Jon Kiriakou: Libby Knew Plame Was Covert

Jason Leopold has a long article and videotape of an interview with Jon Kiriakou that you should check out in full. I’ll discuss their conversation about Abu Zubaydah’s torture (and, more interestingly, Kiriakou’s knowledge about who Abu Zubaydah is) later. But I wanted to look more closely at Kiriakou’s description of a June 10, 2003 meeting at which (Kiriakou says) Scooter Libby made it clear that he knew of Plame’s identity.

Kiriakou said he was the “note taker” at this meeting, which took place on June 10, 2003, when I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, “entered the room furious, putting on a big show, arms flailing around, swearing and demanding to know why nobody at the CIA told him that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson.”

Kiriakou said it was clear to him that when Libby “entered the room” on June 10, 2003, he had already known that Plame was an undercover operative.

Now, it always pays to approach Kiriakou’s statements with some skepticism. And his description certainly doesn’t accord with what Grenier testified to at the Libby trial. But for the moment, let’s look at what Kiriakou’s description would mean for the chronology of the week of June 8, 2003.

After a break of several weeks after Nicholas Kristof first reported Joe Wilson’s allegations, the allegations returned again on June 8, 2003, when George Stephanopolous asked Condi Rice about the allegations. Apparently first thing on the following day, June 9, 2003, President Bush expressed to Libby in some way his concern about the allegations. And that seems to have been what set OVP into overdrive trying to learn about the source of the allegations. Later that same afternoon, John Hannah had already completed a briefing for Cheney on the issue.

According to Kiriakou’s story, Libby had his furious outburst on June 10. That would probably mean it happened at the 12:45 NSC DC [Deputies Committee] meeting, four hours before Kiriakou wrote his email requesting more information. Though note, the content of the Kiriakou email we have–which asks for very specific information for John McLaughlin in anticipation of a meeting with Cheney the following day and doesn’t mention the meeting itself–doesn’t match the description he gave Jason:

After Libby’s outburst, Kiriakou said he “went back to headquarters and I wrote an email to all of the executive assistants of all the top leaders in the agency saying, this meeting took place, Libby is furious, we believe that he was conveying a message from the vice president. I wanted to know when did we know that Valerie was married to Joe Wilson, sent it around, nobody ever responded to my email.”

That says, if Kiriakou’s narrative is correct, Libby probably learned of the tie between Plame and Wilson between June 9 and June 10, if not earlier. Which might explain why the date on Libby’s note record learning of Plame’s tie to Wilson appears to be written over. One possibility, for example, is that the note originally read June 9, not June 12.

This is where Kiriakou’s story begins to conflict with Robert Grenier’s and Marc Grossman’s. Marc Grossman testified he told Libby, probably at a DC meeting on June 11 or 12, that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA (based on the INR memo). And Grenier testified that Libby asked him for information on a phone call on June 11, at which point, Grenier claimed, he “had never heard of [Wilson’s trip] before.” Both claims would be false if Libby had blown up in the June 10 meeting.

Now, both Grossman and Grenier’s testimony is problematic on a number of other levels, so we can’t use their testimony to dismiss Kiriakou’s story out of hand.

But Kiriakou’s story is interesting for two reasons. First, Cheney claimed the following in his interview with Patrick Fitzgerald:

The Vice President also had no recollection of discussing this matter at a meeting on 6/10/03 he attended with Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet and CIA Counter Proliferation Division Manager [redacted]

When asked about the Administrations efforts to research Wilsons mission, the Vice President advised that around the time of the initial media reports, exact date not recalled, he spoke to DCI Tenet directly on the secure telephone line (MLP) from his office

[redacted; snip]

Vice President Cheney believed that all of this discussion occurred during a single telephone convseration that he had with DCI Tenet. The Vice President described the tone of his conversation with DCI Tenet as cordial, however, he had a sense that the DCI was defensive and embarrassed about the issue and had not known what was going on with regards to this mission. The Vice President based this latter assertion on the tone and temperament used by the DCI in the conversation, which was uncharacteristic for Tenet.

The Vice President cannot recall if he mentioned the content of his conversation with DCI Tenet to Libby, but he stated that if would have shared it with anyone, it would have been Libby. He probably would not have shared this information with Cathie Martin or anyone else from the OVP staff.

