New York Sun: Libby Says Bush Authorized Leak

This is from Raw Story. The New York Sun site is down right now, presumably overwhelmed (update: it's working now). Thanks to Barry Ritholtz for the pointer:

Bush authorized leak of Iraq intelligence estimate, indicted ex-Cheney aide says, Raw Story: A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case, THE NEW YORK SUN reports Thursday.

The filing can be found here. The paper's site isn't loading. RAW STORY will excerpt more when available. Excerpts:

"The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter."

In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.

"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was ‘pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was ‘very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

Since Brad DeLong appears to be out of town, I'll say it for him: Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do It Now.

Update: Here's a few more quotes from the Sun story:

Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury, New York Sun Web Exclusive, by Josh Gerstein, NY Sun:  ...The court papers filed by Mr. Fitzgerald do not make clear whether Mr. Bush knew the disclosure was destined for Ms. Miller, though they indicate Mr. Cheney knew that fact. Mr. Libby is also said to have testified that five days late Mr. Cheney authorized the release to the press of information about a cable about Mr. Wilson's strip. Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald and his staff, but it is not known how their accounts of the events compared to that of Mr. Libby. ...

The new court filing quotes from handwritten suggestions Mr. Libby gave to the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, urging the spokesman to proclaim the vice presidential aide's innocence with the same vigor that the press secretary previously denounced as "ridiculous" suggestions that Mr. Rove might have had a hand in leaking Ms. Plame's identity.

Mr. Libby's note, as typed up by the prosecution, reads like a stanza of verse:

People have made too much of the difference in
How I described Karl and Libby
I've talked to Libby.
I said it was ridiculous about Karl
And it is ridiculous about Libby.
Libby was not the source of the Novak story.
And he did not leak classified information.

Mr. McClellan did not adopt the talking points verbatim, but did tell reporters later that Messrs. Rove and Libby "assured me that they were not involved in this...

Update: TPM Muckracker quotes a section of the special prosecutor's filing:

Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President's authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively.

Update: Letter from representative Waxman to the president posted at TPM.

[Click on figure to go to larger verison at TPM]

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

Quick poll:

Is anyone surprised?

[T.R. Elliott]

Mucho gracias filling in for Brad DeLong. I miss his appropriately directed vitriol.

[Sestina]

Surprised? I'm surprised that Libby ratted them out. So much for that pardon.

[anne]

No; I am not the least surprised but this is still a signally important admission or truthfulness. What is immediately essential however is that this lunatic war and occupation we are needlessly engaged in be stopped. We should not have gone to war, we should not have stayed after the Iraqi government was deposed, but we need to leave Iraq immediately.

[calmo]

Wish it were the NYT instead of the Sun, (temp connection at my comment time but RAW had access to the 39p pdf) but this will do.
Yes impeach both, despite this
"The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule." in contrast to the headlines.

Who would fill the vacancies if Congress woke up? Who would want to inherit this imploding mess?

[RW]

Interesting that Cheney, Libby's chain of command, is not mentioned. Has it been decided 'somewhere' that Bush is now expendable but Cheney is not?

[Bruce Webb]

"Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said."

Cheney is mentioned. In fact there is no suggestion that Libby heard anything directly from Bush, only that Cheney advised him that Bush had authorized it. Cheney is still the cut out man. But it is odd that Libby turned on his bosses here. I suggested some time back that the Libby defence would boil down to "Presidents, Vice Presidents and selected designees have the authority to declassify information at will". It would be in keeping with the overall claims of unlimited Presidential authority in wartime they make everywhere else. It seems like a high risk strategy to me in that it shifts responsibility upwards. Responsibility is not exactly Dubya's strong point.

[calmo]

The Raw Story text is quite specific about Cheney and less so about Bush.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_authorized_leak_of_Iraq_intelligence_0406.html

[anne]

Again, words and expressions capture us. Telling the truth has nothing at all to do with "ratting," unless the idea is not to tell the truth and the expression is a form of intimidation.

[anne]

From the drive to war to the near or would-be colonial occupation of Iraq, we have been set on a destructive path that has taken a dramatic toll on us domestically and internationally. But, what may make the toll all the more severe is that the costs, from physical to moral, of war and occupation have been continually and deceptively masked. All policy discussion should be predicated on leaving Iraq, but it is as though the war and occupation have never been so policy is a sham.

[Movie Guy]

Single PDF w/o jumping from page to page via links:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. )) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also known as "Scooter Libby" )
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, SPECIAL COUNSEL full document; 39 pages; one PDF

I recommend that anyone interested in the facts being discussed in pieces by the news media start reading at page 22. That would be an improvement over the what the news media representatives are feeding the public.

[Movie Guy]

Mark -- "Since Brad DeLong appears to be out of town, I'll say it for him: Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do It Now."

If your singling out this legal Federal district court document by the Special Prosecutor, what is the legal basis and nature of the particular impeachable finding(s) cited in the document that you are alleging and demonstrating a willingness to pursue under a rule of law?

What are the violations of Federal Code or the U.S. Constitution, and what are the specific violation(s) stated or implied in the Federal district court document filed by the Special Prosecutor?

Can you cite any specific statements in the document that will serve as a basis for impeachment under the U.S. Constitution?

