Cheney Memos: Then and Now
As you review this information, we're asked to believe that one man -- the Vice President -- commented on the same documents.
For this discussion, pretend the documents were written sequentially by someone who is very detail oriented, has a good memory, and would well remember legal lessons, and develop solutions for the next round of challenges.
Ref Cheney is well known for his delusional rewriting of reality.
24 Feb 2007: After Cheney failed to blame Pelosi for Iraq, the Speaker is well positioned to strike a fatal political blow -- here's how. ] Let the Speaker know your thoughts.
Ref: Confirmation -- US Govt funding, through executive order and not approved by Congress, flows to insurgents.
Ref If there was "no problem" with Plame related outing, why Libby's alleged inconsistences to invstigators?
Pattern of Conduct
High level use of official resources for non-offical, unawful purposes.
Contrast these cases with the two  pdf-linked-documents in terms of Options used, reviews conducted, lawfulness.
Ref Cheney-Connected personnel using official NSA resources for non-official purposes.
Ref Cheney-connected perosnnel using official DoJ resources for non-permitted used.
They're using information, tools, and agencies for non-offical purposes, allegedly in voilaton of public policy. What is stopping them from using their knowledge of these tools, procedures, and systems to use illegal method to circumvent them?
They can illegally use technology without fear of oversight; and illegally use technology without fear of detection. It stands to reason they can bypass technology, and commit illegal activity without fear of detection.
May be easier of you print the two PDFs as you read this blog content.
Open these two (2) PDF documents:
Quickly read over the documents and consider the writing; then recall the legal challenges Cheney and Libby are having over the disclosure of Plame's name.
Put the two documents side by side, and recall they are linked to the same person. It's as if Cheney in 1975 were writing a memo about his action in re Wilson of 2003. But Cheney's explanations, comments, and actions -- as we learn through Libby -- do not reconcile with what Cheney supposedly outlined as concerns in 1975.
Let that sink in for a moment as you review the two documents again.
. . . .
Welcome back. Reconsider how the events of 1975 contrast with 2003.
Instead of the Government in 1975 going after the media for "leaks"; the government through Cheney in 2003 was leaking information to go after the media and government employees. As if Cheney looked at himself as something above the government, using the government and media to do the bidding of Cheney.
Recall the questions of Libby: What was the Vice President hoping Libby would or would not recall.
But overlay the 1975 questions with the 2003 NYT article this way: Pretend that the "back story" -- which Cheney was using as the basis for the handwritten notes on the NYT article -- is the line of questions on the 1975 Memo:
___ How was "the law" being thrown around as a means to retaliate?
___ Why was Cheney, to advance an illegal effort in 2003, violating the law, but arguing that his action were for national security?
___ How does Cheney reconcile his 2003 actions; with the 1975 memo objective: "To enforce the law"?
___ How does Cheney argue that his 1975 actions were for a good intention; yet, the opposite approach, that of engaging in the same conduct as the NYT in 1975 -- that of disclosing sensitive information -- would not be subject to the 1975-like standards Cheney well knew were applicable in 2003?
___ When Cheney wrote in 1975 that he wanted to "discourage" the NYT and others from doing something, was the objective of Cheney in 2003 not just to target the Wilson’s, but to stifle the debate of the entire intelligence community who knew that the evidence was illusory as it related to WMD?
___ In 2003, when Cheney was writing his notes, what was going through his mind when she reviewed the 1975 lessons: What "similar action" did Cheney think others like Ambassador Wilson might take?
___ Who else was looking into the issues?
___ Which specific state department officials did Cheney hope to intimidate -- above and beyond Wilson-Plame -- to dissuade reviews, audits, and other examination of the Iraq WMD issues?
___ When Cheney made these notes in 2003, did he hope to dissuade members of the FBI from tracking the Niger Forgeries, and the documents linked to the Italians?
___ What did Cheney know was the relationship between the Italian Rendition efforts, Italian intelligence, and the WMD fabricated data?
___ Was the intent of the smear job against Wilson really targeting the European intelligence community personnel who know of other things related to Rendition, other WMD-related ruses, or other meetings above and beyond what was going on with the Iraq Issues?
The New Information [ Read to the end of blogspot ]
Consider the SWIFT network as it relates to the GOP alleged fund transfers; and what it appears is going on with the NSA and Sate Department linkages with the software companies and financial institutions.
If we take the 2003 notes on the NYT and look at the 1975 memo, is there a larger effort by Cheney underway as it relates to things that Cheney knew was going on, but wanted to stifle public disclosure of this activity?