That is, Cheney claims he learned of Plame’s identity not at a meeting with Tenet and Plame’s boss on June 10, the same day Libby allegedly blew up at a Deputies Committee meeting, but on a phone conversation that–at least in the unredacted interview report–lacks a date. Of course, if it came up at that meeting with Tenet and Plame’s boss, it might be more likely to include Plame’s name and covert status.

Then there’s the phone call to Grenier on June 11. As I have noted before, the call to Grenier (the first he ever received from Libby, Grenier testified) was almost certainly not a request for new information, but a request that would have elicited information that Libby and Cheney already knew, but which Martin did not know.

But we know that Libby called Robert Grenier for more information at 1:15 PM that day—precisely halfway into the meeting. Presuming the calendar is accurate, Libby called Robert Grenier in the presence of Cheney and Martin, looking for information he likely already knew (from Grossman and almost certainly from Cheney).

That is, regardless of whether or not Kiriakou’s story is true, Libby and Cheney were almost certainly trying to get someone from the CIA to tell their press person what they already knew about Plame (but, at least according to Martin’s testimony, that she didn’t know they knew). Libby and Cheney were trying to get CIA to tell their press person information so she could pass it onto journalists (notably, Walter Pincus, who had an active request in with OVP for information). And, in fact, that ploy worked; either that day or the next Bill Harlow passed on the Plame information to Martin, though she claims that she never passed it onto reporters.

But consider how this story changes if, the day before this ploy, Libby stormed into a meeting bitching that CIA never told him that Plame was married to Joe Wilson. While that would mean Grenier’s testimony is incorrect on a number of levels, it would add one more level of duplicity on Libby’s part, given that he effectively had already made it clear that Grenier knew who Plame was before he called for information on June 11.

In any case, at the very least the story means that someone–in addition to Scooter Libby–is lying (though if it’s Kiriakou, thanks to the work of now-Criminal Division head Lanny Breuer, he didn’t do so under oath). But given the number of things that happened on June 10, 2003, Kiriakou’s story does add an interesting wrinkle.

54 replies
  1. JThomason says:

    I love the illustrations of the “amended” notes. They say so much about the nature of “executive” license.

  2. BoxTurtle says:

    I’m not sure this adds to the list of known liars in the Plame affair.

    Boxturtle (The only two not proven liars would be the Judge and Fitz)

  3. klynn says:

    Why this story now? What’s coming out that Kiriakou has to add a wrinkle? What would be coming out in an investigation that would impact Plame?

    Someone from Durham investigation giving up info that leads back to Plame?

      • Mary says:

        That almost read as, “someone who actually thought about what kinds of questions to ask instead of lifting them from Drudge…”

        Basically, I feel for Kirakou bc there is a lot of detail on lots of different fronts that he might not have been prepared for at all in those tense times (I haven’t watched the video, just read the story, and thought the comment from Grenier to Kirakou, that Kirakou didn’t understand how serious it all was, was telling).

        I’ve never followed the nitty gritty on some of the detail, but if you did have Bush “raising” a concern on the 9th and Libby steamrolling in on the 10th and Cheney saying he made a secure call to Tenet sometime undated – here’s what I wonder about. Is it likely/possible that Libby came out of meeting on the 9th, told Cheney and somehow in the Cheney follow up that day, the President is again involved?

        If so, it would line up some things on Bush’s crim defense lawyer, on how far Grenier was willing to go on muddying waters, on Gernier’s prior perceived belief (per Kirakou) that no one was going to use the info, etc. IOW, if Cheney’s response is to get with Tenet AND Bush and Grenier is pulled in and gives the info for what he might have thought was a Tenet update for Bush (or for Bush/Cheney) it might explain why everyone was so nervous about laundering the info later, even though the laundering would show CIA giving the info to Cheney’s office as well. IOW, if Cheney chews on Tenet that the President is upset and wants to know, and Tenet gets the info to Cheney, then Cheney takes it to Bush and gets the same Bush, “get it out there” input that we know was given on the NIE cherrypicks, there’s now a lot of incentive for everyone to go through so many contortions to keep the President’s name out of it.

