1. njr says:

    Laura Rozen asks

    is it the documentary evidence of the taunting abuse going on at Saddam’s execution that’s offensive, or the taunting abuse that’s offensive?

    and emptywheel is noting the evidence is in duplicate… does the duplication help answer the question?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Now here is CNN’s coverage of a second video, a video that is obviously much better quality than the â€cell phone video.â€

    Isn’t that the official video… i.e., the one that stops before the actual hanging?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Swopa

    I may be misunderstanding–but I thought the Iraqi government first admitted there was an official video then backtracked and said it was unofficial. That’s not right?

    [Looking forward to the â€survivor show/family reunionâ€)

  4. Anonymous says:

    No, at first the Iraqi govt. released an official video without any sound (for reasons that are now apparent), and which ended before the actual execution.

    Within about a day of that video, the cellphone video started bubbling up on the Web.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m still looking for the link on their backtracking. But for now I’ll cede you the first round of survivor.

    It’s triple elimination, isn’t it? I’m not done until Ari is named as Pincus’ source–and he and Bartlett as â€2â€?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Actually, I meant to mention in the earlier thread that I’m accepting dinner bets on 1×2×6, payable either during the Libby trial or at YearlyKos.

    That would include Pincus as one of the 6, Ari/Bartlett as â€2â€, and any official on Air Force One as â€1†(e.g., Powell, Card, Bartlett).

  7. Anonymous says:

    Oh, and the core theory (for anyone who hasn’t been following along) being that the Washington Post’s â€1×2×6†story in late September 2003 described a string of calls (to â€six or more reportersâ€) made from Air Force One on July 12, 2003 (by â€two top White House officialsâ€), as observed/overheard by a â€senior administration official†who blew the whistle to the WaPo.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I’ll take that bet–though I doubt highly we’ll get an answer to that at the trial.

    I wouldn’t necessarily bet a dinner agaisnt Fleischer as Pincus’ source (maybe a beer, though). But Fleischer/Bartlett as 2? Dinner it is.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I’d be surprised if we learn during the trial, but then again, who knows what things might come crawling out when Fitz and Libby start lifting rocks. (If Team Libby really intends to impugn Ari by saying he was on the hook to be indicted, then news of who he leaked to almost has to come out, doesn’t it?)

    And I agree, Fleischer leaking to Pincus as a one-off event is only worth a beer.

    The thing I’m a little shaky on is Bartlett as part of â€2â€, since he never seems to have been hinted at otherwise as a leaker. So a caveat I’ll insist on is that if 1×2×6 might really be 1×1×6, with Fleischer making all the calls — especially if Bartlett is the â€1†SAO and intentionally fingered himself as part of the â€2†in order to divert suspicion. (Which would be an awesome bank shot on his part!)

  10. Jeff says:

    I want in, badly, but I want to clarify the terms of the bet. Which elements of your Theory have to prove correct for you to win? I’d bet against Fleischer and Bartlett as 2 – in fact, I’d almost bet that Bartlett is 1 (which in turn means that 1 was on Air Force One, but did not witness 2 making 6 or so calls on July 12).

    I believe 2 were Rove and Libby, and I believe, less confidently, that 1 was Bartlett (but that’s really a guess). I am skeptical that there were six, at least six reporters called before Novaks’ column came out.

  11. Anonymous says:

    My terms are laid out in the comments above. If Rove/Libby are â€2â€, I’m buying. Bartlett is possible as â€1†in my theory, but IMO only if he’s part of â€2†as well.

    I don’t think we’ll ever find out the names of all 6 reporters, if in fact there were â€six or more.†So I’d ask simply to accept multiple reporters, including Pincus, called from Air Force One.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Agree with you Swopa–this will only come out in an attempt to impugn (and how!) Ari.

    But let me clarify, since I’ve already laid my credit card on the table. An Ari to Pincus leak does not itself prove Ari is 2. I’m arguing that Pincus’ source (whoever it is–I do think Ari is a real possibility) is not part of 2, you’re arguing it is, so this bet is only satisfied if there is some indication that Ari leaked to more than just Pincus. How do we know though whether the multiple ROve and Libby leaks are 2, or the (in that case) multiple Ari leaks are 2?

  13. Jeff says:

    OK, so the essence of it is that Bartlett and Fleischer on board Air Force One on July 12 are 2. That seems fair. Multiple reporters is good enough for me – that’s the significant claim, not the precise number.

    I’m in, but I suppose it’s only fair that I put up Rove and Libby as my 2. I presume if neither is right, nobody wins.

  14. Jeff says:

    How do we know though whether the multiple ROve and Libby leaks are 2, or the (in that case) multiple Ari leaks are 2?

    Isn’t the key here that the question is who 1 fingered as 2 to the Post in September ’03 – regardless of the underlying facts? Especially since it’s quite possible 1 got some if not most of the details wrong?

  15. Anonymous says:

    An Ari to Pincus leak does not itself prove Ari is 2… this bet is only satisfied if there is some indication that Ari leaked to more than just Pincus.