___ How much of the hoped for intimidation was not related to embarrassment or WMD, but to the larger relationships Cheney has with the intelligence Community: Which specific people inside the intelligence community was Cheney hoping to intimidate by openly outing Plame?
___ Which personnel inside the intelligence community who knew of the NSA pre-Sept monitoring was Cheney attempting to stifle?
___ Did the NYT when it revealed in Dec 2005 the NSA illegal activity reveal the full scope of what it knew; or is it hanging onto additional information related to other classified, but illegal activities which Cheney knew were fully in place well before Sept 2001?
When Cheney wrote on the NYT editorial in 2003 asking, "had they done this before," isn't Cheney really talking about himself:
___ A. Which retaliation had Cheney done against intelligence personnel when they attempted to disclose evidence of illegal activity?
___ B. What did Cheney prior to Sept 2001 do to dissuade the NSA and intelligence personnel from disclosing the illegal surveillance?
When Cheney in 1975 [Item 3] said that the goal was to fine and prosecute the people who leaked the information; how was this part of an effort not to enforce the law, but to use the power of government to hide embarrassing information which the public should know about, not just in 1975 but also in 2003?
When Cheney said [Item 4] in 1975 that he wanted to "discourage" others, how does his memo of 1975 lay the groundwork for what Cheney was really thinking about in 2003 when he was making notes on the NYT editorial?
When Cheney said he wanted to "discourage" others, why didn't Cheney in 2003 take this 1975 Memo and say, "Well, I previously went after someone for doing exactly what I'm doing with Plume’s name, I better not do this."
___ Is the fact that Cheney in writing said he wanted to "discourage" someone in 1975 -- and the ease with which that memo was found, seem odd. Is it possible that Cheney retroactively crated the 1975 as a ruse to explain away his real concerns?
Was the 1975 Memo what Cheney was really hoping to do; or was this memo crated after the fact in an attempt to create the impression that that was what they were intending, but their real aim was to do what they did with the 2003 effort against Plame?
Notice the 1975 Memo is not cleanly written; but there are words scratched out. Cheney when he would sit in front of Ford's desk, would pull out the writing board, and take notes on a legal pad. Notice the yellow stamp on the left side: It's from the Ford Presidential library.
Look at Item 5; Words to the effect when "investigation exceeds propriety" -- is the real aim of Cheney not to protect national security; but to stifle an investigation of things that Cheney chooses should not be second guessed?
This is what appears to be at the heart of Cheney-Addington approach to the President: Not that he has power; but that no body has the power to review.
Look at Item 6: "To create an environment" and
"ongoing investigation of the intelligence community" is done without harming . . . Cheney wasn't saying that there cold be no review; he only didn't want to investigation of that activity to be a problem.
But by 2003, Cheney wanted to shut down the investigation, without any review of whether the activity was or was to appropriate, going so far as to prevent the court from reviewing the issue; shutting out the FISA court; and preventing DOJ OPR from reviewing.
___ Why was Cheney in 1975 saying that he supported investigations, just as he did with the Iran Contra affair; but by 2003 he would have none of it?
___ What changed by 2003?
___ Is the real answer that Cheney in 2003 knows that the ruse of "protecting national security" and "protecting intelligence community" was a ruse; and Cheney’s real purposes was to protect himself and his private covert operations group?
IN 1975 Cheney had no idea he would be SecDef over Gulf War I; or Vice President, or linked with the Iran-Contra affair. By 2003, what’s changed: Cheney may have a private intelligence network that he’s trying to keep the FBI and Grand Jury from discovering.
___ Doesn’t it seem odd the speed with which the President moves the prisoners out of Eastern Europe after Hamdan; but after GTMO the prisoners don’t have full Geneva protections. Transferring the prisoners didn’t address the concerns with Hamdan. What was Cheney hoping to avoid letting people look at in Eastern Europe if the center were maintained?
The goal of moving the prisoner doesn’t appear to be linked with complying with the law – they’re still ongoing Geneva violations as evidenced by illegal Habeas denial under the unconstitutional MCA which should have been struck down, but was not. Rather, the goal for sudden moves appears to be the hope to block review of the things and people Cheney doesn’t want to have detected, and are outside what people understood.
This goes back to the NSA intercept capabilities:
___ Who inside the Vice Present’s office, if not Cheney himself, was providing technical details to US contractors so they could develop software, avoid detection, and escape audits for other to be understood illegal activity?
___ Did the Halliburton entities and KBR hope to use some of this information to win contracts, avoid reviews, and hide activity in budget lines?
___ Why was Cheney in 1975 supportive on inventions of the intelligence community; but on issues of the Energy Commission, WMD, and the other issues, Cheney no longer supported investigations?
