Libby's Code Word: Aspen
One of the things that Libby said in a memo to Miller related to the Aspens of Colorado.
There's been some speculation what, if anything, Libby meant by this reference to Aspens.
Some have speculated that this relates to the Aspen Institute in Colorado which mentions various operations.
We’re wondering if the actual reference isn't so much with the institute, but a specific report that Miller may have read when she had access to Libby's data. Recall, Miller stated she had some sort of classification.
Here's a sample of an Aspen Institute report, Aspen Institute referenced here, and a summary lecture.
We're not satisfied with Miller's response in that [a] her credibility is shot; and [b] more fundamentally, we don't know, for sure, what Libby was trying to communicate.
We’re wondering if Aspen is related to some other efforts which Libby and Miller were jointly engaged in the Aspen Institute:
Let's consider Miller's role in this entire Iraq-WMD: It was as a mouthpiece.
Was Libby, underestimating the backlash at Miller while she was in prison, thinking he could use Miller again as part of a ruse to go after Syria and Iran?
Let's consider the four topics which Libby mentioned in the letter:
Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program.
How do these stack up against the various reports which Libby, the Aspen institute, or people within the NSC published in re the ruse WMD efforts and PNAC?
What's caught my eye is that the referenced subjects are singular [Iranian program] and plural [elections; suicide bombers, not "insurgents"; and biological threats].
Both biological threats and Iranian program are inconsistent with the Aspen Institute: The forecast was either a general threat of WMD [plural biological] or a specific program in Iran [in contrast with the 2003 assertions that the Iraqis had specific WMD, not simply programs as later argued].
Libby's comments highlight what's changed after 2005 in light of the Downing Street Memo: The specific threat of WMD to a specific location is not a credible basis for war; rather, the White House fell back on the general argument of "WMD programs in Iraq".
Notice the phrase again:
Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program.Look at the commas.
Notice that the phrase isn't four elements, but actually three:
Iraq is broadly defined in terms of events that are subsequent to the issues related to Miller's jailing.
Of interest: Syria's not on the list, despite the US effort to pin the assassination on the Syrians.
If the US fails to persuade the UN to take action on the Melis report, is Syria being set up as the "biological threat" as was Iraq with WMD?
How is bird flu, pandemics, and military involvement in quarantines fitting in with this "biological" perspective?
Let's consider the note itself. There are three options:
There's a problem with all four of them. Why would Libby bother to write a code when he would later be able to talk to Miller directly?
Is it possible that the letter was simply what it was: A note made without knowledge what Fitzgerald knew about Cheney's notes?
Zuhair.
Ford's testimony from 2002 would have to be calibrated relative to what was said in re Iraq.
Was the 2002-Ford-information relied on for Iraq-related arguments; and would Ford's statements on Syria be under question in light of what we know about Iraq's actual status?
How does Ford fit in with Zuhair and Miller in terms of "sexing up the evidence" and "spinning the WMD angle" as we have seen in the Downing Street Memo?
Also, notice the dates in the Syria-related information: The dates bring back memories of the Number10 dossier: the information was old, valid at the time, but things had changed.
If Syria truly has a "threat", why was Iraq invaded first; and not go after Syria first? It's far easier to invade a "real threat" of Syria from NATO-ally-Turkey, than a bogus threat from the south of Iraq.
Conversely, how do these types of 1990's analysis compare with the Iraq situation in terms of
Putting aside the political pressure on the CIA analysts, if the existing contracting-based-system of analysis by US contractors to analyze data has been undermined, then we have to ask questions about the fundamental assumptions academics and non-government sources are using to assess the real threats posed by Syria.
There are two ends of the intelligence pipe: The analysts and the decision maker.
In the absence of a "cleaning house" [of not just the CIA, but this apparent disconnect between what was on the ground and what was in the report], then the same flawed system that was used to justify in the minds of the policymakers of lying to Congress is still in place.
