Larry Johnson: CHENEY WAS Briefed By CIA On NIGER!!!

[kpete]

Dick Cheney Was Briefed by CIA on Niger
by
Larry C Johnson
................

Now here is the bullshit. The Republican led Senate Select Intelligence Committee claimed in July 2004 that:

The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service.


BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!! No. Unlike the DIA analyst, who accepted the report at face value, the CIA expressed skepticism and clearly conveyed that the information was suspect. Moreover, the CIA morning briefer gave this information to Vice President Cheney on Thursday morning, 14 February 2002.

Second, on Tuesday morning, 19 February 2002, the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division chaired an interagency meeting to discuss whether to send Ambassador Joe Wilson to Niger. As noted in a previous post (see Joe Wilson Vindicated), Joe even tried to talk them out of sending him but, as a good American, accepted the so-called boondoggle to Niger. And, when he returned, an intelligence report was generated.

Be sure of this, Dick Cheney was briefed on the results of Joe's trip. He may not have remembered the substance because the report based on debriefing Joe Wilson told a story that Dick Cheney did not want to hear. There is no way that a CIA Briefer, who knew of the Vice President's keen interest in the issue of Iraq, Niger, and uranium, would not present a piece of raw intelligence to the Vice President that addressed Cheney's question. In fact, the Vice President received the report on March 8, 2002 or March 9, 2002. Look for yourself. On page DX64.4 of the CIA memo, paragraph 6, we are informed that the CIA's Directorate of Operations widely disseminated the report and that the sensitive source, Joe Wilson, is highly reliable.

Cheney was given an intelligence report in response to his original query on 12 February, 2002. The report made clear that Niger was playing ball with the U.S. and was not about to even meet with Iraqis, much less sell them uranium. But Cheney and Bush had other plans. They were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what the intelligence said. But we now have a clear picture that the intelligence community was trying to tell them uncomfortable truths that Bush and Cheney did not want to hear. Just remember that as the U.S. death toll in Iraq continues to soar.

more at:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/dick_cheney_was.html#more

[bananarepublican]

1. "... republican-led 'Intelligence Committee'" ... what a hard to fathom combination of words! n/t

[orleans]

4. i believe it is called an oxymoran! n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. LOL! That is good. Republican intelligence; an oxymoran! ...n/t

[Richard Steele]

2. Not surprising at all, sadly. Recommended

[Imagevision]

3. More proof of Cheney fabricating intel to go to war, Cheney under oath will prove

to be interesting.

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. What difference will it make if you put a liar under oath?

He is a LIAR.

[bananarepublican]

13. But he and Bush made sure they didn't go under oath whilst giving 911 testimony!!! n/t

[Mister Ed]

23. But a liar who lies under oath is guilty of perjury - a felony

for which he could be impeached and jailed.

I remember a president who was put through impeachment proceedings for lying under oath. And that was just for lying about his personal life.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Actually, if he's charged with outing a covert CIA agent,

isn't it treason?

[Spiffarino]

51. He'll do like he did Blitzer & stare silently at the prosecutor

...until the silence becomes too uncomfortable and he withdraws the question.

Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side. :banghead:

[orleans]

5. put him under oath...put him under oath...hi ho the derry-o. put him under oath! (k&r) n/t

[Kurovski]

6. It...it...it...CAN'T BE.

Oh! Poor kindly old man Cheney! :cry: I surely do hope they treat him proper for a senior citizen, pray Jesus...he's sickly, 'ya know. :cry:

K&R.

[sandnsea]

9. Someone better alert the Clintons

Find out whether they still think it's all an oopsie-dasey little mistake.

Clinton, 8/04, Larry King, "I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think."

[babylonsister]

Great point! So much for the 'wise elder statesman'.

:eyes: I like Bill, but don't think he's w/o faults like some.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

22. Which Clinton do you think it is? We posted at exactly the same time, each naming

a different Clinton. :hi: MKJ

[babylonsister]

24. Ironic, that. I thought Bill obviously, but that quote could

be applied to both of them. I don't know! I'm not a Hillary fan; she still hasn't owned up to her IWR vote AFAIK, and that's just too chickenshit/political for me. If she has, I'd love to see a quote.
I don't like her swaying in the wind on the war, recent remarks acknowledged.

[sandnsea]

37. Oh, it's the Big Dawg

The day I said that he and his attitude towards Iraq was going to lose us the 2004 election. Their unwillingness to call that war a debacle sure as hell didn't help anything, and still isn't.

[babylonsister]

41. That's what I figured; thanks for the confirmation. nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

21. HRC blowing with the wind. I really like her, but either she didn't or wouldn't address the profound

implications of those words' inclusion in the SOTU, which sets my teeth on edge.

