Who Do You Trust to Tell the Truth on Iraq?
Fostering More Deadly Propaganda?
By Gil Brady, 9-04-07
A freely available investigative OPINION
JACKSON, Wyo. – Last week, a local philanthropist, Republican moneyman and apologist for Vice-President Dick Cheney went on a full-blown marketing campaign questioning the integrity of a local anti-war group, calling on critics of the Bush administration to raise the tone of the bitter debate over Iraq to something he deems “civil.”
With clever derring-do, in his full-page color advertisement run in the uncritical local press, Foster Friess turned the tables on Jackson’s rising and vocal minority of anti-war protesters.
Some of those present at the march and rally on Aug.11, and afterward, charged the vice-president and other Bush administration officials with publicly “sexing up” the case about WMD and Saddam’s hand in 9/11, accompanying White House drumbeats leading to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
In his ads, Mr. Friess opines that it’s the protesters who are lying, patronizing them, as if he alone held a monopoly on the truth, as: “(I)ll-informed or deceitfully willing to destroy another’s reputation to advance their own selfish political agenda.”
You’d think someone as sure of his own moral superiority and pedagogic denunciations of others would have thoroughly vetted his sloppy essay before allowing it to be published and so nakedly available for all the world to do for him.
Here’s a quick run down of three of Mr. Friess’ either exaggerated claims, misleading half-truths or provably untrue falsehoods as stated in recent advertisements bearing his name.
1) Foster Friess: “There are those in our community who adamantly state that the Vice President was ultimately behind the ‘outing’ of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, despite the fact Scooter Libby was found not guilty and I personally heard Colin Powell tell several hundred people in Aspen, CO, several weeks ago, that his colleague Richard Armitage, was the person who revealed her name.”
FACT: According to FOX News and other mainstream news outlets: “Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative’s identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.”
For some irrational reason, Mr. Friess spun Libby’s current legal status in his advertisements. But to be clear about what FOX News and others have reported: President Bush’s commutation of Libby extended only to his prison sentence. The president’s act of clemency has no bearing on the vice-president’s former and now convicted chief-of-staff’s two years of probation, $250,000 fine or guilty verdict by a jury of his peers.
I. “Scooter” Libby being found guilty of not only two counts of perjury, but also one count of making false statements and obstructing justice raises critical questions that Mr. Friess dares not ask, less his house of cards come crashing down.
One of which is: To what extent did Libby’s lies and obstruction of justice prevent prosecutors from indicting and trying other White House officials complicit in the Valerie Plame scandal?
No one, Mr. Friess, obstructs justice in a vacuum.
2) Foster Friess: “Still others accuse the Vice President of ‘lying’ about WMD in Iraq and tricking us into invading. Have they forgotten the October 1998 passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, without a single dissenting Senator, that supported removing Saddam from power and promoting Iraqi democracy in its place? Two months later President Clinton bombed facilities in Iraq he believed were connected to Saddam’s WMD production. In 1998!”
FACT: As revealed by The Washington Post’s military affairs reporter, Thomas Ricks, in his book “Fiasco,” Greg Thielman, then director of proliferation issues at the State Department’s intelligence bureau, said the administration’s public statements about Iraq’s weapons began in August 2002 to grow more distant from the intelligence on which they were supposedly based.”
FACT: Ricks also quoted the reactions of retired Gen. Anthony Zinni to a VFW speech given by Vice-President Cheney in Aug. 2002 when Cheney memorably said: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
Zinni, who sat behind Cheney that day and received the Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award in recognition of his 35 years as a Marine, later said: “In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence and never—not once—did it say, ‘He (Saddam Hussein) has WMD.’”
Lastly, Mr. Friess lifted a selective and irrelevant quote from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
3) Foster Friess: “Have none of the protesters read the July 7th, 2004, report of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which included Democratic Senators Levin, Feinstein, Wyden, Durbin and John Edwards which concluded: ‘The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration Officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction’?”
FACT: On p. 192 of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s most recent report, regarding the dissemination and use among Bush policymakers of pre-war intelligence on Iraq, that was signed off on by a bi-partisan group of senators before release last September, simply stated the Senate commitee concluded: “…the Bush admnistration once again demonstrated its practice of cherry-picking intelligence reports and assessments that supported policy objectives and denigrating or dismissing those that did not.”
Besides these solid sources, there is also the famous “Downing Street Memo,” which asserts that American policymakers were fixing the intelligence and facts around their predetermined policy to invade Iraq.
In light of all these and other stubbron facts available to date, which at the least suggests the White House downplayed dissenting evidence on WMD and Saddam’s alleged role in 9/11, all of which undermined their flimsy case for invading Iraq, Foster Friess decided to either cherry-pick claims of marginal relevance and currency — like out-of-date opinions from those no longer in office or extraneous to charges of dishonesty. Or worse, he vainly attempted to reinvent history by incorrectly summarizing the status of Libby’s guilty verdict.
