Re Woodward's bk: 3rd CIA at 7/10 mtg. w/ Rice?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re Woodward's bk: 3rd CIA at 7/10 mtg. w/ Rice?

Postby pepsified thinker » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:11 pm

Could the Foley scandal be distracting us?---<br><br>I meant to post this a few days ago--since then Foley/Hastert-gate has taken over as the dominant political controversy. Which is understandable--but if anyone's willing, can we go back to the Woodward book? <br><br>I'm wondering why there was such uniform secrecy about the July 10 mtg. in which Rice heard that Al Qaida was about to attack U.S.<br>It wasn't raised in the (public versions of) 9-11 Commission's report, or in testimony before the commission--Clarke wrote and spoke about warnings the administration had received, and others, too, at various times--but that meeting (and a related one for Ashcroft and Rummy) never made it into the public discussion of whether/not the admin. had been warned. <br><br>Why? <br><br>Obviously, there’s no need to explain Condi’s convenient memory lapse (seems to be a lot of that going around lately, with Hastert's lack of action due to 'forgetting' whatever he'd been told about Foley). I'm drawing heavily on an article at Common Dreams (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1003-02.htm)">www.commondreams.org/head...03-02.htm)</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> for this, and based on its account, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld had similar lapses: neither mentioned it to the 9-11 commision. <br><br>Again, if it was what Woodward's book says it was, no explanation needed; the last thing they'd want is to explain it to inquiring minds. <br><br>BUT here's what I don't get--<br><br>Clarke was all over Bush and co. in the hearings, saying they'd had warnings this way and that way. But if he was out to hang blame on them and that meeting was so important in terms of warning Rice, why didn't he mention it back then--SINCE HE WAS THERE TOO? (from that article...)<br><br> "<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Rice's deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, who became national<br> security adviser after she became secretary of state, <br> and Rice's top counterterrorism aide, Richard Clarke, <br> also were present.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->"<br><br>But there's more--Clarke seems to now DEFEND Rice: <br><br> "<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, Ben<br> Veniste and the former senior intelligence officials all<br> challenged some aspects of Woodward's account of the briefing<br> given to Rice, including assertions that she failed to react to the<br> warning and that it concerned an imminent attack inside the<br> United States.<br><br> Clarke told McClatchy Newspapers that Rice focused in<br> particular on the possible threat to President Bush at an<br> upcoming summit meeting in Genoa, Italy, and promised to<br> quickly schedule a high-level White House meeting on al-Qaida.<br> That meeting took place on September 4, 2001.<br><br> Ben-Veniste said the commission was never told that Rice had<br> brushed off the warning. According to Tenet, he said, Rice<br> "understood the level of urgency he was communicating.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->"'<br><br>Looking at wikipedia's entry on Ben-Veniste, he's the one who supposedly got tough with Rice, forcing her to read the title of the PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S." (or whatever) <br><br>Sounds like he's giving her a bit of cover here also, saying she was described as appreciating how serious things were. <br><br>SO WTF? <br><br>Is the Common Dreams article a 'piece' designed to discredit someone? If so, who? It came from McClatchy Newspapers. Are they connected to someone somehow?<br><br>Did Rice's situation morph somehow so now someone/somegroup that formerly wanted to nail her and/or Bush, and attacked her in the hearings (via Clarke), is now trying to save some of her rep? Does she have the goods on someone--that doesn’t seem like her style, but I'm sure she's capable of playing a no-holds-barred version of the game--or is she positioning herself for life-after-Bush by making herself useful now? <br><br>Is this meant to divert our attention from her and towards Rummy (and Ashcroft)? <br><br>AND--(icing on the cake time--can you say ‘Betty Crocker!’) to get back to my original question and the title of this post, that same article says there was a THIRD person in that July 10 meeting--"a third CIA official whose identity remains protected." <br><br>Who would have been there for the ultimate show-down warning (and run the power point while Tenent and Black sat down the table? or did they run it while #3-CIA-person sat in the shadows?)--I’m assuming it’s someone with special standing of some sort. (particular knowledge of al Qaida? someone trusted by Rice?)<br><br>Is that possibly why this meeting is only now being dragged out to public awareness? Is that person too ‘hot’/high-level to risk being outed by public focus on the meeting? Is their involvement embarrasing somehow? <br><br>Maybe I'm taking the 9-11 commission too much at face value--maybe there's some reason for them having SAID they never heard of the July 10 meeting when in fact they did--this article says Tenent told them about it and even showed them some of the powerpoint slides.<br><br>To close, I've gotta say, I'd love to see those PP slides--think we ever will? Is this all leading up to that? Would the REAL slides ever come out?<br><br>Sorry if I’ve tossed out too many ‘what ifs’ here--thanks for any input on any of them. I'm curious to see if any of them leap out and draw responses. <br><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="color:black;font-family:times new roman;font-size:small;">Hiya!</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <p></p><i></i>
pepsified thinker
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re Woodward's bk: 3rd CIA at 7/10 mtg. w/ Rice?