She would do well to rely on Bill or someone else she trusts to do the "big picture" thing. MKJ

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. k(pete)nr! ...n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

11. When does Cheney report to the Prettyman courthouse?

:kick:

[napi21]

12. This does not surprise me at all! Ever since this BS first started,

I believed the CIA had reported back to Cheney after Wilson's trip. I understand this admin. is disorganised, but the CIA has been in place for a long time, and there's just no way that a request for info from a senior official of the WH would not be handled and they would have reported their findings back to that official!

[Usrename]

14. So far, Cheney has proven to be very unreliable in his account.

Cheney claims to have received some intel about yellow-cake from Niger from some source, and this had occured more than a year before the invasion, but he had been prevented from publicly making the claim about yellow-cake. During this intervening year or more, the CIA had tried to shoot this story down on many, many, many occasions because it was complete and total crap.

On one occasion (February 13, 2002, I think) the CIA, once again, in a face-to-face briefing of the VP, told him the yellow-cake story was crap and, once again, he did not readily accept this intel. He requested that they do some more digging. This, according to most all accounts, is what prompted the CIA to send Wilson.

The CIA prepared a contemporaneous briefing memo to this effect on February 14, 2002, telling of their plans to send Wilson, although not mentioning him by name (unless they mention his name in the redacted portions of the briefing memo).

PDF Warning:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan24/DX66.pdf

Wilson’s story, that the White House was twisting intel is born out by a lot of things, including the fact that Tenet never memo’ed the VP about Wilson’s trip. I think it was understood that the VP’s office did not want anyone to produce any evidence to them that might show they were wrong about WMDs.

There is a background paper that was prepared on April 3, 2003 (long before Wilson’s op ed piece) that says Wilson’s report was disseminated to the intel community and was deemed highly reliable. And yet Tenet claims he never told Cheney that the yellow-cake story was bogus. (He got one of those Medal of Freedom awards, you know, for a job well done.)

PDF Warning:
paragraph 6 in the memo http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan24/DX64.pdf

According to the cover sheet, this background paper was not promulgated to Cheney’s office until June 9, 2003; this was a month before Wilson ever wrote his op ed piece in the NYT “What I Didn't Find in Africa.“

Cheney later went on "Meet the Press" and pretended to be clueless about Wilson.

.

[speedoo]

15. OK, we've all known that Cheney has lied in public many, many times.

This certainly confirms that.

The question I have is this: did Cheney lie to the FBI and/or the Grand Jury as well on this point?

If he did, and if Fitz has the testimony of the CIA briefer, then we can expect a perjury indictment vs. Cheney.

Anyone disagree?

[WinkyDink]

16. Cheney will lie under oath, as sure as I'm typing here. I have zero doubt.

[Disturbed]

17. It is the Duty of Congress to Impeach VP Cheney!

Will they do so?

[SemperEadem]

39. and if he could put a bullet in Fitz's head and walk over his body

he would. He is a dangerous man.

[berni_mccoy]

18. K&R!

[H2O Man]

19. It seems that if

VP Cheney does take the stand, Mr. Fitzgerald can easily expose him in a number of areas:

1- Cheney asked the Agency about Niger.
2- Cheney was informed of the results.
3- Cheney ignored the results, and promoted a lie.
4- Cheney was the quarterback in the attack on Wilson.

At this point, I am wondering if Cheney will even take the stand.

[DemReadingDU]

26. Jeralyn at TalkLeft discusses whether Cheney will testify

Doubts are growing in the blogosphere that Dick Cheney will in fact be a witness for Scooter Libby at his trial.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/3/1503/80842

Also Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) dicusses too
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcy-wheeler/collective-forgetting-in-_b_40340.html



edit to add Marcy's cross postings
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/2/20312/88006

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/02/libby_trial_col.html

[H2O Man]

27. Right.

There is a lot going on this weekend.

[zippy890]

30. can Cheney be subpoenaed by Fitzgerald?

to testify at this point in the trial?

seems to me cheney is the key guy here, all arrows are pointing to him
and he should be forced to answer some pertinent questions.

[H2O Man]

32. He could have,

but chose not to in the Libby trial. The prosecution did not require Cheney's testimony to make their case that Libby lied to the FBI investigators and the grand jury. It was Libby's defense attorneys who, after having their proposed "memory expert" humiliated by Mr. Fitzgerald in a pretrial hearing and rejected by Judge Walton, made the decision to subpoena Cheney.