It’s too bad Mr. Friess has decided to use his considerable wealth, status, respectability and influence to further deny the growing body of solid research informing credible critiques regarding the Iraq debate. And it’s equally unfortuante that he is silent on the mountain of proof that the Bush admnistration defrauded the Congress, and the People, from making fully informed decisions on matters as serious as going to war.
It’s also too bad that one protester decided to kick the head of Cheney’s effigy into the street after it fell, marring an otherwise orderly and civil demonstration.
At a time when the Congress and the nation are debating the merits of continuing the Iraq war—and it is obvious that our leaders have either so poorly led us as to be undeserved of the offices they hold, or deliberately misled us and are deserved of being removed from office—the country needs clear-headed candor and accountability more than ever from those in positions to speak truth to power about the tragic consequences of official errors and misdeeds.
Instead, Mr. Friess, a charitable man whose heart appears bigger than his capacity to separate fact from fiction, offers only more incivil defenses of the indefensible and unfounded pipedreams feeding the dangerous fantasies of either a gang of incompetents or liars.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I respectively ask that you correct your article and publicly apologize for saying I used "exaggerated claims, misleading half-truths or provably untrue falsehoods" by my stating Scooter Libby was not found guilty of outing Valerie Plame. Or provide evidence that he was guilty of outing her.
My reputation means a great deal to me and you have unfortunately maligned it by your mistake. Please rectify as soon as you can. Foster Friess.
My correction of your error, which remains the same, pertains to your assertion that Libby was, to quote your OP/ED essay directly: "There are those in our community who adamantly state that the Vice President was ultimately behind the 'outing' of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, despite the fact Scooter Libby was found not guilty and I personally heard Colin Powell tell several hundred people in Aspen, CO, several weeks ago, that his colleague Richard Armitage, was the person who revealed her name."
As anyone can plainly see, I was correcting your factually incorrect assertion of "despite the fact" Libby "was found not guilty."
Libby was found guilty, case closed. That singular fact is provably true, which is why I cited it.
It is you who need to perhaps correct your piece, not me mine.
Your reputation is irrelevant to matters of provably true and false claims, especially when you have taken out full-page Op-Ed pieces in the press and thrust yourself into a public controversy.
If you have a problem with people pointing out your errors of fact in an open forum then I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. But maybe next time you should do your homework before taking out newspaper ads lecturing others on not doing theirs.
Good luck and as you say, God Bless
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Fact of the matter here is that anyone can make a splendid monday morning quarterback... but you're apparently first-string while many of us others are riding the pine.
And your point on referencing a recent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report? Were you expecting otherwise from a committee that is majority Democrat? But to put things into perspective let me reference a quote from the Chairman of this very committee which you esteem:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Adhering to your logic, Chairman Rockefeller must have been lying, right?
No matter how aggressively you may make the linkage, there is no doubt they aren't.
But as a sportscaster once said, let's go to the videotape.
thanks for the tip.
Go to http://www.fosterfriess.com to read the entry from "CitizenKane" where he points out not only was Scooter not guilty, I.E.,innocent of outing Valerie Plame, but after the Grand Jury investigation----HE WASN'T EVEN CHARGED for that crime!
Where you hopefully unintentially maligned my credibility and reputation is where you confused his conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice with conviction of outing her.
I'm not accusing you of "sloppiness" as we all make mistakes. In fact you could have documented my "sloppiness" by the fact I forgot we killed Zarqawi.
Lets concentrate on where we both are correct and can join to fight the real enemy-----those folks who chopped off Daniel Pearl's head and kill young woman for the crime of fleeing and abusive arranged marriage and falling in love with a man from a different klan.
They are more dangerous than our own government. Honest.
View . Can I have my apology now? God Bless, Foster
It takes actual film clips from Middle East TV outlets to show the dangers we face in the decades ahead from the Jihadists----far more serious than Nazism and Communism. Glenn Beck said it is the most important film for every American to see.
Let me know what you think of it. I bet you will want to tell your readers about it. Glad to have met you through our interchange and I do appreciate your kindess in the good things you said about me. I await your apology.Foster
Since it's now fairly clear that you either didn’t know or understand what Libby was originally charged with and later convicted of -- and what those charges meant individually, in their totality, or ethically -- it's inventive of you, who placed a factually mistaken, high-profile ad proclaiming Libby “not guilty” when he was actually “found guilty,” while also in the same breath upbraiding and impugning others for being "ill-informed" and "deceitful," to be seeking an apology.
Sorry, Mr. Friess. But the world of apologies doesn’t work that way in the civilized western world you and I claim to cherish so much.
Reflecting upon my many mistakes, apologies issue when one genuinely realizes their errors and undue harms visited upon others.
But in the present case are we not really arguing for a sort of self-insulating decorum better suited for a gentleman’s club that dodges the more important journalistic requirement of getting out the stubborn facts in this important debate on war and deception?