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:16 pm

I get an error on the commondreams article. Does it mention specifically and in detail what Tenet is supposed to have told them? I seem to remember something that was posted here about that conference by Bush, the point having been that he took the idea that terrorists COULD use planes as weapons quite seriously, so seriously that he changed his quarters to a ship. Which made a lie of Rice's saying that she didn't know that the terrorists had considered using planes as weapons. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/6/06 4:17 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re Woodward's bk: 3rd CIA at 7/10 mtg. w/ Rice?

Postby pepsified thinker » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:18 pm

I get that error message at Common Dreams too, but I found the article here: <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/jonathan_s_landay/15662785.htm">www.realcities.com/mld/kr...662785.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(at least--I <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>think</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> it's the same article) <p></p><i></i>
pepsified thinker
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Don't trust Woodward, don't trust this story

Postby wordspeak » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:39 pm

Bob Woodward<br><br>By Lisa Pease<br><br><br>Robert Upshur Woodward rose from obscure reporter working for the Washington Post to become one of the most famous journalists of recent times for his role, with that of Carl Bernstein, in "breaking" the Watergate story. Together, "Woodstein" broke one of the biggest news stories of all time: a chain of abuse by the Executive office of the Presidency that led to calls for impeachment, and the eventual resignation, of President Richard Nixon. <br><br>Immortalized by Robert Redford in the movie based on the book All the President's Men, the real Woodward is quite an enigma. Adrian Havill, in his recent book Deep Truth, presents the most comprehensive biography to date of both Woodward and Bernstein. He also details some of the fabrications that passed for nonfiction in the book from which the film was based. Most importantly, he gives us a great wealth of background on who Woodward really is, where he comes from, and what his connections are. <br><br>A Yalie and a Secret Society Member<br><br><br>The staunchly conservative Bob Woodward grew up in Wheaton, Illinois. A good student at Yale, he was ultimately one of fifteen seniors "tapped" for one of that university's secret societies, Book and Snake, a cut below the more infamous Skull and Bones, but the top of the second-tier fraternities. Woodward had his first journalistic experience working for the Banner, a Yale publication. In his 1965 yearbook he was referred to as a "Banner mogul." Havill writes, <br><br>Certainly, with the CIA encouraged to recruit on the Yale campus, particularly among history majors and secret societies, it is more than reasonable to assume Bob may have been one of those approached by the agency, or by a military intelligence unit, especially after four years of naval ROTC training. Although it would answer a lot of questions that have been raised about Bob Woodward, at this point one can only speculate as to whether he was offered the chance to become a "double-wallet guy," as CIA agents who have two identities are dubbed. It would certainly be understandable if he decided not to adhere to the straight and accepted the submerged patriotic glamour and extra funds that such a relationship would provide. It would also explain the comments of Pulitzer Prize-winning author J. Anthony Lukas, when he wrote in 1989 that Bob Woodward was "temperamentally secretive, loathe to volunteer information about himself," or the Washingtonian's remarks in 1987: "He is secretive about everything." As Esquire magazine put it, summing up in its 1992 article on Bob, "What is he hiding?" <br><br>The "Floating Pentagon" Assignment<br><br><br>Three days after graduating from Yale, Woodward was sent by the U.S. Navy to Norfolk, Virginia, where he was commissioned as an ensign by none other than U.S. Senator George Smathers from Florida. Bob's assignment was to a very special ship, called a "floating Pentagon," the U.S.S. Wright. The ship was a National Emergency Command Ship-a place where a President and cabinet could preside from in the event of a nuclear war. It had elaborate and sophisticated communications and data processing capabilities. It had a smaller replica of the war room at the Pentagon. It ran under what was called SIOP-Single Integrated Operation Plan. For example, in the event of nuclear war, the Wright was third in line to take full command if the two ahead of it, the Strategic Air Command in Omaha (SAC) and NORAD, were rendered incommunicado. Woodward-straightfacedly-told authors Colodny and Gettlin (Silent Coup) that he guessed he was picked for the ship because he had been a radio ham as a kid. <br><br>Aboard the Wright, Woodward had top secret "crypto" clearance-the same clearance researcher Harold Weisberg found had been assigned to Lee Harvey Oswald when he was himself in the Marines. Such clearance in Woodward's case gave him full access to nearly all classified materials and codes on the ship. Woodward also ran the ship's newspaper. Woodward has insisted that possessing a high security clearance is not necessarily indicative of intelligence work. <br><br>The Wright carried men from each of the military services, as well as CIA personnel. One of Havill's government sources reported that the CIA would likely have had additional informants on a ship of such sensitivity, adding that "the rivalry between the services was intense." <br><br>After a two and a half year stint on the Wright, Woodward was assigned to go to Vietnam. Woodward wrote the Pentagon asking to serve on a destroyer. The wish was granted. One naval captain told Havill that it seemed reasonable Woodward would have a little pull from his previous duty to avoid getting assigned to Vietnam. Another former naval officer disputed that, saying "Nobody got out of going to Vietnam in 1968." <br><br>But Woodward did. He was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Fox, based in Southern California. The personnel on board the Fox included an intelligence team, many of whom had studied