suppose Miller got the info from another (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    logorrhea, averybird, Easterling

    countries intelligence service? A country who was also feeding it to the OSP in the Pentagon?

    I need to go back and read your timelines. But the above is the first reaction of how it might not be a release of classified info.

    Charisma does not save republics, Courage does. (adigal)

    by Carbide Bit on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:08:47 PM PDT

    •   Edit: Country's. PS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Easterling, StrayCat

      Which could include France, Russia, Israel, Italy, Great Britain.

      Judy was well traveled and well connected and I don't think it can be excluded that she was a working for a foreign government and a SUPPLIER of information as well as a recipient.

      She was too well connected to be just a media outlet, consider the deference she was given in Iraq by our military and her relationship with Les Aspin. Pincus is supposedly an outlet to the WaPO for the CIA but he doesn't appear to have had anywhere near the power and connections of Miller.

      Charisma does not save republics, Courage does. (adigal)

      by Carbide Bit on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:22:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Possibly (0+ / 0-)

      That's what I've been thinking, too. That Miller got her Sept 2002 info from a non-US govt source, like a foreign country (Italy?), Chalabi, or a Michael Ledeen type of contact.

      However, this source was in reality the same source for the NIE. So when Libby shows Miller the NIE in 2003, the key points appear to independently verify her 2002 source, when in fact they were one in the same.

  •  We need a printer friendly button. Great job. nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    littlesky, gabie, Simplify, leo joad
  •  for the Media: (6+ / 0-)

    the media should be asking these questions:

    How many times did the President declassify information by authorizing the communication of it (or communicating it directly) to Judy Miller or other journalists?  When did it happen?

    Did the president informally delegate the power to declassify information in this manner to the Vice President prior to the March 2003 E.O. that addressed the VPs authority to declassify?

    How many times did the Vice President declassify information by authorizing the communication of it (or communicating it directly) to Judy Miller or other journalists?  When did it happen?

    Has the president ever informally delegated to anyone else the power to declassify information in this manner?

    How many times did the Chief of Staff Andy Card declassify information by authorizing the communication of it (or communicating it directly) to Judy Miller or other journalists?  When did it happen?

    •  But Waas has already been asking (5+ / 0-)

      these questions, and answering them too.

      Waas' article the other day said this:

      Although not reflected in the court papers, two senior government officials said in interviews with National Journal in recent days that Libby has also asserted that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information to a number of journalists during the run-up to war with Iraq. In some instances, the information leaked was directly discussed with the Vice President, while in other instances Libby believed he had broad authority to release information that would make the case to go to war.

      In yet another instance, Libby had claimed that President Bush authorized Libby to speak to and provide classified information to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward for "Plan of Attack," a book written by Woodward about the run-up to the Iraqi war.

      That would seem to answer the issue raised by Booman. It was not just in summer 2003 that Libby was leaking classified info to journalists (what made that remarkable was, mainly, that Bush himself was said to authorize it).

      It was also in 2002 that favored (or useful) journalists were fed select info. Waas shows in detail how doors were opened for Woodward. Presumably the same was true for Judith Miller.

    •  ? the VP authorization (0+ / 0-)

      to declassify...I thought that when I read the E.O. that the VP was given the authority to classify..but I did not see the authorization to declassify information on his own.  Please clarify for me.  Thanks

  •  Fitzmas in July? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gabie

    My head hurts. Can someone call me when there's another indictment?

    "Why can't you and the idea of separation of powers just hug it out, bitch?" Wonkette

    by Hollywood Liberal on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:24:34 PM PDT

  •  and what's this shit? (14+ / 0-)

    QUESTION: Scott, on March the 30th, I believe, last Thursday, Mr. Libby was spotted at the White House Mess. It just seems unusual that he would be coming back to the White House in this situation. Any ideas why he —

    Scott McClellan: I don’t know anything about that. I don’t think so.

    QUESTION: You don’t think what?

    Scott McClellan: I don’t think he was here.

    QUESTION: What would you do if I —

    Scott McClellan: You spotted him?

    QUESTION: I have a pretty good source I trust that did.

    via wonkette

    "Why can't you and the idea of separation of powers just hug it out, bitch?" Wonkette

    by Hollywood Liberal on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:43:21 PM PDT

  •  Propaganda Machine (10+ / 0-)

    Judith Miller saw raw intelligence before it was released to select members of Congress.

    This is stunning news.

    Miller was one Bush's spin-meisters. No wonder she chose jail.

    Going back to Jan. 2000 probably wouldn't be too far back under these circumstances. The entire trail of false evidence leading up to war needs to be looked at.

    Greg Palast was able to obtain some notes from Cheney's secret energy meetings from early 2000. One of the items be obtained was a map showing locations of Iraq's oil fields.

    What was Judith up to in Jan. 2000?  