If any apologies are to be handed out, it seems only fitting they might start with those who, in the name of defending the indefensible, have insulted the truth-seekers without merit or cause.
Lastly, since your recently re-tooled sophism that Libby was “found not guilty” of “outing” Valerie Plame has fallen apart, because to be acquitted of something, someone must first be charged (as your blogger has pointed out), you might pause to consider what Libby’s four count conviction on obstructing justice, making false statements, and lying to federal investigators means in the context of who did “out” Valerie Plame.
Again, sir, no one obstructs justice in a vacuum.
However, if you’re one of those who believe Plame was not a spook legally entitled to having her cover protected, in an age when not only national but global security and containing loose nukes is a valid concern for all citizens who cherish life over death, then I suppose acquitting yourself of the implications of this still murky narrative would be predictable.
Finally, Foster, I will check out your recommended video. As my thinking is open to all streams of information.
But if you choose to just blow all this high-minded jousting off, wouldn't it still remain: You the well-regarded and charitable high-roller and me the ink-stained wretch that I am?
-- Excelsior
Your ability to wax eloquent is quite mesmerizing and both a joy and pain to witness. Yet, while you reference yourself an "ink-stained" wretch, methinks it your vision that is most tainted. In fact, I'm reminded of the definition of a journalist: Someone with half baked ideas and a marvelous capacity for expressing them.
As I read Mr. Friess' letter, the reference to Plame and Libby was nothing but a diversion (albeit strange) from the overal point that was made.
As a responsible journalist, surely you recall that "Plamegate" was merely a distraction in Washington, meant to divert attention from the Iraq War and any other issues the Bush Administration wanted to stress. The irony here is that your insistence on focusing on 3 questionable sentences in Mr. Friess' letter is also an attempt to divert focus on the real issues at hand... and if I read Mr. Friess' letter correctly that would be the apparent lack of civility in our public discourse. (of which I'm the biggest culprit).
Whether it's desecrating an effigy of our Vice President or conveniently forgetting that it was Congress who voted to authorize the Iraq War. To put it in the words of our Commander in Chief, "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
But again, your insistence on focusing on other issues - such as Scooter Libby's jury verdict have very little to do with the issues that matter most to the future of our country.
Perhaps it would be a better use of your time to report on the issues of the day instead of bickering over yesterday's news... here's a tip... why not a story on Katie Couric's recent report of "Real Progress in Iraq"... http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_247203227.html
Godspeed.
But I won't buy the phony, but still useful, official line that Congress’ vote to authorize the Iraq war was based on the same evidence the Bush admnistration had at its disposal.
For that too would be, as you say, a “diversion”.
It has now been widely demonstrated by solid sourcing that Congress was deceived by those who cherry-picked evidence in the run up to the Iraq war.
And this solid case is hardly based on partisan claims.
It's backed not only by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s latest findings, Thomas Ricks’ oceanic and exhaustive reporting, or numerous IAEA and UN weapons’ inspectors and Richard Clarke’s testimony.
Most persuasively of all, I think, is our own Energy Department’s stern warnings to admnistration policymakers before the war that those much-ballyhooed aluminum tubes were not sufficiently weapons grade in design to pose a threat.
Nevertheless, those nasty, evil tubes were manufactured into more flimsy proof of Saddam's dangerous nuclear ambitions by those more desperate than he to make their bogus case for war.
But, sure, I'll watch Miss Katie’s virgin voyage into Iraq. She may even have scooped more veteran correspondents over there in making the case things are “better” since the surge.
But you should then ask: Better than “what,” Max?
Has not this entire safari been a case study in changing the definitions of success and lowering expectations?
Is continuing this war and breaking the army in the process really our only option?
Or, is that just another false dilemma and sly ruse to salvage one man’s vainglorious legacy?
Time for all of us to put our best thinking caps on, Max. And I doubt that's something Miss Katie can do that for you.
And this time, I'm leaving God out of it.
Thanks for your open mindedness to view Obsession! You do not appear to demonstrate the attribute I see all too often of folks running from the debate or changing the subject when they sense they need to alter their position. Kudos to you!
Was Scooter Libby guilty of outing Valerie Plame?
Foster
I'll answer that one when you answer whether or not Scooter was found guilty at all. And, if so, of what?
By the way, you're a heck of a lot younger on video than i would have guessed by your long memory.
Yes, Scooter Libby WAS found guilty of PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Now that I answered your question, you promised above to answer my question: "Was Scooter Libby guilty of outing Valerie Plame?
You have a lot of energy and initiative to be involved in what you do, Gil. I admire you for that and sense you and I are going to partner as friends to protect our country from the enemy that has declared war upon us and our value system. Let me know what you think of Obsession. Regards, Foster
Thanks for your answer, which raises an interesting paradox. But first some background.