Russian and Asian languages at the famous armed services language school in Monterey, California. <br><br>By 1968, Woodward ran the ship's radio team. In 1969, Woodward was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal for his communications work. From there, Woodward moved on to a Pentagon assignment, a job that included briefing top officers in the government. Admiral Thomas Moorer and former secretary of defense Melvin Laird are both on record noting that Woodward briefed Al Haig at the White House during this period. What is suspicious is Woodward's semi-admittance to Hougan that he had done some briefing, and his complete denial to Colodny and Gettlin that he had ever briefed anyone at the White House. Havill notes: <br>Considering the evidence, Bob Woodward's denial more strongly suggests intelligence than it does his uninvolvement in White House briefings. <br>Woodward's secrecy about his past, his choice of associates, and what is known of his activities caused Havill to write: <br>The question, then, begs itself once more. Was Bob Woodward ever a free-lance or retained Central Intelligence Agency liaison officer, informant or operative . . . ? This author got various forms of affirmative opinions from intelligence experts. It would explain his assignment to the Wright and his misleading statements to interviewers. It would make understandable his being able to get out of going to Vietnam in 1968, his extension for an additional year at the Pentagon, his being chosen to brief at the White House and his denials as well. It would also help explain his subsequent high-level friendships with leaders of the U.S. military and the CIA.<br>It would also explain the role Woodward and Bernstein wittingly or unwittingly played in keeping the CIA's nose clean while making sure the world saw the President's nose was dirty.<br><br>The Legacy of Deep Throat<br><br><br>Whatever his background, whatever his connections, one cannot trust what Woodward says as fact. Take, for instance, his account in Veil of his last interview with dying CIA Director William Casey. Havill tracked down Casey's family, friends, hospital security staff and CIA guardians and found that the visit Woodward described was impossible. First of all, Casey was under 24 hour guard by several layers of security: CIA members, hospital security, and Casey's family. And Woodward had already been stopped once while trying to see Casey. According to one of Havill's sources, Woodward was not merely asked to leave, as Woodward reported in his book, but was forcibly shoved into the elevator. And Woodward's story kept shifting. Woodward told a Knight-Ridder reporter that he had gotten in by flashing his press pass. To Larry King, Woodward claimed he just "walked in." But even assuming he somehow managed to get by all of that security, Woodward would still have been the only person to claim that Casey had uttered intelligible words in those last hours. The only other person to make such a claim was Robert Gates, who himself became CIA Director. The family, doctor and medical staff said Casey could not make words at this point, only noises. At least Gates questioned whether he might have been imagining he heard words. Woodward has never retracted his "conversation." In addition, Woodward once said that Casey sat bolt upright, which would seem highly implausible given his rapidly deteriorating state. Onetime CIA Director Stansfield Turner, a friend of Woodward's since 1966, said Woodward told him he'd walked by Casey's room and Casey had waved to him. Casey's bed was positioned in such a way in the room as to make that impossible too. <br><br>Likewise, Woodward does not seem to demand authenticity from subordinates. Under his watch as Assistant Managing Editor of the Metro desk, the Post suffered a humiliation of the highest proportions at the hands of one of his hires, Janet Cooke. It was this incident that knocked the Post from its perch as "America's leading newspaper," as it had been called in the wake of its Watergate reporting. <br><br>Janet Cooke was a gifted writer with a knack for capturing the essence of the streets of D.C. She went to the Post for a job, and Woodward hired her. More illustrator than reporter, she painted vivid images, if not entirely accurate ones. The latter trait soon brought her trouble. <br><br>Cooke's crowning glory-and worst disaster-was a story called "Jimmy's World," about an eight year old heroin addict. The story brought both praise and outrage: praise for the vivid writing, outrage that a reporter could just stand by and watch a kid taking drugs. The controversial story managed to earn a Pulitzer, but only after some arm twisting by the committee head, who overruled the committee's first choice for the prizewinner to pick "Jimmy's World." Some of the committee members hadn't even read the story, but not wanting to appear divisive, they stood together, for better or for worse. Made bold by the award, Janet Cooke's fabrications grew even larger and more personal. She started making up a history for herself that she didn't possess, including training in languages she couldn't speak. Several at the Post, including Woodward, were worried that her story of Jimmy may not be true. They pressured Cooke to produce "Jimmy." Losing the battle to protect her source, it rapidly became clear that she had no source. There was no Jimmy. And for the first time ever, a Pulitzer was returned. The Post was thoroughly embarrassed by a woman under Woodward's direct supervision at the paper.<br><br>But Woodward's most stunning deceptions come from the work that launched his career, his tracking of the Watergate story as retold in the supposedly nonfiction work All the President's Men. Adrian Havill found curious discrepancies between accountings of incidents as reported in the book, and the rest of the available facts (see sidebar at right). <br><br>Given his role in the Watergate cover-up, and the misrepresentations in his own work, it remains to us a huge mystery why this man is treated with the reverence he is. Considering his behavior, his background, his credibility, and his connections, we now feel compelled to join Adrian Havill in asking who is Bob Woodward? Whom does he serve? Is his career sustained for the purposes of those with a "secret agenda"? <br> <p></p><i></i>
wordspeak
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Don't trust Woodward, don't trust this story