    •  she was used (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think she's in the same league as, say, Cheney, Ledeen, or Perle. She'd been covering this story (Anthrax, WMD, etc.) for quite some time. After the attacks in '01, followed by the anthrax killings (remember that?) it's quite reasonable that she'd be on the hunt. I think the crowd at OSP (with whom she was already well acquainted) saw in her an opportunity to spin things their way. She was an eager beaver.

      Too eager, it turns out.

      -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

      by subtropolis on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:16:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not really clear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        subtropolis

        Just the fact that Miller saw the National Intelligence Estimate documents early is not really a big deal. Officials probably leak that sort of thing to the top reporters at the Washington Post and The New York Times all the time.

        But, on the other hand, there's no definitive proof that her hands were clean. All we can say is that no one has come up with any proof that she did anything wrong. (Other than describing a source misleadingly in her notes. I think that's a very minor sin.)

        It's still possible (absolutely not substantiated, but possible) that Miller understood how the Bush Rovies were playing her and went along with them because she was bribed, sweet-talked or blackmailed. Even if she simply did her best, it's possible that the Bush Rovies bribed, sweet-talked or blackmailed her editors or Times senior managers.

  •  GOP Cornered by Bush Leak (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eru, Easterling, StrayCat

    That President Bush authorized Scooter Libby to selectively leak portions of the highly classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate as part of a coordinated assault on Joseph Wilson and other debunkers of pre-war Iraq WMD claims should come as a surprise to no one.  Neither should the silence of the GOP and his conservative allies.

    For the full story, see:
    "GOP Cornered by Bush Leak."

  •  great job - deservedly on recommended list n.t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BooMan23

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

    by teacherken on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:02:18 PM PDT

  •  ouch (0+ / 0-)

    as if scotty was already having a hard enough time choking on the july 8 date, i'd venture to guess tossing this at him would make him totally apoplectic.

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson

    by sedrunsic on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:43:20 PM PDT

  •  So what's the chance of any of this... (0+ / 0-)

    ...coming out into the open and Fitzgerald or another special prosecutor going after Miller?

    If this is a domestic covert op, don't you think the powers that be will make it all "go away."

    Or is Plamegate the way to do that?

    What's the feeling on whether Fitzgerald really knows/suspects this to be true?   He certainly didn't seem to trust Judy too much (as he didn't include a separate perjury charge based on her testimony).  I wonder if he can actually shift his investigation to go after this angle.

    People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

    by viget on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 02:13:11 PM PDT

  •  I have what may be a dumb question.... (0+ / 0-)

    Why did Bush appoint a "Special Prosecutor" to investigate the Plame leak if HE was the leaker and he knew that he was?

    Was this his attempt to sidetrack the questions and win the election?

    Or...

    did he NOT leak and is he trying to save Cheney's ass? Or someone else's ass?

    •  he didn't appoint him (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leo joad, Easterling

      First of all, Fitz is Independent Counsel, not a Special Prosecutor. The Special Prosecutor provisions are now defunct (following Whitewater/Lewinsky).

      Comey took responsibility at the end of December 2003, after Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself; Comey immediately appointed Fitz (within hours).

      The evidence tampering -- which deflected Fitz's early investigation -- occurred before or during the time AG Ashcroft was sitting on the investigation, from October to December 2003.

      Yes, it is obvious that getting past Nov 2004, and delaying (or avoiding altogether) all substantial revelations and charges until after the election, was a huge priority for all parties involved.

      "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." - George W. Bush on October 7, 2003

      by QuickSilver on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 02:52:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  all part of 'The Iraq Conspiracy' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    QuickSilver, Easterling, StrayCat

    and this should be pushed hard.  Don't let them off easy for this whole disastrous affair that wasn't just from incompetence, but deliberate deception.

  •  How long before Judith Miller is (0+ / 0-)

    awarded the presidential Medal of Freedom?

    Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

    by StrayCat on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 03:12:30 PM PDT

  •  Really outstanding, BooMan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leo joad

    You've connected some very, very important dots.  

    The more these loose ends get tied up, the less we need an offical investigation.  As far as I am concerned, a trial in the court of public opinion will suffice until we take back congress. Murmurs of impeachment and censure add a sweetness to the air, and much as I'd like to see impeachment start tonight, I can wait.  A good impeachment, a true and just impeachment, swells up from the people...just like democracy.

    You done good.  

    "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." --George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

    by littlesky on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 03:37:57 PM PDT

    •  but we need an official investigation so others (0+ / 0-)

      will listen. Just because those of us in the liberal blogosphere read it & believe it doesn't mean that typical voters are aware of these key points.

      My hope is that excellent analysis like this will be picked up in the MSM and by courageous Democrats, and they will press forward with demands for an investigation.

      BooMan: make sure you send this to Conyers!