In your original essay, as indirectly summarized here, you wrote, ...the Vice President was ultimately behind the 'outing' of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, despite the fact Scooter Libby was found not guilty...
Now, you write: "Yes, Scooter Libby WAS found guilty of PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE."
To be most accurate, below is a Fox News summary of what Libby was convicted of and why:
1.“Obstruction of justice for lying to the grand jury about being told by (NBC’s Tim) Russert that (Valerie) Plame worked at the CIA and all the reporters working the story knew it; lying about being surprised by Russert's ‘news’ and telling the grand jury that he told Cooper what he had "heard" from Russert.”
2. “False statements to the FBI about his alleged conversation with Russert. Libby told the FBI he was surprised by this statement, because he had forgotten that the vice president already told him of Plame's status.”
3. “Perjury to the grand jury about his conversation with Russert, and telling the grand jury he was ‘taken aback’ to learn from Russert that Plame worked at the CIA.”
4. “Perjury to the grand jury about his conversation with (journalist Matt) Cooper, in which he supposedly told Cooper he had heard from other reporters that Plame worked for the CIA.”
(Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256965,00.html):
As you can see, Foster. You left out one little, itty-bitty Libby transgression of making “false statements” to federal investigators.
But hey, who’s counting?
Any buddy of and apologist for the vice-president who can recall 3 out of 4 guilty convictions for Dick Cheney’s former chief-of-staff, relating to the federal investigation into who blew a CIA officer’s cover and risked the nation’s security, while he was laboring for Dick Cheney, is a pretty honest guy in my book.
Now with regard to your question, Mr. Friess, which I shall, in Socratic fashion, answer with yet another question.
“Foster, how is possible that you have now argued both sides of the same coin?”
Or, better put, “Foster Friess has now provably asserted that Scooter Libby was found both “guilty” and “not guilty”?
I’m no legal eagle, but it’s got to be pretty rare in the annals of American jurisprudence, not to mention likely invalid, for a defendant to have been found “guilty” and “not guilty” in the same trial on all relevant charges.
Whewwweeeee, Foster, God Bless. You’ve certainly taken a sow’s ear and spun it into something knottier than a silk purse.
Still, I really admire the Baroque sophistication of your perceptions.
It’s like music to my ears.
Vivaldi, anyone?
I have been reading this column and the comments and just sitting back and thinking about what the columnist and Mr. Friess have been saying. Except for a couple of errors, largely both have been right. The disconnect is that the conversation, the column, and Mr. Friess' advertisement miss intersecting on the same spot at the same time. Mainly I put the blame for this on the columnist whose verbal machinations began with his column and continue with his Socratic answer. Forthright fairness is not a trait revealed in the press much these days in my opinion. If by trying to capitalize on Mr. Friess' original mistake is the basis for the columnist’s behavior, well, that doesn't wash with me. Perhaps like they did in Nepal over a temperamental 737 someone could burn a goat to drive the evil spirits away. I await the odor of burning hair to come through my monitor to suggest peace has returned. Anyone have any mint jelly?
And, Craig, you make an interesting point... as a journalist, what exaclty is Mr. Brady trying to accomplish here?
Reading Gil's original comments on Mr. Friess' letter and each following comment, it's quite amusing to read the many untelling tangents upon which the he has departed.
It appears I have confused you.
So, I'll state it here: I'm after the provable truth.
It's probably been a while since the media has done that for you.
Thought I'd try and bring it back into vogue, "try it on for size" as someone once said.
Socrates is a big hero of mine -- his questions always so simple but probing.
What kind of journalism do you like? Is it based on challenging questions or clear stenography?
Maybe…neither?
c'est la vie
If only you and all other journalists made that effort every day. In my opinion "truth" is mangled when only selective facts are organinzed into supporting pillars of biased opinion.
Mr. Friess' life deserves more than a couple of sentences to summarize the positive affect he has had on millions of peoples lives. In my opinion "truth" requires a much more detailed revelation of who he is, where he came from, what he has done with his life, and what he has meant to all those people he has graced with his generosity and business success. When you attempt to educate us as to who Mr. Friess is and put in context his ad, then I will accept you were after the truth. Until then, all you have demonstrated to me is a disrespectful game of gotcha that continues with your Socratic tap dance. The Socratic process is best left in the classroom. If you think this is wrong try it a few times on you wife or partner and see where you will sleep at night.
Gil, if you wish to reply I ask that you respond as a normal, straight talking human being and not Socrates. Until then, "Good night, and good luck."
Here goes.
While you lambaste me (which is your right) for not writing a biography of Foster's amazing life -- which was not the subject of this article, nor is their space here to do it justice -- you give Mr. Friess a complete pass on his apparent fondness for double-standards, and repeated attempts to obfuscate the truth about the many inconvenient facts surrounding why and how we got into the war.
And I'm not just talking about the much-convicted Scooter Libby.