    Exactly right.

    How do we know though whether the multiple Rove and Libby leaks are 2, or the (in that case) multiple Ari leaks are 2?

    If we learn of multiple Ari leaks, we’ll almost certainly learn how they happened, which would answer whether they fit my 1×2×6 model or not. Since the Rove/Libby leaks are already known, it would take the â€1†source stepping forward and saying, â€Yes, that’s what I meant†(or something nearly as definitive).

  16. Rayne says:

    You guys are a hoot!! I am laughing my keister off at this exchange!! I think this administration has rubbed off on you, you’re making up the rules as you go along. Think about it: was the discussion Dick had with whomever over that scrawled upon newspaper article, â€What I didn’t find in Africa†like the one you’re having? Did they quibble about who would talk to what journalist, or at what point they knew the jig was up? Heh. I can see it now, DeadEye writing out all those questions as they chipped away at who would do what when, constituting a win for them…

    And yes, I think Jeff’s right on that last point at 21:25; unless you know who 1 is, you can’t really know who 2 are. The two are clearly dictated by the 1, since there is the possibility that there was another variant arrangement, with 1-prime blowing the whistle to WaPo on at least another 2-prime. Don’t get me started on the possible permutations of the 6-plus…

    Too funny.

  17. Rayne says:

    Swopa 21:43 — why would â€1†step forward and not WaPo? I missed this part. Or why not both, under oath?

  18. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Rayne. I actually went and dragged Jeff into this because I knew we could use a little humor. NFL Playoff picks? Bah!! We’ve got real wagers going on here.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Rayne, I don’t think the reporters involved will be asked to out the â€1†SAO under oath, although it’s entirely possible that they could describe him/her more precisely in a way that would make it pretty obvious who he/she is.

    Particularly if the â€2†are Ari/Bartlett people other than Libby, Libby’s team might be motivated to call Colin Powell the suspected â€1†to the stand and ask, â€Did you ever witness anyone telling a reporter about Joseph Wilson’s wife?â€

  20. Anonymous says:

    Also, Mike Allen has never been listed in anyone’s witness list, so it’s unlikely he’ll be there to reveal his 1.

  21. Rayne says:

    Thanks, Swopa. I guess I can only marvel at the feel you folks have for what will be asked. I think part of my confusion comes from the Fitz case versus Plame civil case: did Fitz already ask the â€1†SAO, and is this going to be introduced without having to call the â€1†in the course of the civil suit? Or is it the other way around, that during civil case Plaintiff’s attys. will ask what Fitz couldn’t or wouldn’t, and is not already covered in our line of discussion?

    Gah. Wish my psychic powers were a bit more developed.

    EW — definitely better than NFL Playoffs, by a long chalk.

  22. Anonymous says:

    It’s the second–the Wilsons, if their case doesn’t get thrown out–will have broader leeway for discovery.

  23. John Lopresti says:

    1 of 2 was Condi. This only works if viewed in 2007 terms when today Negroponte is announced to have migrated to State. I would guess Bolton wanted to be one of the leakers, too; it fits his m.o. at that time; how about his stovepipe associates; seems lots of folks Wanted to Help leak. It has a congruency with the ethos of the grand Brooks Brothers Rebelion. I wonder what Bush has planned for Bolton’s next assignment. Maybe HSA was too amorphous for NePo to endure Two More Years; or perhaps a leak now in Foreign Relations committee has forewarned NePo HSA is about to be streamlined after legislature hearings. If I am right, the terms of my demand for spoils will be: a wholesale price version of the first book in the Anatomy of Deceit series.

  24. oldtree says:

    being somewhat experienced with video, this â€second video†isn’t professional by any means. It is a higher light input camera than the cell phone video, but not by much, so it is not as grainy, and it is likely tape, due to it not having the glitches associated with a cell phone cam. it is not on a tripod, it wavers on horizon, it has a zoom range of greater than a few points that cell phones usually have. It could easily be a digital still camera doing video. the light is overexposed, but it is hard to tell considering SH is the only one with out a mask.
    the person shooting the video is quite close to the person who’s hand goes up, and you can judge the distance when the zoom range changes. The person is also known to be shooting the video by the person on the camera right, as they are acknowledged by that person. I am only guessing at from 3 to 6 feet. we don’t know where the zoom range started, ie; if the shooter had all ready zoomed in. if there is a better picture of the size of the platform, it would be easy to determine the location of the person shooting this video. it may be that this person is standing over the area next to the trap door. but it also appears that no one is in front of this person, indicating they have the prize position for doing photo or video. In the second cell phone one showing SH from below, it shows where the other person shooting the video seen on CNN is standing, what appears to be 3 feet from the executioner on camera right again, but the camera person isn’t seen in the video
    there is a light on at camera right, pointed to SH. during the jumble just before the drop, the rougher images of the cell camera flashes over to the person shooting the more stable video for a fraction of a second, but there is no clear view of anything but perhaps what they were wearing.

    nope, only the fact that the person was clearly there to get the video is indicated. not that it was a pro video by any means, that is clearly contradicted by several motions that camera person made. amateur all the way.

    someone needs a video analyst

  25. hauksdottir says:

    CNN called and talked to their on-site source after Hussein was dead… and their report mentioned the sound of chanting as background noise during the call, and the source said that people were dancing around the body, which was right in front of him. I was amused by Josh’s comment that it surely sounded like somebody in the room had a cellphone.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..011765.php

    If this source didn’t take the leaked snuff-film, there were AT LEAST 2 cell phones in the execution chamber.