        • emptywheel says:

          Mary, with all due respect, the claim that Bush’s “get it out there” pertained to the NIE (particularly the claim that it pertained primarily to the NIE) is one made by a convicted perjurer in the face of contradictory evidence.

          That said, I think it likely that Bush was in the loop. At the very least his July 10 “P is okay with this” in the context of such leaks suggests he was on board.

          • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

            p. 274 (hardback), Scott McClellan’s “What Happened: Inside the White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (2008), offers evidence.

            April 6, 2006, Bush was taking off from Charlotte, NC.
            And ABC News correspondent Geoff Morell had yelled a question at Bush, asking about that day’s news of a court filing by Fitz (related to the trial of Scooter Libby and to the leak of the NIE).

            Bush asked his aides what Morrell had been hollering.
            Dan Bartlett and Scott McClellan had boarded the plane behind Bush.
            McClellan told Bush, “[Morrell] asserted you authorized the leak of part of the NIE”.

            Bush said, “Yeah, I did.” Bush didn’t seem to want to discuss it further.

            Perhaps I’m losing brain cells, but I thought that leaking part of the NIE was Bush’s tactic for enabling himself to claim that he was not dealing with classified information. And he did that to evade legal charges for Plame.

            Maybe I need a refresher…?

            As for Jason’s work, I’ll have to catch up later but I sure admire the hell out of his persistence (!).

        • JThomason says:

          I suppose obsequious subservience at that level of power is what expected, the law be damned. If opportunity were greater then the minions would not be so desperate for approval.

          The oil is still flowing freely into the Gulf, Saudi Arabia is an ally, W is in retirement in a gated community and BHO has doubled down on Cheney’s executive theories. The irony is that economic depression is a toxic environment for radical change. We will have to await some economic exuberance for the ideals of Western Democratic Liberalism to find wide-spread traction once again.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      What if they did? The SoL has expired on every possible crime related to Plame, unless someone was killed that I’m not aware of.

      They got away with it. Drink your koolaid and look forward!

      Boxturtle (If only Plame’s code name was something like “Interrigator #1”, she’d get more respect)

      • TheOracle says:

        We will probably never know if someone died following the Bush/Cheney administration’s outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson as long as the CIA’s after-incident damage assessment report remains under White House lock and key, or maybe filed away in Dick Cheney’s man-sized OVP safe (which he no doubt took with him).

        If no damage to our national security had occurred (or deaths), then this after-incident CIA damage assessment report would have been released long ago by the Bush/Cheney administration with the statement “no harm, no foul.” On the other hand, since this report has been buried as deep as Bush’s missing Texas Air National Guard records, every indication is that damage (and probably deaths of some of her covert contacts overseas) did occur when Valerie Plame Wilson’s cover was blown.

  4. JasonLeopold says:

    Marcy, I remain in awe at the way in which you connect every dot and your memory of all of these dates and who said what to who and when. Your post from June 2007 was incredibly helpful to me. Thank you so much for highlighting this here and pushing the story forward.

    • klynn says:

      Thanks so much for your interview Jason. Great work.

      Jason, did you seek him out for the interview?

      Are you using this interview to set groundwork for upcoming investigations?

    • Jeff Kaye says:

      That was one hell of an interview, Jason. I was as much interested in the AZ portions as anything else, and look forward to reading Marcy’s take. I think he was quite weak on the issue of AZ’s possible mental illness. Conflating mental illness with schizophrenia and/or mental retardation is quite naive, from a psychological standpoint. The only possible diagnosis hanging over his case, based on the presentation of different personalities, is Dissociated Identity Disorder, formerly known as multiple personality disorder. A person with such a disorder can present as quite intelligent, and be quite comprehensible. —

      Kiriakou presents AZ as a kind of terrorist poet maudit, writing poetry and playing with narrative point of view, as he jumps from terrace to roof, fleeing CIA and ISI. That’s quite as remarkably fictional as the portrayal of AZ as a mastermind supreme. By the by, the most surprised, and even angry, Kiriakou seemed was when you showed him that the government was not now claiming AZ had knowledge of 9/11. “That’s not what we were told,” he said, and looked stung.

      One other piece of psychological naivete not related to this story concerns Omar Khadr. As I left a comment for Spencer, the five week break for a psychological evaluation is absurd. A week would be more than enough. The government is playing for time (trying to negotiate a deal? playing around with witnesses?).