Case in point # 1:
In his lopsided ad, Foster laments the state of political discourse as uncivil and wants to raise the bar, yet he calls the protestors liars and “(I)ll-informed or deceitfully willing to destroy another’s reputation to advance their own selfish political agenda.”
What the heck is that? If one didn’t know any better, he could be talking about his exalted leaders and buddies in Washington.
Or does being "civil" only apply to those further down the food chain?
I'd say decieving the nation and squandering its treasure is a pretty damn uncivil thing to do.
Case in point #2:
Further, Mr. Friess is still as of this week begging the question: "Was Scooter Libby found guilty of outting Valerie Plame" even though: a) he admits Libby was found guilty of numerous charges, including obstructing justice, though he won't discuss the implicatioins of that. And b) Libby WAS NEVER CHARGED with anything pertaining to his question, so how the hell could he be found guilty or innocent?
I think a good trial lawyer would have jumped up by now and shouted, "Objection, your honor. Foster presumes facts not entered into evidence! And is trying to acquit his client of proven guilt on appeal without first making a case for harmful errors at law."
Case in pont #3:
We know Libby lied and made false statements many times about who he talked to regarding Plame and her status as a spook, and tried to obstruct justice regarding whether or not he learned of her status from Cheney. So using the propositioinal logic of inversion or conversion, one could correctly infer that he did assist in "outting" Ms. Plame.
But either way, it's an irrelevant, disingenuous and sophist question to begin with, not to mention illogical.
Libby obstructed justice about who outted Plame and his role in her outting by lying and making false statements, just like some people are trying to obstruct reality on the debate on the war with similar tactics.
So, where's your great quest for the truth, Mr. Moore?
Or is everyone so blinded by their personal biases that rank hypocrisy is the only way to go these days?
Pardon me. But it's so obvious that some people can say just about anything and think they can get away with it, because of their status or how they know others will perceive them.
But the funny thing about facts and physics, as a professor once told me is, "They are no idolaters of how fancy any of our pants are."
If you want to write a biography of Mr. Friess, go for it.
But until he starts fessing up to some stubborn facts, figures and physics and stops trying to shamelessly fog over the public record with bald-faced spin, I don't know that I'd be gifted enough to even try.
I’m glad he’s a humanitarian and a philanthropist and wants to save the world. I wish more rich people would take his lead and only mildly well-off ones too, I might add.
Even some of the poor could help I believe.
But I don’t see him bringing any of those wonderful qualities of mind and generosity of spirit to this most critical debate on war and deception.
Instead, all I see are a bunch of phony-baloney talking points that are about as easy to unmask as a five-year old on Halloween with a Mars bar.
Good day, good night, good luck, good God and good grief let’s all get real.
here's an idea, get a life.
Instead of writing a 'hit' piece why didn't you just begin with the most basic of journalistic approaches-- the interview. You could have written your story and called the man up to talk. The two of you could have sat down over a cup of coffee "eye-to-eye" and discussed your differences and your story. Your column would have been immensely more interesting to have included the contents of that discussion. AND that opportunity would have provided you with the chance to ask him, "Why did you write what you wrote and put it in the paper?" Connecting that question to the whole who Mr. Friess is and what he has accomplished would have been far more journalistically fair and insightful than your hit piece and tap dance. Just my opinion. As it is, your column and your comments reveal nothing more than you had an axe to grind against a person you seem to despise, if I interpret your last comment correctly.
get real, Miss Snarky Pants.
and start adding something new to the debate, or is it that you don't read, research or think creatively enough to offer anything original?
You raise a good point. You're right, I was being Socratic, because Mr. Friess was being a Sophist with his repeated line of questioning.
However, I disagree that he didn't "lawyer" or game his repeated queries. And I think the above transcript proves it.
But to hopefully end all the "tap dancing," and in the spirit of searching out the truth, I'm going to call Foster up for that cup of Joe and see if he'll take me up on it.
Hell, I might even pick up the tab.
Thanks for your suggestion. One of us, I'm sure, will let you know how it went.
I am impressed for your offer to meet over a cup of coffee. No need to argue as to who buys; we'll flip a coin. Most people of your political persuasion would not be willing to listen to an opposite point of view but run from the discussion or change the subject.
I remember asking a woman I met hiking Old Pass Road to read a speech by Rick Santorum about the connection between Putin and Chavez and the Islamists and she said considering the source she wouldn't bother. Therefore I am grateful for your comparative openmindedness.
You also impress me "as an inkstained wretch" that you dubbed yourself to see your incredible gift with words. Only wish that gift were used to lift up rather than tear down. I hope you will have viewed Obsession by the time we meet so we can agree that the folks killing their own sisters for falling in love with the wrong person and chopping off heads just because someone is a Jew are more dangerous than our own United States government.