Serious questions.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/washington/06cnd-leak.html

April 6, 2006

In Court Filings, Cheney Aide Says Bush Approved Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON — President Bush authorized Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003 to permit Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., to leak to a reporter key portions of a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq, according to Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony disclosed in court papers filed late Wednesday.

The court filing provided the first indication that Mr. Bush, who has long assailed leaks of classified information as a national security threat, played a direct role in the disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq and was also involved in the swirl of events leading up to the disclosure of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer.

The grand jury testimony by Mr. Libby, who has been charged with perjury and obstruction in the C.I.A. leak case, is said by prosecutors to indicate that Mr. Cheney obtained explicit approval from Mr. Bush to permit Mr. Libby to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

The disclosure prompted Democrats to demand that the White House be forthcoming about Mr. Bush's role. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, released a statement saying: "In light of today's shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth."The court filing, which was first reported this morning on the New York Sun Web site, said that Mr. Libby testified that the "Vice President advised defendant that the President had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the N.I.E." The prosecutors said that Mr. Libby testified that he recalled the circumstances "getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection."

The leak was intended, the court papers suggested, as a rebuttal to the Op-Ed article published in The New York Times on July 6, by Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, who wrote that he had traveled to Africa in 2002 after Mr. Cheney had raised questions about possible nuclear purchases. Mr. Wilson wrote that he concluded it was "highly doubtful" that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Niger.

At Mr. Cheney's office, the Op-Ed article was viewed "as a direct attack on credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq," according to the court papers....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1372824000&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

July 6, 2003

What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests....

[pgl]

I would say impeach them too but notice that Feingold's censure motion is getting very little traction. We have a cowardly Congress.

[Movie Guy]

Did Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson have U.S. Government clearance to reveal any classified information to the news media or parties specifically not authorized by U.S. Government classification sources?

Did Ambassador Wilson have an individual authority to declassify U.S. classified information related to the Iraq war, prior investigations, or other matters of government operations and activities as may have been classified?

Does Ambassador Wilson still have his U.S. Government security clearance?

[anne]

Tragically enough there were 200 deaths of American soldiers by the time of Joseph Wilson's letter, but the government of Iraq was gone and there was not the slightest doubt the war, needless as it was, was over, there was no assuredly threat found, and we could have left Iraq immediately. That however was almost 3 years ago.

[Movie Guy]

Statements by anne:

What is immediately essential however is that this lunatic war and occupation we are needlessly engaged in be stopped.

We should not have gone to war,

we should not have stayed after the Iraqi government was deposed,

but we need to leave Iraq immediately.

----

From the drive to war to the near or would-be colonial occupation of Iraq, we have been set on a destructive path that has taken a dramatic toll on us domestically and internationally.

But, what may make the toll all the more severe is that the costs, from physical to moral, of war and occupation have been continually and deceptively masked.

All policy discussion should be predicated on leaving Iraq,

but it is as though the war and occupation have never been so policy is a sham.

====

I have read your U.S. withdrawal from Iraq statements for many weeks. Your basic messages are repeated once again in the above quotes.

You are calling for immediate U.S. national government strategic and military actions.

ANNE: SERIOUS QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR DEMANDED IMMEDIATE U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

1. What is your specific withdrawal plan? What are the timeline and milestones for accomplishment?

2. What are your anticipated casualties among Allied forces (USA, UK, and any others), Iraq military forces, Iraq police forces, Iraq civilian government leadership at all government levels, general Iraq civilian population, foreign civilian visitors and guest workers, UN missions, U.S. Aid missions and other U.S. support agencies, and various foreign embassy operations, including the United States of America? And any other parties not thus far identified?

3. Once you have pulled all Allied forces from Iraq, how will Iraq defend itself from any external forces in the Middle East? From other global nations? From any major threats by ideological groups which conduct asymmetrical warfare operations?

4. What type of a defense treaty are you willing to commit the United States of America to with the sovereign nation of Iraq? Details of levels of support and defense triggers requiring U.S. response and support?

5. What specific level of foreign support are you willing to pursue with the Congress of the United States of America?

6. What specific level of foreign military, infrastructure, and humanitarian aid/grants are you willing to solicit from the Congress of the United States of America? When will you attempt to establish such agreed upon funding levels, prior to or after you have executed your immediate Allied forces withdrawal?

7. If the nation of Iraq were to be attacked during your planned and conducted withdrawal, would you continue the withdrawal?

8. Are you familiar with the defense treaties that the United States of America has with the GCC or nations in the Middle East region?

9. If any U.S. allies in the Middle East are attacked by external forces, including groups mounting asymmetrical warfare operations, do you intend to fully honor such existing treaty obligations?

10. In the wake of your immediate withdrawal, can you identify all senior elected or appointed national government officials of Iraq? Is a fully functioning national government elected by the citizens of Iraq presently serving in governance?

11. What are your estimated financial, military, and diplomatic costs of your immediate withdrawal?

12. How much funding will you request from the Congress of the United States of America to replenish the U.S. Armed Forces? Any?

13. Do you intend to launch and complete your immediate withdrawal of Allied forces while Saddam Hussein is still on trial by the national court of Iraq?

>

I didn't like the war, anne. I am fourth generation U.S. military. But the above questions are real issues that have to be considered prior to and in conjunction with any withdrawal, let alone a call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Those who can't address these questions in a serious manner may not understand fully what is ahead for the United States of America, its Middle East allies, and other allies around the planet if the U.S. withdraws immediately from Iraq.

>

[spencer]

As someone who strongly opposed the war from day one because I though it would end up doing massive damage to US interest and massively weaken the US because we would end up in the protracted guerrilla war we are in I must agree with tne Movie Guy.

We need to face the fact that we have to clean up the mess that Bush has created and that it will cost the US massive treasure and lives. but if we don't we will be worse off.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

I am more interested in post industrial war, called 4th generation war by William Lund.

I am Vietnam Era vet, retired officer.

Your questions are answerable. But who cares? All the bad things implied that you ask about will happen in now, or in 2, 6, or 10 years whatever.

While some say we won (woulda shoulda coulda) Vietnam or were hoodwinked. We did not defeat Giap, he stood and took over. We fought the wrong war, with the wrong tactics, with senseless operations and no startegy.

Same in Iraq.

You are 4th generation, I have ancestor from NY regiment killed at Second Bull Run, what does that mean?

As for this occupation/war, what are we doing that will provide any benefit to US taxpayer. The US Constitution calls for the provision of the common defense.

What about the common defense is fostered by "staying the course" or to do with any of your questions?

Withdrawl plan: 3 AD secure road network to Kuwait.

Two squadrons of A-10 provide flank and fire support.

Overlapping 155 arty, Palladin and USMC, coverage to support rapid fire missions.

What about casualties other than US personnel do you need to concern me with?

About 11, a bunch more than hanging in there using our kids in their hummers to troll for IED's.

The US Senate does treaties let them negotiate with a sovereign Iraq. How about right now?

[anne]

Me; I have no idea exactly how we might leave, but I would assume our military leaders know just how, and as for the future I never could nor can tell but I find no reason to fear Iraq nor fear any more for Iraqis than I already do each day. So I say "leave." Peace after all is not war, and in peace there is hope.

[Movie Guy]

islm,

Aside from your smartmouth remarks, my questions were directed at anne with a level of seriousness that Spencer understood.

My point about mentioning to anne that I am 4th gen military was to indicate that I didn't see cause for the invasion at the time it was conducted. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have recommended a course of action by now.

I have distant relatives from the Civil War and 1812, but so what. Hell, way back, we fought in Europe, too. They're not immediate family. When I say 4th generation, I mean that I have looked into their eyes and talked with each generation before they passed. I learned from them. I listened. Then I served my nation.

As a commander involved in shaping up operations in VII Corps prior to Gulf I, my interest in asking the questions was sincere. I am also a retired officer and among many, many others I know personally from various field assignments, you're the first retired officer who ever said "But who cares" to this list of questions. What a joke.

I didn't expect a full military OPLAN from anne on the withdrawal, but rather an understanding of some of the elements that must be considered prior to execution.

As for your tactical withdrawal plan, you didn't identify your timeline and you elected to retrograde in one basic direction. Not too smart, stud.

The other questions regarding diplomacy, funding, and treaties are dead on. Even if beyond your scope of comprehension and appreciation.

Your Senate negotiation remark is so far off course that it's funny.

Entertaining, but not very serious.

[RW]

Thanks Calmo and Bruce, you're right of course.

It appears Libby's defense will be that this was merely a 'declassification' and hence not prosecutable: Some egg on the face for Cheney & Bush because of the leaking itself but not much else, nothing criminal. Still, it seems likely more information of this sort may be given up by Libby before this is over if only because there is one leak at least that must be buried, can not be confessed: Valerie Plame. Given the facts in evidence thus far at least there is no evidence Libby was responsible for this leak but there is also no defense if he was.

This seems a very dangerous game Libby and, by extension, his bosses play. If Libby convincingly demonstrates he was a good soldier, obedient to command and acting as duly authorized, then should the prosecutor locate the Plame leak in his office there would seem to be no escape for those who commanded him: The leak of intelligence was intentional and authorized - io ipso so was the leak of an intelligence officer's name.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6361&exhibition=7&u=99|9|...

Ruddy Duck at Dawn
New York City--Central Park, Harlem Meer.

Ilsm, you are nice :)

[Movie Guy]

anne,

The most serious early withdrawal problem will be the security of the GCC. Gulf Cooperation Council nations. And it's a very big deal.

[anne]

I do wish peace all through the Middle East but we have troops and ships and planes beyond Iraq already and I would imagine that other nations through the region are secure from Iraq, and peace is really not war and I have no reason at all to believe Iraq will begin to wage war on all or anyone about or even to wage war on herself.

[Bruce Webb]

Movie Guy "Can you cite any specific statements in the document that will serve as a basis for impeachment under the U.S. Constitution?

Serious questions."

Well here is a serious question. Exactly how does alleged perjured testimony that was ruled irrelevant to a civil case in a misdeamenor case that was ruled without merit sufficient to impeach a President? Somebody lowered the bar for impeachment. The same assholes who insisted that Clinton staged submarines in the Persian Gulf for weeks and months, launched a crusie missile attack that missed Osama bin Ladin by a couple of hours did so because he somehow knew it would distract testimony from Monica.

Everyone out there who dismissed the the cruise missile strike on that terrorist training camp prior to 9/11 as a Wag the Dog attempt to distract America's attention from the truly important stain on the Blue Dress can kiss my ass. Bill tried to kill Osama in advance and all of you lined up to ridicule the whole effort.

Well right wingers? Wag this. While you were laughing at Clinton's attempts to kill Osama, Osama was plotting and funding 9/11. Each and everyone of you who chanted "Wag the Dog" following the missile strike needs to understand that you are complicit in the deaths of nearly 3000 Americans.

You thought that was funny at the time? You high fived yourself on making the connection between a popular movie and Clinton national security policy? Well in retrospect after 9/11 wouldn't you have cheered us landing a cruise missile in Osama's lap? Clinton missed by two hours possibly avoiding 9/11 and pretty much the whole Right Wing scoffed and chanted "Wag the Dog".

Given what has happened since I think "Screw you" is a little gentle. I would be happy to amplify.

[Movie Guy]

Bruce,

I agree with your statements.

But you'd be dead wrong to lump me in with the so-called rightwingers if such was in your mind. Besides, there just that much difference between those people and some on the far far left. If they turned around, they would bump into each other.

Care to answer my question instead of using it as a intro prop?

And if you want to amplify, do it. You've only scratched the surface. There's a whole lot more to that strategic blunder.

[Bruce Webb]

Movie Guy "Can you cite any specific statements in the document that will serve as a basis for impeachment under the U.S. Constitution?

Serious questions."

Well here is a serious question. Exactly how does alleged perjured testimony that was ruled irrelevant to a civil case in a misdeamenor case that was ruled without merit sufficient to impeach a President? Somebody lowered the bar for impeachment. The same assholes who insisted that Clinton staged submarines in the Persian Gulf for weeks and months, launched a crusie missile attack that missed Osama bin Ladin by a couple of hours did so because he somehow knew it would distract testimony from Monica.

Everyone out there who dismissed the the cruise missile strike on that terrorist training camp prior to 9/11 as a Wag the Dog attempt to distract America's attention from the truly important stain on the Blue Dress can kiss my ass. Bill tried to kill Osama in advance and all of you lined up to ridicule the whole effort.

Well right wingers? Wag this. While you were laughing at Clinton's attempts to kill Osama, Osama was plotting and funding 9/11. Each and everyone of you who chanted "Wag the Dog" following the missile strike needs to understand that you are complicit in the deaths of nearly 3000 Americans.

You thought that was funny at the time? You high fived yourself on making the connection between a popular movie and Clinton national security policy? Well in retrospect after 9/11 wouldn't you have cheered us landing a cruise missile in Osama's lap? Clinton missed by two hours possibly avoiding 9/11 and pretty much the whole Right Wing scoffed and chanted "Wag the Dog".

Given what has happened since I think "Screw you" is a little gentle. I would be happy to amplify.

[Movie Guy]

Is that all you have, Bruce? You're a better researcher than that. Reposting the same post accomplished what?

If nothing else, you could launch a new discussion on U.S. Representative Henry Waxman's letter to the President.

If you have any more ammunition on the period of 1992-January 2001, lay it out.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

Despite the 'smartmouth' please answer the questions above:

"As for this occupation/war, what are we doing that will provide any benefit to US taxpayer?"

Start with strategy and work to tactics.

Or, if you prefer start with tactics and work up.

"What about the common defense is fostered by "staying the course" or to do with any of your questions?"

I have not been referred to as "Stud" in many years. You have not seen my PT regime. I do quite well for an old guy.

Thanks!

[Movie Guy]

ilsm,

Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

I'll pull your questions down and bold them, then we'll see if you believe that I have offered some answers by the time I work through it.

ilsm - "As for this occupation/war, what are we doing that will provide any benefit to US taxpayer?"

ilsm - "What about the common defense is fostered by "staying the course" or to do with any of your questions?"

I'll put a post and try to answer these questions. Naturally, my response may draw plenty of fire, but you asked.

[Movie Guy]

Why don't we start with the big picture.

Not a perfect look, of course, but hopefully adequate to round out a few points we do not hear discussed as a package of strategic issues very often.

Gulf War I didn't accomplish all that needed to be done to help stabilize and free up the Middle East going forward. UN limitations and all of that stuff. Hussein was locked down, but he was still a raging bull as demonstrated in 1997 and 1998. So the Clinton and Blair UK administrations responded with bombings. But they didn't clean up the entire Iraq mess before they ran out of clock. A major error in my judgment. So, Hussein's forces fired off more missiles against allied aircraft in January 2001 than during all of 2000. Bad decision on Hussein's part. Bombed by the incoming U.S. administration and Blair UK government in February 2001. Hussein spends the rest of the time prior to Gulf War II either trying to build relations back with the Arab League or condemning its members. Whatever... Hussein was toast as of January 2001. War was ultimately inbound. No one should have expected otherwise.

Meanwhile, in early 2001, the U.S. launched a full array of bold inutilities focusing on global oil drilling and pipeline transfer. More was done on this project than anything I can recall on a comparable fuel scale in many years. Pipelines were rerouted, flowing to Europe via Turkey, new Caspian Sea opportunities, some opportunities much further north - though a few didn't work out (a bridge too far), African oil field gains, and so on. Overall, one big fast initiative. So, the global oil chess game was pushed forwarded and the U.S./Western powers picked up the advantage of a few moves over China, Russia, and a few others. We bought some long term time.

No action on AQ, so that floated along. We got hit...again. Ok, time to deal with that radical ideology and asymmetrical warfare group. Going for the beehive. If we don't get most of it, it will decentralize moreso and might even split up with more operations around the world. We hit it. It takes a fairly good hit, but not good enough. The sucker spreads out rather quick. Looks disorganized, but still presented a danger. Western powers ramp up collective electronic, financial and physical tracking efforts. Looking like a fair effort. Growing the puppy and getting more organized. Mistakes were happening, but it the effort was flowing more like a basketball game, not a football game. Fast floor action. Just keep it up. Press it. Then press again. We should have had more ground forces for that initiatives all along, but we rolled on to Iraq. For good and bad reasons - some of which weren't so obvious at the time to some people. Still not for many.

Meanwhile, Iraq planning was moving along (right or wrong). And something else was happening. AQ was showing more strength in countries where the U.S. and other Western powers had no primary access. Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, and Iran for starters. This should have been an expectation after busting up the beehive. We built access with Pakistan to a limited degree, and put U.S. trainers back in the Philippines. Both efforts helped. Indonesia boiled up and then capped at a given level. Iran...well, who really knows what was happening. Or is happening now.

If we launch a war with Iraq, we might turn it loose quickly or a reluctant and unsure population leadership might drag it out. If it drags out, then we're in for an ugly occupation. As terrible as it sounds, there is a side benefit. The AQ and other ME dissident forces will descend on Iraq. No question. And they do. As should have been expected. And may have been expected by some key people. Never forget the "fight them there or fight them here" remarks from certain Members of Congress. So, we go throw the drill. Wait for Iraqi leadership to call for elections, get organized, and stand the country up. Meanwhile, through an error on the front end, the Allied forces have to start over with building its military forces - may be a blessing over the long term, but it looked like a huge error. Anyway, Iraq isn't up to speed at the civilian government level nor the domestic police and military defense levels. It's coming, but it's not easy to grow the puppy faster than it wants to grow. So, now, we're busy kicking it off the porch every few weeks, telling it to hunt for itself. Probably another six months for real organization and office fill assignments, then another year to stand up all the way. Reality.

Now, let's go back and pull a few things together. Hussein was a threat to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member nations and that was evident publicly between 1997 and 2003. The GCC member leaders wanted him out. GCC are allies of the U.S. and other Western powers. All European satellite telephones are operated by a UAE corporation to the best of my knowledge, as an example. Little point, but an example of the ties. Militarily, we need the GCC and they need the USA. They know it; we know it. And they also know that we are committed to democratic reforms in the Middle East going forward. As of last week, SecSTATE Rice explained that the USA will no longer cater to tyrant governments over democracies (words to that effect) - she said that we just undid 60 years of U.S. foreign relations nonsense.

We needed to clear out bottlenecks related to the global oil pipeline routing plan. Hussein was going to be problem. His departure eliminated most of those concerns. And so on. Were the Iraqi oil fields that big a deal? Not on the front end, because studies showed the terrible condition they were in, and the quality of the crude wasn't as good as we like (sweet vs. sour). But there were/are large reserves. It's just a matter of time and big bucks by commercial investors from a number of nations to clean up the problems and bring the potential output on line (Iraq is a net importer now, due to imports of finished fuel products vs outbound crude). Important oil, but moreso for the spot market which Hussein was screwing around with - pulling the oil offline when he was displeased with the UN, OPEC, Arab League, USA, and so on.

To your questions:

1. "As for this occupation/war, what are we doing that will provide any benefit to US taxpayer?"

Quite a bit, actually. It may not be obvious to many, but it's there. We had a real problem on our hands post-bombing in Afghanistan. That became apparent within a few months. If AQ flowed primarily into Pakistan and Iran, we were in trouble. In order to draw them out, we needed a neutral field. Whether by accident or intent, we have that in Iraq. And yes, it's not pretty. It was never going to be nice. Strategically, though, it has served as a focal point where we can cut the AQ and other ME dissident numbers. We have learned quite a bit about their level of fight, methods, and so forth. Learning curve adjustments, then respond. Tough campaign, but it was never going to be easy. AQ/similar forces and ideologies are engaged in a full campaign, but they're also bogged down. They have focused primary effort in Iraq on the USA and Iraq democratic initiatives. They are not winning either battle, however ugly it may look. Meanwhile, we are not seeing much AQ type activity elsewhere. That's good. But Iraq is an unfortunate battleground for the locals, but it is also a lesson that they were going to have to learn in time, regardless of when Hussein was removed from power. There was always the likelihood that outside forces would take sides or try to carve up the nation. So far, the population is willing to go forward as a nation - hopefully that will improve over the next few years. If not, then we will see three new countries or three new Lebanons.

Afghanistan is probably the bigger problem for NATO and the USA. We did not finish off the Taliban nor the war lords. It is a problem, and one that will probably exist for a few decades if we do put more forces into that theater.

Iraq? It's up to the Iraqi citizens. They have to step up at the leadership levels and make it work, or let it implode. I believe that we have already seen evidence that they do not want to let it slip into a full large scale civil war.

Iran? Well, that's another story. I'll save that, other than to say that we really have to keep an eye on them.

The long term benefits to the USA is (1) preservation of the independence of the GCC nations, (2) expansion of slow forming democratic initiatives in the Middle East and North Africa, and (3) not letting Russia or China have major control over any portion of the Middle East, other than the possible exception of Iran. Yes, both will have growing economic ties, but not military alliances that may come into active play in twenty years.

2. "What about the common defense is fostered by "staying the course" or to do with any of your questions?"

The common defense of the USA does not stop at our borders. The defense alliance relationship that the USA has with the GCC, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel is important much in the way that the NATO alliance is important.

Staying the course for a few more years, with a successive drawdown within 12-18 months, may work. If not, then we have to make a call to stay or go. Pulling out presents a few key risks in the Middle East and elsewhere.

My questions were built around the immediate or eventual exit strategy that will be exercised. All questions that have to worked through to avoid worse problems on the way out of the country.

3. My own Q&A: Would I have invaded in 2003?

No, but I would probably have had to act in some fashion by now. Simply, Hussein was coming out from under the UN mandates. And he would have presented major problems going forward. So, yes, I would have taken him out. Probably no later than a month ago. I would still have over a two year window to do whatever had to be done to pull Iraq back together had I not elected to use an occupation force. Would I have used an occupation force? No, I understood the lessons of Lawrence of Arabia. But Hussein would be gone. And Iraq might be in as big a mess if not a bigger one as a result of my plan.

There's more that I could share, but I believe this provides a general overview of what I observed.

[Movie Guy]

Our tactics on the ground are pretty good. Our troops fight very well.

If there are major problems within our reach of correcting, it has to do with our strategies.

I could identify a few changes, but based on email traffic from Iraq, Kuwait, and elsewhere, I'm not certain that the U.S. and Allied forces aren't doing it reasonably well at the field leadership and operations levels. There is plenty of real world news happening that is not working its way throw all of the loud filters. Always the case. Will be in the future, too.

I expect major withdrawals within 12-18 months, and further pullbacks to our three primary airbases that are located in isolated areas. Those bases are extremely well defended. And we never hear much at all about them, which is fine with me.

[Movie Guy]

This thread slowed down quite a bit, so I'm going to add a few posts that address ShockWave.

Related to our ongoing discussion.

[Movie Guy]

Securing America's Energy Future (SAFE)

SAFE's objectives, Oil ShockWave scenario simulations, and member participation are worth noting. The non-profit organization is based in Washington, D.C..

"The time has come for all CEOs and prominent members of the private sector to actively concern ourselves with the future of our oil dependent economy. We must speak out. Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) is playing a critical role in pushing the business community to the forefront of this economic and national security issue." - John H. Bryan, Retired Chairman and CEO, Sara Lee Corporation

The National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) is a sponsor of SAFE.

SAFE members include:

Robert M. Gates, former Director of Central Intelligence;
Richard N. Haass, former Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State;
General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), former Commandant of the Marine Corps, member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Don Nickles, former U.S. Senator;
Carol Browner, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
Gene B. Sperling, former National Economic Advisor;
Linda Stuntz, former Deputy Secretary of Energy;
Frank Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and;
R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence.

The National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) is a sponsor of SAFE.

-----

The National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP)

"NCEP is a bipartisan group of 16 of the nation's leading energy experts - was established in 2002 by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and its partners to develop a national energy plan to addresses concerns about oil security, adequacy of energy supplies, and the environment. The NCEP published a long-term energy strategy, "Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Needs," in December, 2004."

NCEP is a sponsor of SAFE.

NCEP Report, "Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges"
December 2004

149 page report. Nice interactive feature.

What Is the National Commission on Energy Policy?
August 1, 2005

This reference discusses the political backgrounds of many individuals associated with NCEP. Anyone who claims that NCEP is a pure rightwing organization is ill-informed. Whether there are any conservatives involved is not addressed by this author.

[Movie Guy]

The Oil ShockWave Scenario

What is Oil ShockWave?
Securing America's Energy Future (SAFE)

"Oil ShockWave is a scenario exercise developed by Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) and the National Commission on Energy Policy. In this half-day exercise, top former government officials take part in a series of Principals meetings of the Cabinet over a seven-month period in order to advise the President on how to respond to a series of events that affect world oil supplies. The event starts six months into the future in December 2005 to provide some distance from current events. ...The purpose of a simulation exercise is to provide participants and observers with an opportunity to think through simulated emergency situations--in this case involving oil supply disruptions--and to discuss solutions to problems posed as part of the scenario. The sponsors of this exercise have made every effort to ensure that the events portrayed are highly credible and realistic. Experts in the fields of national security, world oil production and distribution, and macroeconomics were drawn upon to develop and verify the authenticity and plausibility of all aspects of the scenario from the oil market disturbances to the impact on oil prices and the economy."

"The Oil ShockWave executive simulation will use sophisticated video and computer modeling where participants will assume cabinet-level roles, such as Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, in a dynamic, unscripted, real-time environment demonstrating the impacts of major disruptions in the world's oil supply. The event will feature three simulated global oil disruption events, with pre-produced breaking news reports and policy briefings."

[Movie Guy]

Oil ShockWave - Oil Crisis Executive Simulation of 23 June 2005

Participants prior knowledge:

"On June 23, 2005, a group of nine former White House cabinet and senior national security officials convened to participate in a simulated working group of a White House cabinet. Their task: to advise an American president as the nation grapples with an oil crisis over a seven-month period. As they enter the room, they are unaware of the circumstances or nature of the oil crisis." - NCEP

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Oil Crisis Executive Simulation - Background
SAFE

"The event, Oil ShockWave, will simulate a decline in world oil production due to instability and terrorism, consider likely economic and national security implications, and present the deliberations of a simulated US government cabinet-level meeting whose task is to advise the president regarding a national response. The event, spearheaded by Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), [took] place from 12:30 pm to 6:00 pm on Thursday, June 23rd at The Four Seasons Hotel in Washington. To ensure Oil ShockWave presented participants with a credible and realistic set of circumstances, the scenario included substantial input from former members of the oil industry, oil analysts and traders, former and current military officials, intelligence and national security experts, and other specialists. These individuals include David Frowd, former Head of Royal Dutch/Shell Upstream Strategy and Planning Department; and Rand Beers, former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism."

CNN Video Clip
ShockWave Crisis Simulation - 23 June 2005
4 minutes, 11 seconds / 10.4 MB

Fox Video Clip
ShockWave Crisis Simulation - 23 June 2005
Less than 4 minutes / 7.7 MB
or here

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Oil Crisis Executive Simulation - Results Summary
Statement released on 24 June 2005
NCEP

"The scenario removed only 3.5 million barrels of oil from a global market of more than 83 million barrels, resulting in the following consequences:

- Gasoline prices of $5.74 per gallon;
- Global oil price of $161 per barrel;
- Heating oil prices of $5.14 per gallon;
- Fall of gross domestic product for two consecutive quarters;
- Drop in consumer confidence by 30 percent;
- Spike in the consumer price index to 12.6 percent;
- Ballooning of the current accounts deficit to $1.087 trillion;
- Decline of 28 percent in the S&P 500;
- Aggressive pressure on the U.S. from China to end arm sales to Taiwan, and;
- Demands from Saudi Arabia for changes to U.S. policy regarding the Mid-East peace process."

Other key findings here.

"This simulation serves as a clear warning that even relatively small reductions in oil supply will result in tremendous national security and economic problems for the country," said SAFE President Robbie Diamond. "This issue deserves immediate attention."

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Oil Crisis Executive Simulation - Additional Statement related to Congressional testimony
Statement released on 6 September 2005
NCEP

"Oil Shockwave Report Finds Severe Economic and National Security Risks From Small Global Oil Supply Disruptions" ...Once oil supply disruptions occur, short-term options for protecting the U.S. economy are limited. In addition, these options are generally not sustainable for more than a few months to a year. ...U.S. foreign and military policy is influenced and often constrained by our oil dependence. Military options offer little recourse in the event of a supply crisis. Oil ShockWave participants repeatedly found that military intervention was not only unfeasible given existing U.S. commitments, but unlikely to be effective in responding to the scenarios they confronted, even when requested by a host government."

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Oil Crisis Executive Simulation - FULL REPORT (pdf)
NCEP
or here

"Consultations were held with oil traders and investment researchers to develop and/or verify the impact of simulation events on the price of crude oil. Special thanks to Neil McMahon Ph.D, a prominent Oil Analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, and his team for providing independent, in-depth analysis. Sanford Bernstein has subsequently issued a 27-page report that is available upon request."

The simulation full report is an excellent, brief read. It should be noted that many of the scenario conditions of 23 June 2005 were based on events which has since played out to various levels. This is indicative of realistic, forward looking intelligence estimates being applied to the ShockWave simulations.

[Movie Guy]

2006 SAFE/NCEP Activities

Oil ShockWave at Davos - January 26, 2006
SAFE

"Senior government decision makers and business leaders participated in the exercise - Oil ShockWave at Davos - as part of a closed-door session of the Forum's Industry Partners program."..."In Oil ShockWave at Davos, energy markets are destabilized by simultaneous terrorist attacks on key chokepoints in the global energy supply chain. As a result, oil prices rise to unprecedented levels, with experts projecting that prices will remain at historically high levels for the medium term. In response, G8 leaders establish a "CEO Advisory Board" tasked with recommending emergency measures and addressing strategic challenges."

Davos Forum news article - January 30, 2006

----

Business Leaders Roundtable on Oil Dependence
28 February 2006 in Washington, D.C
SAFE

The event was "co-Chaired by Frederick W. Smith (Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx Corp.), David A. Brandon (Chairman and CEO of Domino’s Pizza, Inc.), and Robert D. Hormats (Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International). General P.X. Kelley, the 28th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," moderated the discussion. The Roundtable was organized by Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE).

[Movie Guy]

Now, tie ShockWave back to U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East.

It falls into line as to why the USA is undertaking some of the actions that its government and corporate entities are pursuing.

[STS]

Movie Guy,

You were a bit unnecessarily rough on anne -- she's calling for withdrawal as a matter of policy. To her credit, she's quite willing to defer to competent military officers for proper planning and execution. That's a lot more than I can say for our President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense (to say nothing of various deputies) who have ridden rough-shod over sensible military advice that would have prevented all or much of our current difficulties.

If we take off the PNAC blinders for a moment, the residual value to the US of the whole sorry mess is probably the ring of new military bases which provide a force projection platform to ensure a stable oil supply -- which includes forstalling Russian control. Naturally, the project could never have been sold on that basis, nor should it have. But, as old fashioned realpolitik reasserts itself, I expect the military will be pulled back into those fortifications to watch the fireworks in comparative safety.

Iraq, having been cobbled together by empire and war, then held together by brutal dictatorship will now come apart like Yugoslavia did. We can help to facilitate negotiations and prop up some boundaries (as with the old 'no fly zone') and nudge the leading factions toward a settlement. As we do so, we have a choice to make about how many young American lives and bodies must be broken in the process -- but no choice at all about the outcome.

[Movie Guy]

Actually, I only asked questions of anne and everyone else who stay on message calling for an immediate withdrawal. If questions are too hard, then maybe some others should think about what has become of a society whereby we can no longer ask questions related to a stated position that someone has put forth not once, but many, many times.

Withdrawal, for you information, is not a military decision. Nor is its entire execution. The questions I raised are among those that this or a future Administration and Congress must address or we will repeat the errors of what occurred at the close of Viet Nam.

Many people believe that the South Viet Nam forces were simply defeated by the north. Well, there was much more as to what happened on that accord. I have a friend who was the last officer at the Embassy, along the CIA fellow who wrote the book. This retired now retired general, Ben Register, could shed a lot of light on what really happened. I enjoyed many candid conversations with him. Good man.

From all appearances, the U.S. population is on track to push for a repeat of our Southeast Asia withdrawal, with one exception - we want it immediately. As if those who call for that have really thought it through.

I'm not into PNAC, having tracked those guys since they originally formed.

I am, though, into common sense. Mob rule is what we are observing on a small scale in the streets of France and in the USA on matters dealing with employment rights and laws. Mob rule on exiting Iraq will destroy what little good standing the USA still has among its allies.

Anne is most assuredly a good person. I'm simply trying to help think this through. We can a quick withdrawal once we address many of those questions. If we're not willing to discuss those questions, then we're headed over the cliff on this one.

[Bruce Webb]

MG, I double posted, not sure how that happened but mea culpa. But the following is just a more verbose version of Bush's "Bring it on":

"If AQ flowed primarily into Pakistan and Iran, we were in trouble. In order to draw them out, we needed a neutral field. Whether by accident or intent, we have that in Iraq. And yes, it's not pretty. It was never going to be nice. Strategically, though, it has served as a focal point where we can cut the AQ and other ME dissident numbers. We have learned quite a bit about their level of fight, methods, and so forth. Learning curve adjustments, then respond. Tough campaign, but it was never going to be easy"

Assuming that the battle against AQ is just a zero-sum game, that our actions have not in fact created reactions that would not have occurred had we not invaded is something that needs to be demonstrated and not asserted. Someone decided that force protection meant that shooting up any car that accidentally got within 100 yards of a US convoy was okay or that dubious information that a particular house was 'known' to be used by some insurgent meant blowing it up even though it would be known to have innocent women and children in it was justified. We went into Iraq with a "shoot them all and let God sort them out" attitude. Which if Saddam actually had WMD and the intent to use them and some connection to 9/11might have been justifiable after the fact. But he didn't.

On the first day of the war we sent cruise missiles against a restaurant that we had information that Saddam and his sons would be visiting. And later it appears that we were almost right, we missed him by a matter of minutes. But they took a 13 year old girl out of the rubble in pieces. She was missing her head. Saddam may have been a monster but what exactly in our project to bring democracy to the Middle East justifies killing civilians out of hand and waving it away?

We bombed wedding parties and despite damning videos simply denied it. Hot dogging pilots flying far below where they were authorized saw some muzzle flashes and decided that was cause to roll in and drop bombs. On Canadian troops on an identified training range. This whole war has been waged with the belief that "9/11 changed everything" apparently including the Laws of War, the Geneva Convention, and simple logic itself.

But sorry for the double post, now THAT was inexcusable.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy,

Thanks for your lengthy replies.

It is, then, all about oil and hegemony.

I will google, but please post the title and ratification date of the treaty with the GCC.

Hegemony and extending "common defense" beyond the borders needs to be debated, like: let's declare war on the AQ ideological mess.

[STS]

Movie Guy,

By 'PNAC blinders' I meant the neo-con story about Democracy blossoming just because we removed a dictator. As if American democracy had arisen solely from some powder and shot expended at Lexington & Concord. These so-called policy experts (neo-cons) seem to have forgotten the thousand-odd years of Anglo-American history behind our present institutions.

I certainly wasn't identifying anyone on this thread as buying into PNAC thinking.

And to be sure, the policy level questions go deeper than "stay" or "go". But it generally takes a lot of harping on the sound-bite level of policy direction to get any action on the wonkier details.

Hard questions are definitely welcome here!

[Movie Guy]

Good points about clearing up 'PNAC Blinders'.

Thanks.