It appears the Vice President has been passing sensitive information to contractors which they have used to support to-be understood illegal activity; and the goal of the Vice President in 2003 wants' to retaliate against Plame, but to send a signal to other US-affiliated intelligence personnel that the Vice President was willing to retaliate against those who openly shared informality related to this illegal activity.
___ Which Personnel in 2003 did Cheney really have in mind when hoped to use Wilson-Plame as am example?
___ Did the Vice President hope to make an example of Plame to intimidate NSA contractors supporting the Rendition program to be quiet about the information the NSA was getting through the intermediaries, media companies, and other open source monitoring tools?
___ Did Cheney want to stifle people who were related to the Fleischmann Hilliard contracts -- used to translate open source information into actionable intelligence; then plow it back to the media -- to keep them quite about the nature of the agreements which supported transfer of data from Verizon, through NSA, then to the private contractors?
___ What was the nature of the contacting agreements which Cheney in 2003 knew were floating around in Eastern Europe?
___ Which foreign powers did Cheney hope to send a signal to?
___ Which personnel who were openly hostile to the US, but lined through DoD, was Cheney relying on to support US intelligence objectives, but Cheney was using to facilitate funds, shipments and other things in support of the other illegal activities?
___ Did Cheney hope to send a signal through the action against Wilson that even though DoD had relationships with hostile entities, the Vice President would take action to impose discipline against these hostile powers?
___ Was Cheney hoping to send a signal to the DoD-related entitles he, as Secretary of Defect, had established and had in place around the globe?
Let's go back to the 2003 Memo, and consider a question which Cheney asked. Ask you read this question consider: Cheney as SecDef well knew there were US-government-affiliated entities overseas which were openly hostile, but were the means by which DoD funnels things in support of cover activities, supports the CIA, and gathers intelligence for war fighters.
Here’s the question: "Do we ordinarily send people out for us pro bono to work for us?"
Cheney didn't have to ask this: As SecDef he would've known the answer: Either yes, or no. IT doesn't matter what the answer is. The point is that it doesn't appear, based on Cheney's 1975 Memo, and Cheney's background as SecDef, that the2003 Memo is real.
It may be.
But it appears that it could be something else: Reconsider the 1975 Memo:
___ Is it possible that Cheney wanted this NYT article to be found not as an error, but as a distraction?
___ Is it possible that Cheney and Libby -- well after the fact -- pretended to have this conversation about the issue with the NYT article; but they had privately agreed to something else, wholly unrelated to the supposed NYT article-underlining?
Something about Cheney’s question in the 2003 Memo doesn't make sense in light of the 1974 Memo; and what Cheney should have known from his SecDef days.
___ Why is Cheney asking this question? HE should already know the answer.
It appears the NYT Article with Cheney's comments isn't a real set of questions; but something that may have been retroactively done, as a red herring.
Cheney appears to be playing stupid about something that, based on his 1975 Memo he would have had a concern with is own conduct: That of engaging in conduct that compromised a national security issues -- Plame’s name and activities.
Cheney in the 2003 NYT memo appears to be making statements that:
A. Are feigning confusion over something that Cheney knew was an issue from 1975;
B. Is not consistent with he as SecDef would have known was going on with sending people out on intelligence activities -- Cheney would know the answer without having to ask it
Here' my real questions:
___ Did Cheney when he wanted to send a signal to other people in 2003 recall the lessons of 1975, and attempt to solve the issue in a new way?
___ Did Cheney after 1975 learn about the backlash of the possible legal option; and in 2003 hope to use another non-judicial method to achieve he same 1975 objectives: Retaliation, example, discipline, and punishment?
___ What efforts did Cheney and Libby make in 2003 to deliberately make it appear they were concerned with one thing -- as presented in the NYT article -- but their real conversation and focus was something else, totally unrelated to the news in the NYT article?
___ What did Cheney take away from the 1975 issues as a lesson, that he was secretly, outside the NYT-apparent-question, was doing, but he and Libby agreed to make it appear as though Cheney was doing something else?
___ Was Plame and Wilson brought into the nexus by Cheney through a hidden means so that Chaney would not be linked with the effort?
___ Was it Cheney who was the one who knew that Plame was being called into the nexus?
__ When Cheney asked, "Is this normal:" was this a cover story to hide the fact that Cheney knew full well that Plame and Wilson were involved because Cheney was the one who worked with his allies in the CIA to deliberately involve Wilson and Plame?
___ Was Cheney's goal to use Wilson as a cover: And if Wilson concurred, use Wilson as part of the cover story for the WMD?