Postby pepsified thinker » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:31 am

Yes--I've seen this about Woodward. It was a shock when I first saw it and it still packs a punch. <br><br>But I'm still wondering, what's Woodward up to? Who was that third CIA person? (or if that's a fabrication, why add it?) Why the shift to defending Rice? <br><br>In re-reading the article, I caught something I hadn't seen before: <br><br>"<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Philip Zelikow, the [9-11 Commission] panel's executive director and the principal author of its report, [is] now Rice's top adviser.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->"<br><br>What's the phrase, 'curiouser and curiouser" ? <p></p><i></i>
pepsified thinker
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Don't trust Woodward, don't trust this story

Postby wordspeak » Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:01 am

I don't know that the third CIA agent (along with Tenet and Cofer Black, who allegedly met with Rice) is significant...<br>As far as Zelikow, remember he co-authored a book with Rice pre-9/11 ('98, I think).<br> <br>Presumably, Rice is fall-person here for the CIA. The Agency has continuity of power, while any given administration and its front people doesn't.<br>We hear that the CIA met with the Admin and tried to get them to do something, but they didn't! Those incompetent-or-worse Bush twits! Underlying is still the false assumption that it's the CIA's role to just deliver information and the Administration's role to act on it. So it's a typical displacement of blame. <p></p><i></i>
wordspeak
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