    • Leen says:

      Thought Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson said that Marcy Wheeler knew more about the case, dates, etc than they did.

      ” Libby, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, “entered the room furious, putting on a big show, arms flailing around, swearing and demanding to know why nobody at the CIA told him that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson.”

      PUTTING ON A BIG SHOW. Had the opportunity to attend about 8 days of the trial. Stood outside everyday to watch Libby, wife etc arrive. Felt like I was watching people who felt like they were Hollywood stars (and in my book who gives a rats ass about Hollywood stars). As they would have the door held for them as they got out of their shiny black SUV Libby would pose make sure the cameras caught the right angles. Wife would flip her hair, pose. It was actually pathetic. As Valerie Plame indicated in her interview with Bill Maher. Cheney, Libby, Rove etc are traitors. What they did was treasonous.

      1. Will the investigation/report into what the Bush administrations outing of Plame cost o U.S. National security?

      2. Will we ever know if other undercover CIA agents were killed?

      3. Several articles over at that came out about Plame’s alleged work in regard to Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program

      4. Was John Hannah given immunity?

  5. JThomason says:

    My eyes and ears are failing. But the Plame movie premiere may answer the timing question. Sorry Fatster.

  6. Mary says:

    Listening to the interview now and I’m struck by what K says about what AZ told him on the last days before he was taken off to the torture site. K says that AZ opened up then and indicated that he (AZ) did know in advance about 911. But later, at around 15 mins in, when they go to the gov filing where gov does not contend AZ had any advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

    K responds with a big, “That’s interesting to me” and given the earlier bit I expected him to say something like, “well, AZ told me right before he was shipped to the black site that he DID have advance knowledge”

    Instead he follows his that’s interesting to me, with “bc that’s certainly not the information that we had been given in 2002”

    non-sequitor, but I wonder if he ever thinks of the kid they sent on to Syria and who hasn’t been heard of since and who provided the info that AZ was NOT a top AQ operative – the info that no one wanted to hear at the time.

    • bmaz says:

      “Yes, of course, I think of him all the time after all of our personal interaction”


      “Well, not really, as I never saw the kid, I was only told about him by others who may or may not have been there themselves”

      • Mary says:

        How bad is this – I’m not even sure if you’re yanking my chain or if listening to Bloomberg and K at the same time I’m on the phone and sending emails made me miss those parts. *g*

  7. eCAHNomics says:

    Jon Kiriakou: Libby Knew Plame Was Covert

    Well, duh. What better demonstration project could you find than to out a CIA agent who was being troublesome. Shut the others up PDQ.

  8. Mary says:

    So what are the running odds on who gave him the field promotion to make up for Jose being a jerk, who gave him the hot tip on how to handle his book, whether those were the same guy, whether either or both have a name that starts with B.

  9. Mary says:


    Cameron just tried to one up Obama, claiming that no government in history has been left with such a disaster as the one that he has inherited.

  10. NorskeFlamethrower says:


    Citizen emptywheel and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

    Isn’t it about time to just round up anyone who was employed by the executive branch of government between the years 2001-2009, strip them of their citizenship, confiscate all their assets and render them to a Somali warlord and let him sort ’em all out? Then send Pat Fitzgerald to the floor of the US Senate to ask “Who’s next?”.

    The entire story must be told but our legal system and political system are completely corrupt so how about an independent film and premire it in Cannes…oh it’s comin’ out this week!

    Sorry Sister Marcy but the system you have put so much faith in and given so much of your life to is a sham and a shame…I’m just amazed that the rest of the world hasn’t quarantined us or worse.


  11. Mary says:

    Kinda sorta related –
    Holder and Brennan have given a closed door briefing on why they are sure that the Pakistani Taliban are behind the fertilizer bomb. Apparently Kit Bond finally has developed skepticism. Or maybe sleeping sickness. One of those. He “emerged from the briefing unconvinced” but, otoh “[o]ne person who was in the room for Tuesday’s intelligence briefing said Bond appeared to fall asleep for 10 to 15 minutes”

    For the “you couldn’t make this stuff up” file – Bond accuses Holder of engaging in a “hostile takeover” of the intelligence community.