___ Did Wilson do something that Cheney did not expert?
___ Did Cheney realize that his "lesson of 1975" went bad; and his plan to use another method in 2003 also went bad, when Wilson wrote the editorial?
___ Was the NYT article commented on well after it was first published, but was retroactively written on after Libby and Cheney discussed what they were really going to do?
___ Is the reason that Libby's story isn’t' straight is that the Vice President and Libby can't get their story straight on the tying of the phone falls by Cheney and Libby to the other personnel in the CIA who worked with Plame and Wilson?
In light of the 1975 Memo, and Cheney's SEC Def experience, the questions Cheney is asking are not consistent with what Cheney should have known.
It appears Cheney isn't asking questions because he wants to know; but because he wants someone to think that that was what was going through Cheney's mind; but in truth, Cheney was doing something else; concerned about another issue; and it appears Cheney was the one who specifically chose Plame and Wilson as a means to use them as an example for people inside the intelligence community who well knew about the funds shipments in and out of the country which DoJ Staff counsel have indirect contractual relationships with on issues of intelligence, prisoner treatment, and other entities which Cheney as SecDef knew were openly hostile, but were there for Cheney to use or not use as Cheney saw fit.
___ How much of what Cheney was doing was outside The NSC?
___ Was Cheney running a more closely held group of people which applied the lesson of the Iran -Contra affair and are outside the view of Congress?
___ Which lesson of Iran Contra did Cheney apply when establishing OSP?
___ How did Cheney use his overseas entities to do things in a way that the NSA and NSC would not detect?
___ Doe Cheney, as it appears, have his private staff doing things off the record; but they deliberately leave incorrect, misleading, and ambiguous questions for FBI agents to find and lead them astray?
___ Which software companies are involved?
___ When does Cheney meet with the bankers to discuss financial flows?
___ How is Cheney or others using their knowledge of the NSA intercept capabilities to leave ambiguous information?
___ Why doesn't Cheney use a computer?
What seems odd is Cheney's black binder has typed pages init. But Cheney is still using a pen to write things.
IF the NYT article was "cut out" of the paper; why are the pen marks fitting neatly within the cut out newspaper?
Did Cheney write the comments on the NYT article, then cut out the article; or did he cut out he article then add the comments later?
Look at the far left notes on the 2003 editorial: Notice the first underling: The lines are wavy. Notice the line 3: The wavy lines are going up, and covering Iraq.
Follow Cheney's thinking -- as if you were writing and underlining -- this is supposedly very startling information: If Wilson's claims would have been proven true , Cheney would know as former SecDef with 5100.77 laws of war programs -- these are issues of non-imminent threats, or Geneva violations and war crimes.
Ask yourself: Are you going to write like this; or are you going to be so stunned that you would not be able to hold a pen?
If you were underlining this -- knowing full well that this are issues of war crimes, and this was news to you while you read it supposedly for the first time and you are underlining it as you read it -- would you, as you were reading this for the first time, be able to control your pen?
Going further down. . . remember, you're the Vice President, reading potentially adverse information; and you've been through this in 1975 and then with Iran Contra:
___ Does it make sense that, upon the initial shock, that you would have the composure to underline those lines that way?
___ Which of the underlining was added well after the Vice President read the article?
-__ What kind of discussion did Cheney, Libby, and others have before this article was underlined?
___ Which of the underlining was designed to mislead or distract attention?
___ Were there things that Cheney -- given his implied, known, and stated concerns -- should have also underlined but did not? [Reconsider the block of text that is not underlined; and review what we know about Cheney's concerns 1975-2007: Does it make sense that he did or did not underline what he did?]
___ If Cheney were, as we were led to believe, was reading this for the fist time and underlining it while he read, does it make sense that the article has the underlining that it does; or should there be other things that Cheney would have underlined had he really been reading this for the first time?
1. Cheney and Libby discussed using Plame with the express intent to send a signal to the hostile entities which Cheney as SecDef knew full well relied on voluntary associations.
2. NSA technology has been compromised; and Cheney and others are using this information to support a to-be understood group which operates outside the NSA and NSC, and reports directly to Cheney.
3. The objective of the article was not to document anything, but to act as a ruse and disrupt attention.
4. Cheney's concern was that upon disclosure of the evidence his private intelligence network would get exposed. The objective was to apply the lessons of Iran Contra and the 1975 Memoranda, but do so without getting caught.
5. The problem is that Libby's retelling of the events has inconsistencies.
Notice the themes in the 1975 Memo; then contrast them with the questions; then look at the underlining. They do not appear to be consistent.
It appears The NYT article was retroactively created to leave the Grand Jury with an incorrect perception of what the Vice President was concerned about or focusing on.