You also have taught me to avoid confusion by writing more clearly. If I had written; "although Scooter Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, he wasn't even charged with the crime of outing Valerie Plame as a result of the Grand Jury's probing that possibility and the admission by Colin Powell that his colleague Richard Armitage had indeed revealed the name."....would that have mustered your more legal mind as being accurate?
This interchange has also underscored the power available to you and I to use the internet to education our readers so we can look forward to the day when Americans will know as much about Ahmadinejad as they do Anne Nicole Smith. We have some pretty intelligent people weighing in on our dialogue and probably many other's watching.
The day pone of our local Jackson papers heralded a U.S. Senator talking dirty in a Mpls toilet booth and another story on how a 107 pound woman won an eating contest by eating a gazillion chicken wings, was the same day Iran dropped leaflets in Northern Iraq telling villagers to vacate as Iran intended to "cleanse the area". I also am told, but not verified, that Iranian shells were actually landing in Northern Iraq. Lets you and I partner to tell our readers the threat that we face (again let me emphasize OBSESSION).
Our Scooter dialogue has also taught me, thanks to your efforts, how easily it is to get diverted into comparative irrelevancies while many of our readers are unaware of Osama's declaration of war against you and I in 1998, encouraging his followers to kill Americans wherever they find them.
To get you to retract the accusations you made about my character revolving around the three "exaggerated claims, half truths and provable untruths" I might succeed by asking simple questions:
"Does or did Vice President Cheney personally benefit financially from the Iraq "war" and if so,how much and how?"
Or "Do you consider the 15 representatives of the U.N. Security Council who voted to give Saddam a last chance to "disarm" and the numerous Democratic leaders that can be viewed on the video clip accessible next to my website copy of the article, also "liars" for saying the exact same thing as President Bush and Vice President Cheney said about WMD?"
But I won't ask those questions, at least right now, and instead try to understand your lengthy argument above about Scooter's culpability in the Valerie Plame affair by asking:
"Did Scooter Libby out Valerie Plame?"
Looking forward to your answer, to your reaction to OBSESSION found at "www.obsessionthemovie.com" and to our cup of copy.
Again congratulations on your impressive command of the language and writing "articulateness". God Bless, Foster (<:)
For what it's worth, Mr. Friess, why don't you write a regular column here at New West? I'm sure the discussion would be lively and present an alternate perspective on many issues.
Don’t presume to know my political persuasion or anyone else's based on a singular issue. That would be a hasty conclusion, which is illogical.
Just because I’ve criticized the propaganda, obfuscations and deceptions that have led us into this fiasco in Iraq, and continue to criticize the same today, doesn’t mean I vote one way or the other.
Plenty of Republicans are critical of the war too, none more so, perhaps, then Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who announced this week that he’s stepping down from public life.
Barring any blunders or scandals before he hangs up his spurs, I think his departure will be profoundly missed and hard to replace.
Hagel is an extremely bright, passionate, perceptive and original thinker who did not carry anyone's water when it came to foolhardy thinking on fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq.
We could use a lifetime of bright, engaged, and independent-thinking public servants like him. And I will personally miss his insights.
By the way, has anyone read, "Are We Safer Today?", an OP/ED in today's Washington Post by Thomas H. Kean and Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission?
You can find it here: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702050.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
FYI: I watched the trailer for Obsession, Foster.
I wonder if the movie will answer the above question?
Did Scooter Libby "out" Valerie Plame? Foster
Libby was convicted of lying, obstructing justice and making false statements to the feds investigating who did "out" Plame.
Also, we know from his trial that Libby talked to at least three reporters about Plame: Tim Russert; Judy Miller; and Matt Cooper.
Do you not recall the witness list or all the evidence so far presented in court?
Here's a homework assignment for you: pour over this federal record available from the DOJ. No one else can do it for you:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
The burden of proof in the court of public opinion you're intent on shaping is on you to show that the much-convicted of lying Libby did not aide and abet the outting of Ms. Plame.
Libby is now guilty, Foster. Guilty of covering-up the exposure of a CIA agent at a time when the nation is at war and men and women in uniform and working dangerous missions are dying.
Those who call him and others who partook in this shameful scandal traitors are perhaps being too generous.
And Libby being found guilty further means he loses his presumption of innocence. To restore his good name, he'll have to fight it out via the appeals' process.
I guess if this doesn't sway you from continuing to beg the question, pulling quotes from the trial transcripts might help refresh things.
By the way, are you in the book? Or should I call your business number so we can have that cup of Joe?
At what point did the prosecutor have knowledge of who the leader was?
Was this knowledge acquired before or after pursuing Libby and entraping him?
Why didn't the prosecutor ever pursue the real leaker rather than continuing the collateral sideshow?
Just some questions I could use your help in answering.
Timelines and all of that are out there.
I know most, if not all, of the major papers have run them. But if you click on the above DOJ Web site and read the Grand Jury transcripts, and other official documents, a timeline should start to fall into place.
I'm reluctant to put one together here. And that's because for people to get the cleanest picture in their own mind's eye about what this case was about, they have to do the leg work themselves.
Sorry if that sounds stuffy, it's not meant to be.
It's just my firm belief that certain complex things become clearest when one has invested understanding all the various parts for themselves without extraneous noise and other intruding filters.
You seem to have an advantage over me with your more complete understanding of the legalities of the Scooter issue.
Perhaps I am being too simplistic but if the Albertson security guy nabs you going out the door with "stolen bananas" and then you
show him your receipt, by my legally untrained mind, he has found you "not guilty".
But I am willing to drop the issue as it clouds the bigger issue facing you and I and our children and grandchildren. We will be fighting the war Osama and his Jihadist colleagues declared on us for a long time. I don't view President Bush as "starting a war" by attacking Iraq but rather as his strategy, albeit possibly flawed which we can debate, to confront our attackers which include not just their World Trade Center hit but all the earlier attacks which we can enumerate.
Our challenge for you and I, who both have a passion for truth, is to help the American public perceive Iraq as a FRONT or just a BATTLE not a WAR.
Regardless if we retreat from Iraq or not we will be fighting the "war" with the Jihadists whether we like it or not. This is not a war of our choosing. I'll share some of the things I learned from the leaders I met with in Iraq to emphasize why I think that.
You can call my office 733-9587 to set up our coffee but I can't do it until Friday as I am going to Denver (two empty seats if you or any pals or any who are on this dialogue want to ride along) departing some time on 12th and returning either night of 13th or early morning of 14th. Check in with Molly at above number.
Also not good idea to get together until you have viewed the entire 77 minutes of Obsession. I think you can down load from their site---www.obsessionthemovie.com---for $4.95. Also available now on Amazon and lots of book stores as of Sept 11.
Thanks again Gil for engaging me in this dialogue. I have learned a lot. Your new friend, Foster
I still couldn't quite figure out from you comments above what your answer was to my question. Are you saying my question can not be answered with a simple yes or no?
Did Scooter "out" Valerie Plame? Foster
The record shows not only is that a yes, but what's worse is he did not have the backbone to say, "No. This is wrong and I won't be a part of it."
What a shame.
And still you defend him?
Since you've blown off everything I've asked you to educate yourself on, with links to free official sources, and continue to strike the tone of a scalper hawking cheap seats to see the true sensation of "Obsession," let me just say: "Nice try, bro. But that's a no go."
if you can't provide it for free here, then trying to sell it will be viewed as an attempt to use this public space for marketing purposes. Thus, any information offered in such a vein will be judged with the skeptical eye of ad copy.
If you want to provide information for free, fine. otherwise, don't waste your breath. i'm not paying for it.
but, just to show you i'm not a complete cheapskate when it comes to expanding my horizons. thanks for taking me up on my offer, i'll give you a ring on that cup of Joe.
For the purposes of a broader context, readers might be interested in researching Mr. Friess' donations to various, conservative politicians through the years, via http://www.opensecrets.org. You'll discover that he's been the leading donor from Wyoming to the GOP.
Secondly, try Googling "Foster Friess" and you'll find a wealth of material, including a Mother Jones feature about him and Web sites that explore his long-term involvement with the secretive Council for National Policy -- a who's who of conservatives from Ollie North to Pat Robinson to Grover Norquist and Jack Abramhoff, the crooked lobbyist. There's also a number of Christian Dominionists in the CNP -- folks like Dr. Gary North, who'd like to convert the U.S. into a theocracy and revive the Old Testament practice of stoning heretics.
None of this is illegal, but it is unsettling if you value a constitutional government and rule of law, not rule of men.
I'm still waiting for your call on the coffee meeting. 307-733=9587
Inky, puzzling how you know about Council for National Policy if it is secretive. I actually served as president a few years back and except for Grover Norquist have never seen any of the folks you mentioned at meetings during past five years. Thanks for entering the dialogue.
Gil, come by my office and pick up a free copy of Obsession so we can chat (Oct 1 or 2nd) with same information. Ask for Molly, Liz or Matthew. Foster
This past Tuesday US District Judge Reggie B. Walton, a Bush 43 appointee, sentenced former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby to 30 months in prison and fined him $250,000 for obstruction of justice and lying to a federal agent. Walton said he saw no good reason to allow Libby to remain free pending appeal. Walton also required Libby to serve two years probation upon release from prison.
Libby’s conviction stems from an overly aggressive investigation into the alleged “leaking” of a covert CIA agent’s name, Valerie Plame. Plame, the wife of the irritatingly smug Joseph Wilson, had sent him on a non-White House sanctioned exploratory mission to Niger, which, as Christopher Hitchens aptly points out, inadvertently validated President Bush’s claim that Saddam Hussein had been shopping for yellowcake uranium in Niger, a point the agenda-driven media dropped at the Wilson’s allegation of Plame’s outing.