    • bobschacht says:

      And then DiFi emerged from the same meeting echoing the Holder line, with Kit Bond standing right next to her.

      Well, its good to see Republicans showing skepticism about a security briefing, even if they are 9 years late.

      Bob in AZ

    • Hmmm says:

      Bond accuses Holder of engaging in a “hostile takeover” of the intelligence community.

      Now that’s interesting. Anyone have a hunch what ol’ Kitty Boo might be referring to here?

  12. pdaly says:

    Ooh, my favorite puzzle story is back.
    Glad to hear more, as always.

    Which might explain why the date on Libby’s note record learning of Plame’s tie to Wilson appears to be written over. One possibility, for example, is that the note originally read June 9, not June 12.

    I relooked at that Libby note (PDF) GX-104 dated 6/”~12″/03 in which Libby also writes “CP/ <- his wife works in that div'n".

    I thought the amount of space between the slashes suggests a double digit in the middle position, instead of a single digit, such as '9'. The bottom of the handwritten '1' has an upward hook that mimicks the upward hook at the bottom of the original number overwritten by the '2.' Also at the bottom of the first date slash there is a similar upward hook.

    If Libby had written originally 6/11/03, was there any advantage to their cover story to pretend subsequently that the date was 6/12/03?

    Not knowing WH/OVP protocol, what prevented Libby from rewriting the card entirely to fix his mistakes, whether the card was written contemporaneously or even weeks after the fact?

  13. cregan says:

    I too like your attention to detail and the way you sort and attempt to sort various issues out.

    However, in this case, I must be missing something. I do not see how someone saying he was mad that no one told him Valarie Plame was married to Joe Wilson says anything about knowing she was some sort of covert agent.

    In addition, it seems the person making this claim was only speculating. I don’t see anything in the reference which states why he was convinced Libby knew.

    “Kiriakou said it was clear to him that when Libby “entered the room” on June 10, 2003, he had already known that Plame was an undercover operative.”

    He doesn’t say WHY it was clear.

    Aside from that, as you know, I think this is much ado about nothing. First of all, as far as I know, Fitzgerald specified someone else as the leaker. Even if Libby was the leaker, no one has every been able to point to any concrete evidence of anything the Novak column–not even really based on any leak. Lots of indignation and emotion, but nothing that really says anything.

    I have never heard Valarie Plame say anything like, “I was right in the middle of something, or I was about to go back into undercover operations,” or anything. Likely because none of those things were true.

    Aside from that, Joe Wilson admitted, as I have said before, on the Dec. 5, 2003 Meet the Press that yes indeed, the commerce minister said that Iraq had contacted them and he could not think of any reason for the attempted contact except to discuss uranium. That is not “I found nothing.”

    But, really, as we know, when someone from the right side touches on a covert agent it is a dastardly act sure to cause terrible results. When someone from the left touches on a covert agent, it is an act of unselfish heroism, sure to advance the cause of freedom.

      • cregan says:

        I’d like to see some evidence.

        Here’s the evidence I see–with my own eyes.

        I taped the Meet the Press show of Dec. 5, 2003, as I tivo Meet the Press each week. I ran it though, the Wilson section, 3 or 4 times. I’m pretty certain was I saw. AND, it took Russert a LOT of pressing to finally get Wilson to admit it. He danced and danced, but Russert wouldn’t give up. I consider Russert the best political interviewer ever, or close if not the best. Each thing I mentioned in my first post came out of Wilson’s mouth. Not something someone wrote or speculated, etc.

        That counts a lot more with me than an analysis.

        I see lots of consternation from the left about Plame. Along with reasons why it was OK from the GOP and right.

        I see lots of praise from the left for the Adams project which puts real covert agents at risk. And, you have to realize that it is not proven that ALL of these pictured agents did any torture or were involved in some other sort of interrogation. There is probability they are, but it is not certain and for sure not certain all of them were. Now, I sees lots of reasons why the left thinks this is OK, and I am sure, just as the right does, they believe their justifications are good.

        Each side always can think of some way to show their way of looking at it is different from the other sides. Lawyers do this in court all the time when arguing cases. But, we’re not in a court arguing cases.

        The end result from each type of outing is the same, high risk to the agent. Only in the Adams case, we know for certain without any doubt whatsoever these guys are covert in real time.