The lines of evidence in the 1975 article; the question; Cheney’s SecDef background; and the underlining do not reconcile.
Something else is going on which Fitzgerald knows full well, as explained by the GCHQ transcripts which the NSA did not intercept. Cheney was surprised by this as was Libby’s counsel. This is the intercept capability which Cheney and Libby do not have access to; but is available to the US Attorney's and law enforcement when doing cross checks on US government activities.
Cheney appears to be worried that his private intelligence operations have been compromised but he has no leverage to discipline those he once had contact with. And it also appears Cheney suspects that there's something else connected with the banks, State Department, and the intelligence Community that he isn't aware, but has been surprised by.
Cheney’s goal appears to have been one thing; but in making an example of Plame and Wilson, Cheney appears to have been surprised by something his private network didn't anticipate would bit him in the rear end. It appears Fitzgerald knows full well what the rest of the story is; and Cheney doesn't know what Fitzgerald knows.
Cheney has idea which foreign power or DoD- affiliated-entity that is hostile, has turned on Cheney, and has provided the information to the US Attorneys office. Cheney and Libby know the information is there; but the court won't let them look at it.
Need to get a feel from POTUS whether he is really concerned bout the NYT disclosures; or whether he's been used to act as a shield to hide Cheney’s apparent connection with this illegal activity.
Again, recall the NSA activity was starting before Sept 2001, before Sept 2001. It looks like Cheney knows people are talking, but he's pretending that he's concerned bout surveillance techniques, not because of a compromise in US methods; but that there was something going on before Sept 2001 which Cheney was involved with, and something is still lingering. The same people who warned the President about the Sept 2001 events, also are in a position to know what the US was illegally doing with the NSA surveillance prior to Sept 2001.
Cheney and the President have a big problem. Item 7 clearly states the declassification process:
7. Whether prior clearance for publication or release of the information was sought from proper authorities.
This does not match what Cheney, Libby, and the President said in the wake of the 2003 "Declassification" of Plame's name.
ORCON doesn't permit declassification by anyone but the originator. Cheney would know this from his 1975 days and work in Iran-Contra and SecDef; Libby would know it because f his legal background; and the President wasn't involved with the Cheney-Libby discussions about Plame until Cheney decided.
The more one digs into the events of Iran-Contra, 1975, and 2003 there more you'll see that Cheney isn't acting in a very coherent manner. The answer isn't that he has just a legal problem, but that he's got a bigger mess on his hands from which he's trying to distract attention.
This issue with Plame and Wilson appears to be the red herring which Cheney and Libby though they could agree to distract the FBI, Grand Jury and others. Small problem: Libby and Cheney made some inconsistent statements which raised Fitzgerald’s suspicious that something else was going on.
The aim of the Vice President has nothing to do with just retaliating against Plame and Wilson alone; but with something bigger: Maintaining some discipline in the intelligence community, and muffling potential talk about what Cheney and others have been doing with official information they have about the NSA intercept capabilities; and how they were using it for non-official purposes.
___ Which Contractors is Cheney hoping to silence?
___ Which intelligence-connected entities affiliated with Abraxas are involved?
___ What was the goal of using Plame as a sacrificial lamb; and which personnel inside Cheney's private cover operations group was Cheney hoping to discipline indirectly by making an example?
___ Who inside KBR knows?
___ What is the prelateship of the Latham Watkins and DHS to the energy issues in Kazakhstan?
___ How was Cheney working through Libby with DoJ Staff counsel-connected entities which were using this cover group working outside the NSC?
___ Did Sibel Edmonds get to close to these Cheney-affiliated intelligence groups?
___ What were Cheney's concerns when Sibel Edmonds provided this information to the Senate Judiciary?
___ How many entities did the US NSA intercept that were connected with Cheney's SecDef days of working with hostile entities; and how were these entities funning arms, contraband, and intelligence?
___ Despite this intelligence network, why is the US unable to point to combat successes in Afghanistan or Iraq that built upon the network that Cheney and Libby were apparently using outside the NSC and NSA?
Reconsider all the underlining from this new perspective: They are not contemporaneous underlining, but they are deliberate legal efforts which Cheney, Libby and others coordinated to present the best legal arguments:
Notice the emphasis on "appropriate" communication.
Why is Cheney calling attention to something that is favorable?
That's nothing that is news; that's something that is a non-issue. Nobody would waste their time underling information that says, "Everything is great.
Rather, the opposite is true: That is information Cheney wants you to focus on, not for himself, but you as the public and jury: "Everything is great.'
But ask yourself, why would Cheney, supposedly reading this article for himself and underlining it, underline information that says "things are great"?