The trial testimony indeed shows that Cheney was the quarterback calling the plays in the operation against Joseph and Valerie Wilson. I hope that Mr. Fitzgerald will consider the options for charging VP Cheney after Libby is either convicted by the jury, or accepts a plea deal.

[zippy890]

35. the charges against Cheney

that Fitzgerald could go forward with would be breaking the law against knowingly leaking a covert agents identity?

thanks for you info- always enlightening

[halobeam]

28. If he takes the stand it's over. I don't believe he will EVER take the stand.

I don't wonder anymore. I don't believe he will. How can he? I've read everyone of your excellent Plame threads and there are many reasons stated what would happen to him if he did. I haven't read Marcy's (emptywheel) article on why Cheney may not take the stand, but thats my next stop. I don't think Cheney can help Libby, rather he can hurt him. They won't call him. Of course this is IMO. To take this one step further, if enough information came out during the trial that Fitz was able to put together pieces (re: the GJ trial,) and testimony given in the Libby case gave him what he needed to further pursue the GJ trial... then Rove and Cheney could have a not so pleasant future ahead of them. That's the only chance I see of getting Cheney (beside the wonderful Congressional Hearings that may very well take place).

[H2O Man]

34. I think that

there is a heck of a lot going on in Washington this weekend, just beneath the surface. I do not believe that Cheney's testifying would help Libby, and it surely would not help either Dick Cheney or the Bush administration.

[halobeam]

49. What would be their best alternate to Cheney's testimony, if there needs to be one at all?

Would they call Cheney even though they know this would completely cream him, and that in itself might shine a better light on Libby (showing the insurmountable pressure Libby was under (not to mention sleezoid boss he worked for)?

[malaise]

20. Cheney and Bush lied

Treason and high crimes!!!! IMPEACH!

[Igel]

42. Johnson wasn't there.

His statement is equivalent to "I can't believe they weren't briefed."

Perhaps he's relying on his knowledge of SOP. But it's an assertion of belief based on an inference.

[H2O Man]

43. Nope.

It's based upon testimony from Libby's trial.

[Igel]

48. Cool.

Got a link?

[H2O Man]

54. Sure do.

I linked it yesterday. You can go to Blumenthal's 2-1-07 essay on Salon. The last sentence in paragraph six is what you're looking for; you might enjoy the entire article.

[mmonk]

25. At some point, the people are going to have to learn of the OSP.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

29. Meanwhile, we many never know how many died for this.

Aside from the all too tragice 3089 servicemen and 600,000 Iraqis, who in the clandestine service were compromised and sacrificed. Plame's people, their contacts in other countries, innocent people who had no idea who B&J really were and dealt with them only superficially.

All for the egos of those who wished to wage a war that need not have happened.


IS IT FUCKING TREASON YET????????

[mod mom]

31. I only hope someone acts upon this before they start another way for distraction!

[Lerkfish]

36. too late, I fear. I think the third war has already started.

all the pieces are moving to the chessboard, and as we've seen, once the chimperor does that, he does not change his mind.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. And the dreadfully maimed in mind and body, and the orphaned and widowed.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. Now Cheney either has to plead the 5th, LIE under oath or tell the TRUTH under oath.

NONE of these options bode well for the asshole. Will he NOW be IMPEACHED or will he be urged to step down and save the country from an Impeachment trial...you know, "end our National NIGHTMARE"..."Move the country forward", as repukes like to say.

on edit: The other option is the defense attorney will not call the rat bastard to testify. Will they not call Cheney?

[SemperEadem]

40. impeach Cheney first

the idea of him being able to sniff the presidency any harder than he already is is a frightening concept.

Cheney is up to his eyeballs in impeachable offenses--and his "I dont' have to answer your questions" tack ain't going to play any further. As has been proven by Nixon's impeachment, a vp is certainly not above the law if a president isn't, eff what he heard.

I don't think Gonzales can fire enough prosecutors in order to save Cheney's ass. In fact, Gonzales needs to have a spot light turned on his butt, too.

[MasonJar]

44. I personally doubt that Cheney will go under oath unless he has

to because even though Darth would have zero compunction about lying under oath (which I understand is done all the time), there may be such strong evidence of his prevarication that he dare not risk it. That said, aside from the "moran"-in-chief himself there is noone as arrogant as Dick.

[bleever]

46. Thank you, Larry Johnson.

It's a super Sunday indeed. Too bad the defense is pathetic and badly outmatched.

[IWantAChange]

47. This peek under the tent into what really happened during the buildup to war

IF given the amount of coverage it deserves - most notably because of the enormity of subsequent events - has to be seized by the DNC and used to maximum advantage.

[proud patriot]

50. k and r

[Jeffersons Ghost]

52. K&R

[bonito]

53. K&R