      I remember a time when our President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

      by land of the free on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 05:42:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just know this! The Constitution was betrayed by (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee

    those entrusted to uphold, protect and preserve the constitution.

    Go off on all the chases on how many you think are guilty or to blame but thats simple as many knew that there was a day ms plame wasn't not revealed and knew the day it would be revealed because they jeopardized us all and the oath to guarantee our right to life as promised us by the constitution. Few words are needed. No large words are needed actually no more education than reading the Declarayion of Independence is needed. And for those that don't have that much education the Democratic Party will assure they will be included to receive their rights.

    I told Murtha's office two days after he came out with his re-deploy speech that this day of the mess of classified or declassified would drag on but it matters not its treason. I had a diary on it this morning. My diary's aren't popular.

    Coming to your town soon! The Social Security Adminstartion Electric and Power Company. "Omen Tuffy" 1918-1992

    by generic on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 04:53:25 PM PDT

  •  This is so confusing to me (0+ / 0-)

    that I think I need to stop doing the Jim Beam when I start reading things pertaining to the White House....but it is the only way I can stand to read all the crap coming from there.  I will be throwing a huge party on the Inaguration Day in 2009....

  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

    to all of you that are  able to follow all the dates and information and put it into some sort of order for us. I really do read every bit of this site everyday and am so grateful to all of you!!

Bob Johnson, Kimberley, Mary, Ace Pumpkin, colleen, Louise, edverb, wozzle, bink, Alumbrados, MichaelPH, maryb2004, TheC, Mimikatz, vicki, Marek, coral, pb, Peanut, abw, SarahLee, Jackson L Haveck, teacherken, gogol, Hornito, lipris, joejoejoe, Hollywood Liberal, Phoenix Rising, TaraIst, Delaware Dem, ubikkibu, finocchio68, Mountain Don, saraswati, BrooklynRaider, Dems2004, emal, Reino, kathyp, RunawayRose, Bob Love, Maryscott OConnor, JTML, c, Jacque, Sprinkles, B Rubble, littlesky, Schmuck, cotterperson, SanJoseLady, meg, OLinda, KateG, oops, Mnemosyne, jeremybloom, qw3rty, frisco, marjo, SallyCat, Carnacki, Sandia Blanca, twistandshout, jancw, bostonjay, HStewart, Cecrops Tangaroa, strengthANDwisdom, Plan9, bara, DaveV, mlafleur, bronte17, super simian, jkbiscuit, macdust, mentaldebris, nyceve, understandinglife, Jeffrey Feldman, Baldwiny, twcollier, getmeoutofdixie, awakentech, HippyWitch, ask, Time Waits for no Woman, demokath, KMc, Glic, Vermonter, Patricia Taylor, ZanderOC, mrblifil, high5, roses, hrh, peraspera, hmbnancy, Bearpaw, ornerydad, ryder92111, Boxers, Nate Roberts, matt2525, Gonzophile, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, ginatx, litigatormom, Alohaleezy, Janet Strange, PresentMoment, mayan, Sirocco, Barbara Morrill, Nag, diane101, sockpuppet, Stand Strong, NYC Sophia, Dallasdoc, Quentin, AskQuestions, pat bunny, Chicago Lulu, SKB, Sunqueen212, MA Liberal, kenjib, hoolia, desmoinesdem, Jill Lehnert, NYFM, Penny Century, lizah, nika7k, Tillie630, STOP George, parrothead, Green Tea, Street Kid, CabinGirl, seanleckey, ybruti, mattes, SanDiegoDem, sfluke, Steven D, alix, DrewDown, kd texan, Mikecan1978, Marc in KS, rickroks, guyermo, NorthDakotaDemocrat, TexH, Gowrie Gal, weelzup, rapala, MichDeb, nehark, DCleviathan, Bluesee, ZZZzzz, BadgerGirl, 3goldens, kingubu, town, subtropolis, ignorant bystander, OpherGopher, PBen, ejmw, clammyc, Cake or Death, Valtin, The Third Man, myeye, juliesie, Bouwerie Boy, eru, olivia, mythmother, Pam from Calif, concerned, ukben, annefrank, QuickSilver, Sharon Jumper, rofodem, wardlow, Eiron, Shotput8, wiscmass, nieman, sodalis, Unduna, Spathiphyllum, flem snopes, rerutled, soyinkafan, bently, maryru, occams hatchet, Testwizard, Sanuk, PoppyRocks, kraant, PatsBard, ama, BlueInARedState, leo joad, Ellicatt, Yellow Canary, The Wizard, Wary, sailmaker, StrayCat, imabluemerkin, paul2port, TooHeavy, land of the free, profh, UberMitch, Timothy J, Dreaming of Better Days, Carbide Bit, areddog, Real History Lisa, Snarcalita

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site