They Knew this is why Hatfield was suicided -July 15, 2001

Postby Seventhsonjr » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:06 pm

<br> <br>If Hatfield had lived to see 9-11-01 he would have been all over this warning and his sourcves woulda told the rest of the story.<br><br>Neonazis and Osama and the warning as a Bush/Rove plot to bolster his poll numbers?<br><br>It is all right there, but far worse than even Hatfield could have imagined. Rest In Peace James. You did the world a service by reporting this.<br><br><br> <br>Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner? <br>By James Hatfield <br> <br> <br>Editor's note: In light of last week's horrific events and the Bush administration's reaction to them, we are reprising the following from the last column Jim Hatfield wrote for Online Journal prior to his tragic death on July 18:<br><br>July 3, 2001—There may be fireworks in Genoa, Italy, this month, too.<br><br>A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April.<br><br>German intelligence services have stated that bin Laden is covertly financing neo-Nazi skinhead groups throughout Europe to launch another terrorist attack at a high-profile American target—his first since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last October.<br><br>According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.<br><br>Why would Osama bi Laden want to kill, Dubya, his former business partner?<br><br>I knew that bombshell would whip your heads around. So here's the straight scoop, folks.<br><br>In June 1977, Dubya formed his own drilling company, Arbusto Energy ("arbusto" means "bush" in Spanish), in Midland, Texas. Like his father before him, Dubya founded his oil business with the financial backing of investors, including James R. Bath, a Houston businessman whom Dubya apparently first met when they were in the same Texas Air National Guard unit. (Interestingly, both Dubya and Bath were both suspended from flying in August and September 1972, respectively, for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination.")<br><br>Tax documents and other financial records show that Bath, an aircraft broker with controversial ties to Saudi Arabia sheiks, had invested $50,000 in Arbusto, granting him a 5 percent interest in two limited partnerships controlled by Dubya.<br><br>Time magazine described Bath in 1991 as "a deal broker whose alleged associations run from the CIA to a major shareholder and director of the Bank of Credit & Commerce." BCCI, as it was more commonly known, closed its doors in July 1991 amid charges of multibillion-dollar fraud and global news reports that the financial institution had been heavily involved in drug money laundering, arms brokering, covert intelligence work, bribery of government officials and—here's the kicker—aid to terrorists.<br><br>Bath was never directly implicated in the BCCI scandal, but according to The Outlaw Bank, an award-winning 1993 book by Time correspondents, Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne, Bath originally "made his fortune by investing money for [Sheikh Kalid bin] Mahfouz and another BCCI-connected Saudi, Sheikh bin Laden," reportedly the brother of none other than Osama bin Laden, the man accused by the U.S. government of masterminding the August 1998 terrorist bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed more than 250 people.<br><br>According to court documents, Bath swore that in 1977 he represented four prominent and wealthy Saudi Arabians as a trustee and used his name on their investments in the United States. In return, he received a 5 percent interest in their deals. Time reporters Beaty and Gwynne suggest in their book that the $50,000 Bath invested in Dubya's Arbusto Energy drilling company may have belonged to Bath's Saudi clients since the Houston businessman "had no substantial money of his own at the time."<br><br>The FBI and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network later investigated Bath after allegations were made by one of his American business partners that the Saudis were using Bath and their giant piggy bank to influence U.S. policy. (Dubya's father had been appointed by President Ford to head the CIA from 1976–77.)<br><br>So, folks, the Middle Eastern oil money used to underwrite the first business venture of our future president of the United States, may have been derived at least in part from the family fortune of Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden, who is now being accused of masterminding his assassination.<br><br>From the what-it's-worth-department: I think Dubya's handlers have fed disinformation through the CIA and other backdoor channels to German and Italian intelligence agencies about a possible hit on Dubya by the fugitive terrorist to gain public sympathy and concern for a U.S. president who has taken a nose-dive in the opinion polls. <br><br>The latest New York Times/CBS News poll showed Dubya's approval rating fell to 53 percent from 57 percent a few weeks ago, its lowest since he took office. Only 50 percent of those polled approved of his handling of the economy, while 47 percent approved of his foreign policy performances. Some 44 percent felt Dubya was not respected by foreign leaders, a mere 39 percent agreed with his policies on the environment, and a whopping 61 percent of Americans believed the new prez was not addressing the issues they care most about. <br><br>Obviously, the pollsters didn't call Dubya's sugar daddies—the oil and gas companies. Because he damn sure is taking care of their interests.<br> <br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html">onlinejournal.org/Special...91901.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seventhsonjr>Seventhsonjr</A> at: 10/7/06 11:11 am<br></i>
Seventhsonjr
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests