Whoa. What else can we expect to find out?

[whometense]

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070211/ENT19/702110361

'America at Night' reveals seamy side of politics
Author details plot to sabotage John Kerry's presidential bid

Originally posted on February 11, 2007


It sounds like tabloid flapdoodle: Two rogue CIA agents plot to sabotage John Kerry's presidential bid by implicating campaign treasurer Robert Farmer in al-Qaida money laundering and secret communications.

But when the tale is being told by a former CIA operative named Larry J. Kolb, writing from a safe house on an undisclosed Florida beach, and features annotations that comprise a fifth of the book, even a doubting Thomas wants a closer look.

From its opening line ("Unfortunately, this is a true story"), Kolb's riveting "America at Night" (Riverhead, $26.95) takes us inside the covert world of political dirty tricks for a look at one that might have destroyed the Kerry campaign...


In 2004, Kolb had retired from the CIA and blown his own cover with a memoir, "Overworld: The Life and Times of a Reluctant Spy." One day over lunch, a buddy asked what he knew of a onetime operative named Robert Sensi and a mysterious figure named Richard Marshall (nee Hirschfeld). Kolb recalled the two as having been involved in political dirty tricks.

Intrigued, Kolb dove into boxes of old case files and combed the Internet to discover a conspiracy he says reaches to the highest levels of the Republican administration.

Kolb is well aware how outrageous his tale seems.

"It's a story that, if it weren't provable in the public record, I would tend to doubt," he admits. "First of all, I lived it so I know it's true, and secondly, that's why I put in a really extensive bibliography and notes section, so people can see for themselves."

Kolb divulged the plot he'd uncovered to the Kerry camp just as the Swift Boat smear campaign was making headlines. The senator faced the same dilemma in both: Should he dignify the attacks with a strong response, or take the high road and trust the American public to see through them?

The day after he spilled the beans, Kolb suddenly discovered he had a shadow...

The book: http://www.amazon.com/America-Night-Operatives-Presidential-Election/dp/1594489009/sr=8-1/qid=1171257724/ref=sr_1_1/104-9811707-4707966?ie=UTF8&s=books

[whometense]

1. This stuff can make a person very dizzy.

More on Richard Marshall Hirschfeld. There are seven chapters to the story at that link.

Robert Sensi. EVERYTHING connects back to Iran/Contra: http://www.amazon.com/Mafia-CIA-George-Bush/dp/1561712035


Boy, my :tinfoilhat: feels mighty snug this morning.

[_dynamicdems]

2. Unbelievable.

Nothing would surprise me anymore though. It's like lifting up a rock and staring at the disgusting, slimy things as they squirm away from the light.

[deutsey]

3. I'm readin The Pinochet File now and the CIA used these tactics in Chile

I think we're all deluded if we don't acknowledge that they're doing the same stuff here in America now.

Anyone remember Charles Kane, not from the classic movie but from Florida 2000?

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121400/Election2000/10_reasons_why_Al_Gor.shtml

[nashville_brook]

4. Repubs use the CIA to carry out DIRTY TRICKS?

that's fairly sensational.

Robert Parry has written about the Bush Admin being the continuation of Nixon's. I remember being shocked when I read this years ago. Nothing shocks me anymore.

[Capn Sunshine]

35. Not exactly

It's done at the behest of corporate interests who have a stake in the outcome, the republicans are just hugely friendly to that. Moreso than the Dems, who are not simon-pure in all this.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. What are the legal remedies?

If true, Kerry should go after them civilly. Make it public and nasty. Walking away like a gentleman will not put a stop to this. Someone with a prosecutor's background, would know this.

[mzmolly]

7. Agreed.

I hope he will pursue this in the courts.

[Lone_Wolf]

11. There's not enough oversight on the CIA

Things like this are inevitable with the amount of secrecy they are allowed to operate in.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Sounds like Al Qaeda is more united in their purpose than our CIA is!

[Lone_Wolf]

22. Historically, the CIA has been against progressives...

Inside this country and out.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Maybe it's time they realize that their cure is worse than the disease.

It's like they're choking the life out of this country, making us even more vulnerable than we were before.

[lala_rawraw]

57. funny how two crooks

no longer tied to the CIA can identify an Al Qaeda finance ring... DHS? Not so much. Odd

[sofa king]

66. Makes you wonder who else is being financed by al Qaeda, don't it?

[cadmium]

54. I wish -- right now it is the war front and center.

Someone should pick up on this. Kerry is going to focus on the war and the environment for the forseeable future I think-mostly the war.

[EVDebs]

6. Don't the R's have offshoring, outsourcing, privatizing ability

and can't they access anyone's information via the Bahama's based Global Information Group Ltd's and ChoicePoint's databases ? Just asking. The data on you and me is already out there. Republicans already have this power over Democrats. And a Congress that allows it to take place...

[Doctor_J]

8. Don't think it stops there either

The NSA, FBI, CIA, are all extremely partisan (remember Louis Freeh lokking into Clinton's sex life while Osama was plotting 9/11?). We are also now saddled with GOP courts, school boards, and local governments. Horowitz and Lynn Cheney have loose networks of students who terrorize teachers who don't preach the right-wing line.

Fascism, anyone?

[blm]

9. In many states the GOPs own the courts. It will take a DECADE to even catch up

and that means a solid decade of progressive Dem action. I don't think we'll get far if it's corporatist, appeasing Dems in charge - they only manage to put a friendly face on the fascism and cotinue the covering up for BushInc.

[FormerDittoHead]

10. "The enemy is us". We should be mindful that the fight isn't over the day after the election. n/t

[Tellurian]

19. Amazing..just a week ago some Kerry supporters had Kerry convinced it was CLINTON!!!

the scifi-conspiracists had Kerry a nervous wreck. To the point of having someone post a thread here asking for evidence pointing to the Clinton's sabotaging his 06'campaign. As claimed and attested to by his loyalists.

These posters are the bane and major destroyers of democrats. They have no idea what they are doing but they make it an issue of self importance that THEY have figured out why Kerry's campaign failed. They have the knowledge and wisdom (no evidence except some rumored Carville schtick) to lead, as I've said before, their sheeple over the edge of a cliff!

[blm]

21. I see the shuttle is still flying. The Clintons did their bit by NOT SUPPORTING Kerry on

crucial matters like Tora Bora and Abu Ghraib and Rumsfled's firing. As the LAST Dem president and current NY senator, the Clintons PUBLICALLY sided more with Bush than they did with Kerry on military matters throughout 2003 and 2004.

And there is good reason the Clintons would prefer Bush2 in office than John Kerry - Kerry is an open government Democrat who would seek to open books on BushInc that Bill chose to ignore when he took office.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[Tellurian]

26. BLAH, BLAH ,BLAH... don't forget your parachute! nm

[blm]

30. Tora Bora, Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld's firing = Silence. Supporting Bush on Iraq = Very public.

That's how the Clintons handled the 2004 election cycle.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Silence? Hardly.

Only Congress can hold the administration accountable and begin to repair the damage to American values and America's image caused by the mistreatment of prisoners. Republican and Democratic senators - like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin - have tried hard to investigate prisoner abuse. But Republican leaders have ignored the issue. Senator John Kerry never even raised it during the campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1201-20.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called Thursday for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she said was a ``failed policy'' in Iraq.

``I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late,'' the New York Democrat told the Associated Press. ``I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation.''

Clinton confronted Rumsfeld directly on Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in the day, and said his answers left her convinced he should go.

``The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people. It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world.''
http://wizbangblog.com/2006/08/03/hillary-clinton-calls-for-donald-rumsfelds-resignation.php

CBS: "Has the country done enough, with the fighting in Afghanistan that has re-escalated. The Taliban has reconstituted itself in numbers even greater than before. How can that be five years later?"

Clinton: "We took our eye off the ball. We diverted resources and attention to Iraq and we didn't finish the job. That, to me, is one of the great missed opportunities"

http://newsbusters.org/node/7534

[Tellurian]

36. Excellent, AK...

that certainly puts the Kerry myth as champions of the past into serious contention with things going on presently!

Thanks for posting the information!


more hearts-

:loveya:

[blm]

38. Check the dates on those articles. Hillary was silent BEFORE the election when those

issues were part of Kerry's campaign. THAT is how Hillary and Bill show their support to other Democrats who spent YEARS supporting them.

[AtomicKitten]

40. pretzel logic

must be painful

[blm]

42. HAHAH...if you could change the dates of your articles you'd have a case. But you can't

so you don't.

[AtomicKitten]

43. whatever you say, blm

You've been proved wrong and can't muster the grace to just accept it.

Speaks volumes.

[blm]

47. Your DATES prove me 100% correct. I will post what I said EXACTLY -

The Clintons did their bit by NOT SUPPORTING Kerry on

Edited on Mon Feb-12-07 02:21 PM by blm
crucial matters like Tora Bora and Abu Ghraib and Rumsfled's firing. As the LAST Dem president and current NY senator, the Clintons PUBLICALLY sided more with Bush than they did with Kerry on military matters throughout 2003 and 2004.

And there is good reason the Clintons would prefer Bush2 in office than John Kerry - Kerry is an open government Democrat who would seek to open books on BushInc that Bill chose to ignore when he took office.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Your dates PROVE that Hillary spoke out only AFTER the 2004 election and provided NO BACKUP to Kerry as he was making all of these serious matters part of his opposition to Bush as the Dem NOMINEE.

[AtomicKitten]

48. It was KERRY that was silent about Abu Ghraib before the election - Not HRC

You should be embarrassed at having to be corrected TWICE on this issue.

Perhaps if your rhetoric wasn't so scorched earth, you might be right once in a while.

Only Congress can hold the administration accountable and begin to repair the damage to American values and America's image caused by the mistreatment of prisoners. Republican and Democratic senators - like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin - have tried hard to investigate prisoner abuse. But Republican leaders have ignored the issue. Senator John Kerry never even raised it during the campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1201-20.htm

[blm]

50. NYT editorial was incorrect- The 2nd time Kerry called for Rumsfeld's firing was over Abu Ghraib

and why didn't YOU know that when it happened?


Were you not paying attention to this issue back then?

And did you forget that Hillary Clinton wouldn't back Kerry up on any of those issues even when he was the nominee? Not Tora Bora, not Abu Ghraib, and not Rumsfeld's firing.

[AtomicKitten]

67. Why didn't Kerry back up others trying to investigate?

Keep stepping on the necks of other politicians in your effort to deify Kerry, and you will keep getting back information that disputes your claim. Others were working on it, it was Kerry that didn't use the bully pulpit when he had the chance during the election to support investigating prisoner abuse. Mentioning it once or twice doesn't count.

Only Congress can hold the administration accountable and begin to repair the damage to American values and America's image caused by the mistreatment of prisoners. Republican and Democratic senators - like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin - have tried hard to investigate prisoner abuse. But Republican leaders have ignored the issue. Senator John Kerry never even raised it during the campaign.

Congress should demand that the Central Intelligence Agency stop stonewalling on the release of its inspector general's report on the role of intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib. During confirmation hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee should press Mr. Gonzales about why he signed off on two legal opinions that justified torture and claimed that Mr. Bush could suspend the Geneva Conventions whenever he liked. They should ask what he intends to do about fixing the problem.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1201-20.htm

[ProSense]

51. I think you and the NYT editorial board are mistaken

From The New York Times:

Kerry Renews Call for Rumsfeld to Resign

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: August 25, 2004

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Wednesday renewed his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign and urged President Bush to appoint an independent investigation to provide reforms after a report faulted all levels of the military for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

"It's not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility," Kerry said at a Philadelphia union hall. "The buck doesn't stop at the Pentagon."

Snip...

Kerry said an independent investigation should review the decision-making process that led to the abuses and provide comprehensive reforms to ensure abuses do not recur.

more...

I wonder if the NYT editorial board reads the NYT?

Kerry initially called for Rumsfeld's resignation in September 2003.

Wasn't sure if you saw the other post!

[autorank]

68. Some one asking for dates. Here are the dates on those links

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/08/03/hillary-clinton-calls-for-donald-rumsfelds-resignation.php 3 August 2006

http://newsbusters.org/node/7534 11 Sept 2006


...All after November 2005

The general inability of anyone to really get what's going on is exemplified by the failure to
repeal The Patriot Act, the legislation that threw out habeas corpus, and the Bush tax cuts.

Those are all anti Constitutional bills, two surrender rights that took over 1000 years to establish
and the tax cuts are a fraud - they present a benefit when any reasonable person knows they're nothing
but an anti-American effort to break the back of our economy for decades.

We can't get a debate on Iraq in the Senate. That about says it all.

On edit: editing;)

[autorank]

69. Happy to modify my comment on the current activity, very happy.

Dodd & Menendez - Excellent!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x193521

[suziedemocrat]

55. he/she hasn't been proved wrong - he is talking about BEFORE the election. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

70. two of three of my links were post election

That is true. However, the first commondreams one was in 2004 and was a postmortem analysis of how others were trying to investigate Abu Ghraib and Kerry did not use the bully pulpit during the campaign to aid in that endeavor. Apparently some can point to him mentioning it peripherally with regard to Rumsfeld, but it was generally felt he didn't address the issue of torture and rendition during his campaign.

That is the crux of difference of opinion between those that support Kerry no matter what and others like myself that wish he had run a real anticorruption/open government campaign (ironic, isn't it?) and blown the lid off all that was going down then. But he chose not to, chose to gloss over issues at best, and run a military-themed, happy talk campaign.

I have a problem with people that frame issues inaccurately to try to paint another in a favorable light, particularly when they step on the necks of other politicians to do so.

If I have the time (or inclination) to research the other two accusations, the two links rejected here because they are post election, I will, but I claim the issue of Abu Ghraib in dispute.

[blm]

37. In 2003 and 2004 BEFORE the election, Hillary wouldn't back Kerry up on those issues.

She waited till AFTER the election and even later on Rumsfeld when even Republicans were saying he had to go.

Yeah - check your dates on those articles. When you find Hillary's words backing Kerry up on Tora Bora and Rumsfled's firing when HE was the party's nominee, then please post them.

[AtomicKitten]

39. ***

[blm]

41. Heh, your dates proved my point - Clintons silent BEFORE 2004 election and waited

till AFTER the election before they would break in any small way with Bush on Iraq.

[AtomicKitten]

44. you said she was silent -- you were wrong

re-phrasing your original allegation doesn't count

but thanks for playing
drive through

[blm]

46. my original statement was about the 2004 election cycle. Tora Bora was an issue in

the beginning of 2002, and Hillary wouldn't back up Kerry on it no matter how many times since early 2002 he mentioned it, which was another clear line of attack she refused to join. Same with Abu Ghraib and firing Rumsfled.

That is NOT doing her job as senator or as part of the Dem team working together before a crucial election.

What I said EXACTLY that you won't admit to:

The Clintons did their bit by NOT SUPPORTING Kerry on

Edited on Mon Feb-12-07 02:21 PM by blm
crucial matters like Tora Bora and Abu Ghraib and Rumsfled's firing. As the LAST Dem president and current NY senator, the Clintons PUBLICALLY sided more with Bush than they did with Kerry on military matters throughout 2003 and 2004.

And there is good reason the Clintons would prefer Bush2 in office than John Kerry - Kerry is an open government Democrat who would seek to open books on BushInc that Bill chose to ignore when he took office.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[AtomicKitten]

49. Kerry lost in 2004 because of Kerry.

As much as you try to blame the Clintons and now the CIA, Kerry lost because he did not fight back against the Swift Boat Liars, because he insisted there only be happy talk during the Democratic Convention, and because he walked away after the election and didn't fight for the vote like he promised.

All the rest of the crap you offer up as blaming is pathetic spin.

[blm]

52. In other words - you KNOW Hillary didn't give crucial backup to Kerry on serious matters

but you choose to pretend that only Kerry is an island. No one else is supposed to fight WITH him during an election cycle - unlike ALL of those who fought for Bill in 92. Ever wonder what Dem VETERANS came to speak out FOR Bill Clinton when he was being attacked as a draft dodger and did so throughout the 92 campaign?

[AtomicKitten]

61. and you choose to treat Kerry

like he is your retarded 6-year-old child .... Kerry didn't defend himself against the Swift Boat Liars; what makes you think people wanted a president that exhibited that kind of passivity and weakness? That's his own damn fault and you can keep blaming everyone and everything under the sun and it does change that fact.

[ProSense]

45. I think the NYT editorial board is mistaken

From The New York Times:

Kerry Renews Call for Rumsfeld to Resign

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: August 25, 2004

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Wednesday renewed his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign and urged President Bush to appoint an independent investigation to provide reforms after a report faulted all levels of the military for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

"It's not just the little person at the bottom who ought to pay the price of responsibility," Kerry said at a Philadelphia union hall. "The buck doesn't stop at the Pentagon."

Snip...

Kerry said an independent investigation should review the decision-making process that led to the abuses and provide comprehensive reforms to ensure abuses do not recur.

more...

I wonder if the NYT editorial board reads the NYT?

Kerry initially called for Rumsfeld's resignation in September 2003.

[beachmom]

59. Stop stereotyping! There is no "Kerry supporter" agenda aimed

at the Clintons, so I suggest you stop saying that. Immediately. Because it is utter BS. Senator Kerry has said nothing about the 2008 primaries himself and there are only individuals here on DU who have varying opinions. And since you are not allowed to call out individual DU members, looks like you're stuck having to answer to the merits of the issues at hand.

[_dynamicdems]

62. Amazing, isn't it?

An agenda, huh? Whew! This is almost funny. Sometimes I wonder what some people are smoking in here.

There is no agenda to stop Hillary on the part of Kerry supporters: many (not even all) of us simply don't like her and won't vote for her. Somehow that becomes an "agenda" for all Kerry supporters. People who are looking for conspiracies should look to the oval office and not at other Democrats.

Personally, I don't think anyone has to take Hillary down. She seems to be doing a pretty good job of that all by herself. Obama is helping. He's turning out to be a lot tougher than people thought he'd be.

[AtomicKitten]

64. We would take that seriously

... if it weren't for the fact that your group posts your agenda elsewhere on DU. I wonder if it occurs to you that this is an open, public message board and EVERYTHING you post is read by DU'ers and all kinds of other people and groups collecting data.

By all means, continue to deny it. Some people thinks it's funny; I find it just absurd.

[Joanne98]

32. I just ordered American Fascists....The Christian Right and the

war on America. Just keep fighting. Maybe someday will will get some leaders with the balls to destroy them.

[ellie]

12. Even if a smidgen

of this is true, it is time to de-fund and dismantle the CIA. And
de-fund and dismantle the FBI too while we are at it.

[blm]

13. This is CIA loyalists to BushInc. There were agents loyal to America who were

also getting info to Kerry's camp. Bush had Goss purge any agents suspected of supporting Kerry in Dec 2004.

Too bad the good guys didn't have agents who knew about the voting machines.

[beachmom]

14. I'm speechless. nt

[ProSense]

23. Me too. n/t

[emulatorloo]

16. kick and rec n/t

[Straight Shooter]

17. I believe Kerry will always be a target because he brought down BCCI.

All these crooks have interwoven schemes. Doing the right thing can carry a very heavy price. :(

[whometense]

25. Exactly right.

A very heavy price. I don't think for a second that Kerry has ever been unaware of this.

[blm]

29. Look at almost everything happening today - all rooted heavily in IranContra and BCCI.

Even the outing of Plame has become another tentacle.

[iilana X]

53. They are also still up to no good.

Kerry will be a target as long as they have something to hide.

Can you believe there are certain factions in this country who think Oliver North is a hero. Ugh.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. NSA wiretapping has never been investigated

It's fallen into the same black hole as the other crimes. Meanwhile, Bushetals just plow ahead with fury.

[JNelson6563]

20. Wow!

K&R! :toast:

[crispini]

27. Wooooah. K&R

[AtomicKitten]

28. Last week it was the Clintons whodonit.

Stay tuned.

[Joanne98]

31. CIA Bush bots. We need to disinfect the country.

[_dynamicdems]

63. It is so creepy, it's almost surreal.

This is like the plot of a novel: political conspiracy, intrigue, corruption.

Unfortunatly, it's not a novel, it's our government.

We're effing infested.

[melody]

34. We're no longer one country when this shit is happening

I don't know why we don't just split the blanket and make it official.

Oh, that's right, because the Republicans couldn't afford squat without California and a handful of other blue states.

[lala_rawraw]

56. Interesting ties to Bush and Saudi royals

"A gregarious man of charm and persuasion, Mr. Hirschfeld had many acquaintances in high places, including Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, entertainer Kenny Rogers and members of the Saudi royal family. At the Republican National Convention in 1988, Mr. Hirschfeld and Ali sat behind Barbara Bush as George H.W. Bush delivered his acceptance speech for the presidential nomination."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5384-2005Jan12.html

[whometense]

71. Yikes.

Thanks for that info.

A gregarious man of charm and persuasion, Mr. Hirschfeld had many acquaintances in high places, including Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, entertainer Kenny Rogers and members of the Saudi royal family. At the Republican National Convention in 1988, Mr. Hirschfeld and Ali sat behind Barbara Bush as George H.W. Bush delivered his acceptance speech for the presidential nomination.

[Canuckistanian]

58. One thing I don't understand..

Why would the CIA do this to Kerry? Bush and his finger-pointing directly implicated the CIA in the "lack of intel" during 9/11. Also the "failed intelligence" in the run-up to war in Iraq.

WHY would any CIA agent help these bastards?

[_dynamicdems]

65. It's like one of those Clancy novels, isn't it?

Too bad it is actually our government.

I don't think the CIA is corrupt, but I think there are Bush loyalists in every facet of our government. The tentacles are far-reaching. CIA agents are just people and people are both good and bad. So are presidents.

[blm]

72. There are two factions - CIA loyal to America and CIA loyal to BFEE who have been

working under George Bush 1 for 3 or 4 decades by now.

[dk2]

60. well, this is all news but should it suprise

anyone, and to think usually if you get some information, it really is only the tip of the possible iceberg. Will we ever know for sure all the things that were in play in 2000 and 2004?

[blm]

73. Thanks for including 2000 - I believe Gore was not going to be allowed in office, either.

I don't think he would have been as accomodating to the BFEE as Clinton was.