Which brings us back to the relationship between the contractors, the Aspen institute, PNAC, and the Senior Executive Service supporting DoD, NSA, DoJ, and CIA.
The flawed nexus which existed prior to invading Iraq remains, ready for Fitzgerald to comb.
WE believe Libby intended the phrase to be an openly available comment which would see the light of day.
However, here's the key: The remarks were made without Libby's knowledge of what Fitzgerald did or didn't know; and were made with the expectation that Fitzgerald would not indict Libby; and that additional efforts could be employed to mobilize the nation to put pressure on nations other than Iraq.
However, Miller's jail release has muddied the waters in that Libby can no longer be confident he'll be part of the team that will move beyond Iraq.
It appears as though Libby's message was intended to simply signal that Libby wanted the existing relationship to continue: That the US would manipulate the media and public to venture beyond Iraq.
It appears Libby envisioned that Miller would only disclose what they had agreed in terms of "I forget" or "I can't remember" on the assumption that that would be an air-tight argument. Recall, Novak made a deal and hasn't gotten much scrutiny.
It appears as though Libby did not calculate that there would be something that would discredit both Miller and Libby's versions of what happened in re Plame.
Thus, we conclude based on the expectation that this memo is linked with anticipated continued work in re Syria and Iran, that Libby and Miller jointly agreed to confine their comments to a specific number of predetermined items that they assumed would be airtight.
This clearly fell apart when Libby and Miller were surprised with the Cheney written memo.
WE conclude that Libby and Miller are most likely going to be viewed by the Grand Jury as having been but a few of the players in a larger conspiracy to unlawfully take the United States into war, commit war crimes, and then retaliate against witnesses like Joseph Wilson for stating the truth.
Libby's message confirms that there was a set of agreements and discussions between Libby, Miller, and others related to a more expansive US role and cooperating between the US government and media in orchestrating Aspen Institute and PNAC objectives.
Unfortunately, this expected "post Jail cooperation" would not materialize once the NYT woke up to what was going on; and the public began to raise questions about Miller's credibility; and the fuller conspiracy was known.
WE conclude the Fitzgerald grand jury will expand its coverage and look into not only what has happened; but what is already underway as far as unfolding plans for Syria, Iraq, and North Korea.
The court would want to review not only actions in re Iraq, but how the subsequent contract efforts and plans developed by CIA and NSA contractors would fit in with this larger effort.
Most troubling to the court would be the apparent expectation by the White House that, despite no WMD, the country would continue to go along with foreign adventures more disconnected from lawful activity.
Thus, Able Danger is but one of the programs that Fitzgerald will review; and DoD has likely other ongoing operations in conjunction with MI5, MI6, and the NSA to fabricate additional propaganda and intimidate those who speak out, as they did with Wilson.
It appears Fitzgerald does have specific information from the intelligence community that not only looks back at what happened with Iraq, but what is already in the works in re Iran, Syria, and other to be discovered objectives.
The allegedly corrupt and criminal enterprise that Fitzgerald found in re Plame is not simply a retrospective look at data; rather, that system remains in place, and going forward, continues to issue contracts, review reports, and lay the ground work for other illegal adventures.
The scope of the Fitzgerald grand jury will go into the civilian contractors, the NSA files, and dig into the very nervous personnel who continue to wonder what they were really signing up for when they decided to be an analyst in a black program.
Congratulations: You have failed the Jack Anderson test. What you've done is now on the cover of the Washington Post, despite assurances by Libby and others in the White House that this would never see the light of day.
As always, know that although you may destroy the information, there remain records outside your control.
It is time to cooperate, or you will be indicted.
Choose wisely.
It is going to get far worse.
Given the likely reluctance from NSA and CIA to cooperate in identifying the ongoing analysis and propaganda efforts, we have taken the liberty to let the blogosphere know of the key phrases to look for:
Search term: Descriptive summary
These are the budgeting documents used in open sources to hide money. They are loaded in Congressional Staff packages.