        Aside from that, I wasn’t meaning to argue the whole deal over again.

        I was looking for what proof or solid evidence JK had for saying it was “clear” Libby knew. The post doesn’t mention it, and I didn’t see any thing in subsequent posts.

        • Rayne says:

          Read the book.

          Read the entire Libby trial liveblog coverage.

          Add the two years of research up to the trial.

          And then compare it to your quaint little Tivo’d recording.

          Come back after you’re done.

          Your boy Russert was a hack, too; if you actually knew what you were talking about, you’d realize that during the Libby trial, the one covered in person by a certain nearby blogger, it was revealed that Russert was popular with Cheney because ol’ Pumpkinhead was very good about carrying water and not so good on actually doing investigative reporting.

          • newtonusr says:

            Come sit by me, Rayne.
            Together, we can watch while people wander the minefield of countering Marcy Wheeler about the outing of Valerie Plame, and virtually every salient detail surrounding the matter.
            We can eat popcorn and laugh like Hell.

            • Rayne says:

              Ugh. I’d probably laugh this pesky [insert descriptor] off if I could eat popcorn.

              But seriously, what kind of [insert descriptor] would think that the woman who gathered and compiled the eight-plus timelines linked at this site wouldn’t have exhaustively cataloged everything Plame, would think that watching MTP would crack the case?

              Oy. I have to go and have a slug of herbal tea and hit the hay. I’ll leave you to snicker at the [insert descriptor]. It’s late and it’s not worth my time.

        • emptywheel says:


          If you’re so good at evidence, you’ll remember where OVP boasted that they get to set Tim Russert’s agenda, right?

          As to the John Adams project, you undermine your point yourself. Aside from details you don’t know about how the photos were presented to detainees, that’s the point: no one but the detainees know whether these people were the torturers. So the JAP people are not making such an allegation. Furthermore, if the torturers are at risk, it is because their bad tradecraft outed themselves, not because Joe Biden or his chief of staff outed them. No one took classified information and used it to expose them, unlike what happened with Plame.

    • Rayne says:

      I’m going to agree with bmaz. I don’t recall your name being among the frequent readers/commenters at either The Next Hurrah or at Firedoglake as we went through and hashed this all out in great detail, following Marcy’s lead.

      Even the Wilson/Plames would agree that the person who knows this case the best, inside and out, top to bottom and back, is Marcy.

      You would do well not to jump into this without having your triple A-plus game on.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Totally agree.
        I mean really, who cares that Plame was in charge of a group tracking Iranian nukes. The same Iran that now seems to be causing a problem with… nukes. Whhhhhhhat a coinkydink.

        That whole concept that maybe BushCheney and their neocon cabal drummed up bogus WMD stories, and were somehow interrupted having double-triple agent-sorta-kinda-neocon-except-he-works-for-Iran-actually Ahmad Chalabi planting bogus WMD in Iraq after the war started, so that it could be ‘found’ by US troops. That’s almost certainly what they were doing. Until, perhaps an FBI or some other group stumbled on them planting the WMD?

        Shorter, the world now has an Iran nuke problem.
        The whole fookin’ world has that problem.
        And the person charged with tracking Iranian nukes back about 7 years ago was ‘outed’ by a US OVP’s Chief of Staff, and by Bush’s right hand guy Rove. Which means that any person who has ever operated in an organization of more than 5 people can reasonably guess that Cheney and Bush knew what was going on, ordered it, but for reasons that are too finely-diced for me to follow or explain, got away with their asses intact.
        So far.

        Is “Sealed vs Sealed” still quietly in the background?

    • emptywheel says:

      No, actually FItz showed a great deal of circumstantial evidence that Cheney ordered Libby to leak Plame’s identity to Judy, which is what he did. So the people who were shown to have intentionally leaked Plame’s identity were Cheney and Libby. And that’s well before you get into the meeting between Libby and Novak they hid for years.

  14. cregan says:

    To clarify, the Nigerian minister is the one who said that HE could not think of any reason for the Iraq contact other than to discuss uranium.