As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald investigated the matter it became quite clear to even the most intellectually challenged among us, that no one in the White House had anything to do with Ms. Plame’s alleged exposure as a Non-Official Cover operative (NOC). In fact, not only had Robert Novak and Richard Armitage informed Fitzgerald that it was in truth Armitage who had mentioned Plame’s name, the facts cast serious doubt as to whether she was considered covert at all, her cover had been blown years early by convicted spy Aldrich Ames.
Through it all, Fitzgerald’s relentless pursuit of someone to charge with something uncovered only that Libby was guilty of not being able to recall who had mentioned Plame’s name to him. Libby testified that he heard Plame's name from Tim Russert of NBC News when, in fact, he learned of Plame's identify from other government officials. The former chief of staff – who it should be pointed out was preoccupied by operating at his post while our nation was at war – gave conflicting accounts to FBI agents and in testimony to the Grand Jury.
It bears mentioning here that the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), is calling for Plame to explain “differences” in her various accounts of how her husband came to be sent on an exploratory mission to Niger in the first place, her diverse accounts having been given to the CIA's inspector general, Senate investigators and a House committee in March. We will wait to see if Plame is imprisoned for having a bad memory or whether she gets a book deal.
For Libby’s bad memory – and for not outing a non-covert CIA analyst – he will spend two and a half years of his life, which has up until now been spent as a distinguished public servant, behind bars and become a quarter of a million dollars poorer in the process.
By contrast, and even though the crime committed was infinitely more dubious, Sandy Berger is still free to roam the streets – and the National Archives.
In October of 2003, former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, in preparation for his 9/11 Commission testimony, removed and then destroyed unique and classified documents pertaining to the Clinton Administration’s knowledge of terrorist threats to the United States.
Berger described his removal of the unique documents initially as “an honest mistake.” But as details emerged, courtesy of a report titled, Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions compiled by the US House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, it became clear that Berger’s efforts were premeditated and tantamount to an attempt at obstructing the 9/11 Commission’s investigation.
Comparing the two cases, you would think that Sandy Berger would be in the cell next to ‘Scooter’ Libby, the one welcoming Libby into the minimum security federal corrections facility where the politically elite serve their time. Additionally, you would think that Berger would be the one wishing Libby well as he watched him walk out of prison after 30 months, Berger remaining to finish his sentence. But the US Judicial System isn’t that equitable, especially when politics is concerned.
Where Patrick Fitzgerald’s ego-driven investigation culminated in his need to charge someone to with something (an honest and thorough investigation could never result in no charges being filed, right?), those investigating Sandy Berger’s crime against the people of the United States were, it appears, motivated solely by political loyalty, having been placed in their positions by the Clinton Administration.
US Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, Deputy Assistant US Attorney General Bruce Swartz, Chief of the USJD Counterterrorism Section John Dion and Howard Sklamberg, USJD trial attorney from the public integrity unit, were all principally involved in the Berger investigation and were all either appointed by Bill Clinton or were holdovers from the Clinton Administration.
As a result of the incredibly apathetic USJD investigation and prosecution of Sandy Berger’s theft and destruction of unique and classified documents from the National Archives, and as the result of a plea bargain authorized by the USJD, Berger agreed to a $10,000 fine, a revocation of his security clearance for three years and a lie detector test, which to this day has not been administered. This sentence was augmented by US Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson who increased the fine to $50,000 and added two years probation and 100 hours of community service. Robinson said, “The court finds that the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense.”
Berger, additionally, forfeited his license to practice law to avoid being cross-examined about his illegal activities by the Board on Bar Counsel, a forfeiture that effectively ends any inquiry into Berger’s crimes.
In the end, ‘Scooter Libby’ will be spending the next two and a half years behind bars for not being able to correctly remember who committed the non-crime of not outing a non-covert CIA analyst whose recollections are as various as the media outlets and congressional fact finding committees she recounted them to. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger gets to have lunch at Spago whenever he wants and after he stole, then destroyed, unique and significant documents committed to the United States National Archives, documents pertaining to the most devastating slaughter of human beings on American soil ever.
The inequity of these two sentences, the egomaniacal piety of the investigations, both aggressive and apathetic, demonstrates that the legal system in the United States of America – and especially the US Justice Department – has been politicized to the point of corruption.
In an atmosphere where judicial veracity and the integrity of the prosecutorial process have been compromised, no justice can be found.
“Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation [of power] first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.” – Thomas Jefferson
What misinformed, bloviating hogwash you have spewed! As if an abundance of nonsensical verbiage could compensate for a paucity of substance.
The seditious President Bush commuted the treasonous Scooter Libby's 30 month prison sentence. Libby won't spend 10 minutes in slammer and is still covering up who authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity.
Legally, Sandy Berger's fiasco is irrelevant to issues raised by the Plame scandal.