___ What would be going through someone's mind, supposedly reading this for the first time, to make a note of this?
___ Once the VP underlined this, what would he hope to do with that "new" information?
___ Why was this underlining needed: Why was the Vice President looking at this information as if it were "new" or something to make a note of?
___ What discussion would he have, imagined, or consider based on this notation?
___ what was the motivation for Cheney to underline that particular statement?
___ Was that statement odd?
___ What information did Cheney have that contradicted this?
___ If there was other information that was not consistent with this NYT article -- when did Cheney look at his "other information"?
___ How did this underlining, thinking, and response to this [implicit] "everything is going great" trigger something in Cheney’s mind: Was he going to write a memo saying, "Great effort team, you are great!"
___ Does the VP have a track record of doing this in memos?
___ Or does the VP prefer to send hand written photographs, with cardboard borders where Cheney signs the image, and does not comment on the photo?
___ What photo was Cheney going o send to which person as a result of reading this "new" information that warranted him to underline it?
It appears the underlining is not there to as a record of what Cheney as thinking; but with the opposite: To make it appear Cheney was alerted to the information that "all reporting was appropriate."
The only reason appears to be -- Cheney has information that the reporting and communications were not appropriate; Wilson's assertion is possibly favorable if the truth were known about the direct, inappropriate communications between Cheney and others; and do not, as his underling suggests, go through official channels.
Cheney's fatal error was to call attention to bringing information in the NYT article that is not linked with a credible follow-up action; no concern; no problem. His reasons for underlining it are at odds with the message: That things are going well.
IN truth, it appears Cheney is trying to leave the impression that communication is orderly, when Cheney is the one -- as it appears -- who is engaged in direct commutations, around the President, and not involving the NSC, NSA, or other personnel inside the US government.
"Circulated to the appropriate officials in our government" appears to have been underlined to distract attention from the inappropriate communications between Cheney, CIA, OSP, and the other entities Cheney is protecting that are linked with Eastern Europe and the overseas abuse issues.
When you review this memo consider the following: If you wanted to distract attention from something you thought could be hidden; and you were working with your attorney to construct a timeline:
A. what kinds of things would you want to leave as a favorable impression in the minds of the jury;
B. what would you hope to call attention to distract attention; and
C. what kinds of things would you and your counsel hope to present as favorable litigation themes to build on in the future?
When you think about those questions, you may reconsider the undermining in a new light.
-- Squiggle lines to create the impression of shock; but quickly recovering within seconds with more underlining -- not likely;
-- Gaps in underlining of text; failing to underline key information of interest to the Vice President, but no underlining -- means the original underlining is not a real contemporaneous concern of the VP as he first read the article; but liked with an objective, ruse, and desire to leave another impression about his focus, interest.
-- Focus attention on Wilson's combination and travel; while distracting attention from the questions Wilson was asking: Here is new information about war crimes, but the VP is calling attention not the problem -- bad info -- but whether Wilson was or was not doing what the should
___ How does the President mentally shift from the "shock" of learning this information; to have the state of mind to find vulnerabilities in the Wilson article to guide the media to focus on those aspects of the WMD article?
___ Was the underlining done well after the public spin against Wilson through OSP and Lincoln Group had been fully entrenched?
___ Was the underlining linked with an analysis Fleischmann Hilliard did of which media messages were most favorable to the VP in attacking Wilson?
___ Which report, e-mail or document from a "classified contractor" has the VP not provided to Fitzgerald as it relates to the information in the NYT article that is most favorable to Libby and VP; and does the most damage against Wilson?
___ What is most likely reason that the underlining was done the way it was done; and what kind of thinking is connected or not connected with that action?
___ Is it possible that the underlining was done well after someone other than Libby, Cheney, and others had discussed the issues and formulated a legal strategy?
___ How was the timing of White House counsel's entrance and departure linked with the apparent success or failure of the various media messages as they related to a defense of the illegal invasion of Iraq?
___ Was Gonzalez moved out of White House counsel's office because the media messages -- as documented in the other reports Cheney and Libby reviewed -- were or were not panning out?
Notice the underling about the Ambassador: "She told me" -- focusing not on the WMD problem, but in something that was supposedly happening -- continuing the myth that something had transferred.
Yet, Cheney supposedly had no idea what was going on for real; he was supposedly -- shocked, shocked -- surprised.
___ How would he know to focus attention on the very things which were distractions from reality: That there was no WMD?
I "never saw the memorandum."
___ Was Libby and Cheney hoping to create the impression that it might have existed, but Wilson didn't ask?
A. "have not seen reports"
B. "oral report" to VP
C. "Did not file a written report" --
___ Was this intended by counsel to raise doubts about Wilson's recollections; or question whether he failed to do something that he should have?
___ Is there some sort of hope to crate the impression that Wilson was not doing something what he should have?
Notice the curious ambiguity in this one:
"News accounts . . ." Column E
"But news accounts have pointed out" -- the problem is the underlining stops:
__ Why wasn't Cheney still underlining?
___ Who would have picked up on this?
___ wasn't Cheney interested in still underlining?
There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to this ending by design.
IT would be reasonable for Cheney to have underlined things to follow-up on with the media report; but why stop halfway with a flair of the pen.
Lock closely: He's moving fast across the page with the pen; why the speed, but not still underlining?
___ Why nothing focusing on the "errors". . .
Reconsider the gaps in the underlining:
___ Why isn't Cheney underlining new things?
___ Are we being asked to believe hat Cheney "already knew this"?
___ How do we explain the "excitement" that things were being reported properly -- while Cheney knew about OSP, which was not; but there's nothing under the good news from UK [Column 4] that the dossier has info supporting the US position (later discredited as well)?
___ How does the VP explain the "good news" [underlining, last section] about the "proper combination" , but no underlining about the "good news" of the White Paper which "supported" the President?
Seems a little odd that the VP, hunting for "new" info, would not want to underline this [in effect]: "Hay the Media thinks this is a god thing; lets use that dossier as our defense at The Hague. Get DOJ Staff on that." [Underline: Write a memo; and Libby and Addington are out of jail!]
That didn’t happen. German war rimes prosecutor and Fitzgerald show up. Oops.
When we go through and read this editorial in light of above:
___ What is most likely going through Cheney’s head when he read the material?
___ Does the underlining make sense?
___ What themes does Cheney appear to emphasizing?
___ Does it make sense that someone reading this article for the first time would have specific themes which apparently match media relations messages?
___ Who other than Libby and Addington would have had to review something to ensure that the media messages matched the themes in the memo?
___ Do we know for certain the type of ink used to do the underlining; the lot number; and sample documents supposedly just before and after this article review; does the ink lot composition in that pen match the ink that is on the documents before and after the date that Cheney supposedly underlined this NYT article?
Here’s the problem: Cheney is supposedly "surprised" by this NYT editorial. However, look at the question he asks: It's about travel.
___ Where in the article does Cheney read anything indicating Wilson has a 'travel issue"?
There's no logical link between the article content; the question.
___ What information -- outside the article -- did Cheney rely on to formulate the question?
___ Why wasn't the question put on that other document?
___ When did Cheney review this other document?
___ How do the dates that Cheney supposedly reviewed this other document match with the data that Cheney said he reviewed the NYT article and underlined?
___ Was there a gap between when Cheney supposedly reviewed the article; and when Cheney looked at this outside information?
___ How much time passed between the article publication, the underlining, and the other report?
___ What other conversations, phone calls, and meetings occurred related to this chain of events?
___ Does it make sense for the VP to go back to the NYT article -- well after the subsequent meetings, to leave a question unrelated to any details in the article; and not linked with anything in the NYT editorial that was underlined?
The answer is: No.
1. The timelines on the conversations required to get this additional information are not consistent with [a] NYT publication; and [b] the conversations at State related to this question.
2. IT makes no sense for Cheney to have asked this question elsewhere along a different timeline; but recorded it here along a different timeline. Notice the problem: The ink of the underlining matches the ink of the question; and the movement of the pen of the underlining is consistent with a sequential timeline along one chain of events; but the way Cheney got the information to ask the question was with a different timeline and source. Cheney didn't have the info to ask the question; but he also didn't need to ask or answer the question -- he already knew, because Cheney is the one who got this rolling. He's playing stupid. This is inexplicable but for one thing: It is deliberately fabricated. Cheney would not be around this NYT article when the final information arrived.
3. There were other conversations which generated the Question, which Fitzgerald appears to know show the President’s timelines are not accurate.
4. There’s no logical link between the content in the newspaper and the question that Cheney asks. IT appears this disconnect is well understood; and hat the Prosecutor appears to see there is some sort of deception.
5. It’s most likely that this article is planted with misleading information to mask Cheney’s real attention; distract attention to irrelevant or desirable things; and shape or present a favorable impression.
The information contained in the article alone does not support the questions at the to of the document.
If Cheney knew this information -- as a basis to ask the question; yet his SecDef experience would have answered the question -- Cheney is doing three strange things:
1. Documenting a question; but notice he's providing additional explanation after "done this before" . . . [""Have they don this sort of thing before -- send an ambassador to answer a question"] -- Cheney wouldn't have to explain a question to himself; nor provide context to an article that is stand alone. This appears to have been marked with the intention to explain to someone who didn't know what the NYT article was about. That makes no sense: Cheney read, or would have us believe, he the article.
2. If Cheney is only writing these questions for himself, why would he ask a question to something he would already know the answer to through his experience as SecDef working with overseas intelligence, hostile powers, and cover operations? [Cheney would know the answer; so he wouldn’t ask the question, much less write it down unless he wanted someone else to read it. That they knew about Plame -- in order to ask the question -- means they already knew the answer to the question. It is a ruse.]
3. Why is Cheney taking the time to document a question that he would already now the answer to; yet there's no actionable event that would occur? IF the answer is "yes, this happens" -- which Cheney would know the answer to -- what "action" is Cheney going to do that he wasn't already doing? Cheney already knew the answer and would not have to wait for an answer.
The more you look at this, the more baffling the underlining, markings, questions, and timelines become: They are not consistent; they require information from location A to be in location B; Cheney is asking questions to things he already knows the answers to; and even f answered Cheney isn't going to do anything new that he could do on his own.
The cloud over the Vice President appears to be the unanswered question: Despite his shock over the WMD editorial and the "WAVY" underlining in the NYT editorial, how was Cheney able to remain so calm on 9-11?
A few words ruffle the man; but explosions: The man is able to remain calm.
Someone knows something about the illegal surveillance, and Cheney appears to have used Plame and Wilson as an example to keep them quiet.
Small problem: Cheney was dumb enough to sign a photograph on the cardboard, not the image. The ink pattern matches the editorial, but it is from the wrong ink lot number. The dates of the markings on the other documents do not jive with the ink on the photographs; or the other documents.
Something was not done in the order that Cheney and Fitzgerald would have us believe. Why wasn't the VP able to get the cardboard frame back to make the ink match the NYT editorial?
Inlight of the above material, start with these assumptions; then answer these questions to develop the mitigation plan.
Recommendation: Speaker should direct GAO, CRS and US intelligence community to assess means by which Cheney and President are able to use US and hostile foreign intelligence assets for illegal purposes; and provide a mitigation plan.
The Rest of the Story
___ Who requested the NYT article review
___ Who or what was the real intended audience of the NYT Article review questions, and markup?
___ How did the Vice President's actions, coordination with Libby, and communication with State fit in with other illegal activities which Addington knew or should have known violate Geneva. Illegal use of American intelligence resources to unlawfully support war crimes including, but not limited to:
- Exploit known weaknesses, gaps, and problems in the US collection system to advance non-official, illegal objectives known to Libby, Adddington, Gonzalez, and the Vice President
- Detect, thwart, and obstruct justice; and block lawful investigation by the FBI, DoJ, and Patrick Fitzgerald into this illegal activity
- Kidnapping civilians
- Commit war crimes
- Scheduling of aircraft to transport civilians across international boundaries
- Abuse prisoners of war
- Not comply with Geneva Conventions after Hamdan
- Thwart detection of war crimes
- Support other illegal activity which was not coordinated with the NSC, NSA, or Congress
Given the boondoggle response to Katrina, what does the VP expect to happen:
A. Why will his resources better do what the US government cannot do;
B. Is there a reason that the VP has high confidence his resources and actions will not get detected by other agencies or powers;
C. What is to say that the same problems supposedly "isolated" to the US intelligence community, that Cheney supposedly is exploiting, do not also exist within the resources which Cheney is apparently illegally using?
D. Is there some technical or management "skill" or "capability" which Cheney is narrowly using when he exploits these apparent weaknesses; but he is not using that capability to detect, prevent, and thwart illegal activity
E. TO what extent is Cheney playing both sides of the fence on intelligence:
 First, he's attempting to thwart Fitzgerald from detecting what is really doing on; then
 Pretending that the US has capabilities; then
 Pretending that the non-sense Cheney is involved is somehow "someone else's fault"
 Then pointing to the botched activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, but asking us to believe that things are fine, and the VP can take credit
 Despite illegal abuse of prisoners, not being able to translate that supposed "valuable intelligence gleaned from abuse" into better combat results relative to the insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan.
F. To what extent does Cheney enjoy there is a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan because it means that Congress is not focusing on Cheney's apparent illegal use of intelligence resources for other reasons.
Once Congress takes "impeachment off the table", they're agreeing to not look at the known mess, not to mention what Cheney may be able to do in secret; Sending a signal to Cheney: If you can keep your illegal activity secret, you have no chance of detection or Congressional oversight.