  15. JThomason says:

    The Republicans are continuing to cover their bases on the Plame issue. On a Tennessee Football Forum of all places I read a long diatribe this morning describing how Cheney had to act to depoliticize the intelligence community because of the infusion of liberal interests there Clinton had accomplished citing both Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

    It really wasn’t out of the blue though. A poster had commented that hiring a WAC football coach with a losing record whose father had won a national championship was like promoting an idiot governor to the presidency whose father had been president. O/T I hope Dooley fairs better than Bush. Its a shame that the sniveling obsequious lying that infused Bush’s agenda became so prevalent. We are seeing the fruits of this no-personal-honor-deregulate at-all-costs-agenda in the coal mining and oil disasters. This behavior is a hallmark of the Enron economics Bush loved. Even Obama’s reactionary conservative tilt is understandable because in the status quo would be swept away in the sea change of any viable economic recovery.

    Cregan you are late to the party here. These are just pretty weeds. The heavy lifting has been done on the “cloud over the Vice-President.”

  16. beleck says:

    anyone who tries to cover up for the traitors who outed a spy is indeed part and parcel of what is wrong with America today. treason is still treason whether done by the left or the right.
    Bush’s cabal will live in infamy, if you want to join that crowd, be my guest.

  17. JasonLeopold says:

    klynn @33 I did seek him out and I knew he was coming through LA to discuss his book so I thought it would be a good opportunity to talk to him about some of the statements he made about Zubaydah and I was really curious about the date of the CIA cable he said he read that showed Zubaydah was waterboarded and why he thought he was subjected to waterboarding before August. Also, I heard he had been privately making comments about the diaries and claiming that it wasn’t evidence he was mentally unstable. Basically, I was also curious about what he found in the house during the raid. It is part of this larger story I have been working on for what seems like forever.

  18. JasonLeopold says:

    also, thanks to everyone for taking the time to read the story/watch the interview. I realize it was lengthy on both fronts and appreciate that you all took the time to slog through it.

  19. JasonLeopold says:

    Jeff, thanks so much for weighing in. I love your analysis re: Kiriakou’s take on AZ’s mental state and your description of how Kiriakou views AZ. He seems intent on saying they weren’t really “diaries” even though that’s what the government calls them in their own documents. And I sensed that he was upset with the FBI for, according to him, leaking the info to Suskind. Also, it didn’t occur to me during the interview to say this but I bdont believe anyone ever said AZ was retarded.

  20. Citizen92 says:

    From Jason’s article:

    Kiriakou was present at a “Deputies Committee” meeting where officials from the departments of State, Defense (DoD) and the CIA were in attendance.

    For the office of the vice president “it was Libby. For CIA it was Grenier [who was standing in for Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin]. For DoD it was [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz. For State, to the best of my recollection, it was the guy who was Undersecretary for Political Affairs [Marc Grossman]” because Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was out of town.

    Kiriakou said he was the “note taker” at this meeting, which took place on June 10, 2003, when I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, “entered the room furious, putting on a big show, arms flailing around, swearing and demanding to know why nobody at the CIA told him that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson.”

    Any significance in Wolfowitz’ presence at this relevation?

    This also sounds like a fairly selective accounting of the Deputies attendees. I thought both Deputies as well as Principals Committees were chaired by the NSC, but no mention of them. And the President’s staff?

    As for Scooter Libby’s schedule — thanks for the reminders of their obtuseness… “Meetings with Dr. Rice” … “Meetings with Secretary Card”

    And hahaha, so funny, on that schedule the 6:00 Strategery Meeting, hahaha.

  21. Leen says:

    Listening to the interview. Jason you really stayed on the “actionable intelligence” claim. Sure does not add up when Kirakou claims that he found out that the cable that he had read that AZ had cracked after one waterboarding/torture session and that he had given them “actionable intelligence” Why would Kirakou believe one part of that cable and not the other after he found out that AZ had been waterboarded/TORTURED so many times and had not “cracked” after one waterboarding. All of this is so f—–g creepy, illegal, and immoral.

    One thing that gave me a bit of hope about the CIA was when Kirakou said that “there were a lot of people who were really disturbed by this enhanced interrogation program” “not happy”

    But what did any of the CIA agents do when they “were really disturbed by this enhanced interrogation program” TORTURE. Sounds like nothing. Nothing at all.

    How many times did Libby and Cheney visit Langley during this period?

Comments are closed.