You want to look for contractors who have been issued funding, but despite problems with execution of those funds, the money stays in that program element.
When you get your hands on the descriptive summary, your job is to start going down the IP-lists for those listed contractors.
Know that although an IP is publicly available, there are parameters within Google and other search engines that prevent some from showing up. You're going to have to use your workarounds on Google to find which contractor IP-data is available, which are blocked.
For example: DoJ's IP numbers, although they are publicly available are not searchable. You'll have to develop your own workarounds to figure out why this is done.
Here is a sample IP from DOJ that has problems with Google: 204.255.127.XXX This has the following designators: hostXX.fbi.gov
The digits after "host" match the last digits after 204.255.127.XXX, in the X.
Once you form a map of these IPs from the descriptive summary, you'll have to do what's called a relationship analysis, showing the patterns of communications between the NSA and CIA contractors.
This is not all that hard to do. The problem NSA and CIA have is that they don't realize that, despite their cloaking, all this data is publicly available and still open for your review.
You'll want to compare the traffic and message traffic times along the key program milestones within NSA and CIA black programs.
This isn't as hard to do as you think. Each time NSA and CIA have a program milestone in support of these unlawful efforts overseas, they still have to engage in message traffic. The spikes will give you indications as to which personnel, from which location, were involved in the meetings.
NSA may have already destroyed the data. But where you can find this is in the civilian cache files that are in violation of the NSA OPSEC requirements. All you have to do is find a single violation, then backtrack, and pull like a thread along each of the disconnects.
Before the NSA finally closes out a report, there is still data that is in violation. Your job is to find the data transmissions that were done just prior to the final resolution.
Even the testing messages will work; and if you go back to the old data prior to the formal program being in place, that will work just fine.
To find the NSA OPSEC violations, you need to look for the Defense Plant Representative visits for the site security managers. They have checklists that go over prior to contract award the status of these inspections.
Most likely the Auditors will have destroyed these files. However, know that Army CID, Air Force OSI, and the NAVY NCIS have files going back 25 years in DC warehouses and around the country.
Your job will be to find, by name, the specific program manager and program focal point who visited and was trained on the NSA OPSEC training. You can do this by looking for the Temporary Duty Travel [TDY] records available at the Columbus DFAS.
Once you get this list of personnel, all you have to do is start calling them back. Know that because they have made mistakes, and you will find them, that their stories are not going to add up, just as they did with the Plame-Libby-Miller mistakes.
Remember, all you have to do is find one error. Then the rest of it will come unglued.
The OPSEC inspection reports you can get from the plant representative will have information on when the files were destroyed; when the audit was done; any corrections that were made; and they type of testing done.
Also, you'll want to look for the program designation of PATE which stands for performance analysis testing and evaluation. This is the shadow contractor that follows the prime and ensures that there are no bugs in the original system.
The key isn't that the program was or wasn't under PATE. The key is to know that there is a second line of evidence, outside CIA and NSA control, that is already saved with a contractor, and they have a second set of eyes to review the coding in the original software.
The next step is to take these OPSEC errors, and then star piecing together the visits, who was involved, and start grinding down on them:
How were they informed of their authority
What rules were they given to follow on the legality of what they were doing
The game NSA and CIA play is that they have alot of pieces broken apart, and then these are brought together under the umbrella.
The goal of the grand jury is to follow the pieces from the errors, and find the central hub or overlaying organization.
This has since been disbanded; but all the people who were making these pieces still exist. All you have to do is follow these pieces like an Christmas Tree, from the roots, to the star at the top.
Libby doesn't know it, but he spilled the beans on how to find all the information needed to see who else is involved, what they did, and what orders they were following when they decided to make up things, and violate the laws of war and Geneva Conventions.
Good luck.
posted by Constant @ 7:58 PM
<< Home