    The only way to prove the source’s innocence of making the snuff-film would be to compare the chanting behind the phone conversation (which I presume that CNN recorded) with that of the snuff-film. If they synchronize exactly, the callee couldn’t have been recording while talking, otherwise his own voice would be in the snuff film. If the snuff-film ends because of an incoming call, well, we know who filmed this version. Maliki’s investigation will probably finger the lowest possible fall-guy, though.

    I’m going to presume that the guards may have had their phones embargoed before the helicopter flight, but that all of the ministers and judges had theirs with them (what authority in America would order Chief Justice Roberts or NSA Stephen Hadley to hand over his phone?), and that anybody with video capability took a record.

    Rubaie said the execution was videotaped and photographed extensively from the time Hussein was transferred from U.S. to Iraqi custody until he was dead.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/…..topstories

    Distributing it was probably considered a great idea, as proving death beyond all doubt. Just as the US commissioned a huge framed portrait of Zarqawi’s dead head and Hussein’s dead sons were exhibited, the Iraqis were following our example, in the hopes of disheartening any remaining followers… or merely for bragging rights.

    Bush claims not to have seen the video. Bulldickeys on that. A man who keeps Hussein’s pistol as a trophy in his desk? A man who watched the film of the statue being pulled down over and over? A man who would send hundreds of thousands of people to war and bankrupt his own country to avenge a threat to his daddy? A man who put firecrackers in frogs and watched them explode mid-air has no innate aversion to killing and viewing death in person, so why would he pretend to have niceities about seeing the execution of his hated enemy?

    When Bush is in the dock for his own war crimes, I wonder if he’ll display the discipline of Hussein and accept his fate… or if he’ll blubber like a bully in a corner?

  26. Anonymous says:

    hauks

    Yes, I think you’re right. And of course, there were the flashes going off, which suggests several more camera phones.

    As to Bush not seeing the video? Nope, I don’t buy that either. This is the guy who laughed at Tammy Faye (was that her name?). He’s probably playing the video off the ceiling of his bedroom.

  27. Sally says:

    We all know how Bush will act when he’s in the dock for war crimes. It won’t be pretty but nothing about him is.

  28. Jeff says:

    Thanks, Rayne, for the deeply substantive, if somewhat difficult to understand, comments. It reminds me of comments over at – oh, never mind.

  31. Rayne says:

    Not certain which part wasn’t clear; maybe I wasn’t being particularly articulate, or perhaps it was because I was thinking of the bets in terms of a linear equation, like so:

    1×2×6 = Swopa’s bet =
    [Any AF1 x Ari/Bartlett X (Pincus+5)]

    1’x2’x6 = EW’s bet =
    [(not 1) x (not Ari/Bartlett) x (Pincus+5)]
    (where ’ = prime, distinguishing different values of the same variable in a mathematical expression)

    1â€x2â€x6 = Jeff’s bet =
    [(any 1 or 1’) x (Rove/Libby ONLY) x (Pincus+5)]
    (where †= distinquishes different values of same variable not previously expressed)

    Now I’m scratching my head about the (1), (1’), or (1â€), because your comment upthread suggested that the (2), (2’) or (2â€) were dependent upon (1), (1’), or (1â€). In other words, your bet is not (any 1 or 1’) but (not 1)…capice?

    To Swopa and EW — do you and Jeff all understand the 6 = (Pincus+5)? or is there some variant in the bets that hasn’t been clarified?

  32. Jeff says:

    Here’s my overall view. I feel pretty confident that the source (1) for the 1×2×6 story in the Post got some parts of his (I believe it’s a him) wrong. In particular, I suspect it is true that he failed to distinguish between calls that were made to reporters before Novak’s column was published and calls after Novak’s column (July 14, 2003). Thus, I think there may not have been 6 reporters to whom the 2 leaked before Novak’s July 14 column. It’s also perfectly possible that the 2 disclosed Plame info to reporters during conversations where the reporters called the officials and not vice versa. However, I do think the essence of the story is probably accurate – that 2 top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to multiple reporters before Novak’s column ran. I believe the two officials who 1 was talking about were Rove and Libby.

    I suspect that 1 was not an eye-witness to all these calls, but knew about them second-hand for the most part. Perhaps there was a meeting in September 2003 where people discussed what they’d done in this regard, and Rove and Libby admitted their calls. And 1 relayed some of that to the WaPo. I could imagine Bartlett in this role.

    I am doubtful that Adam Levine is the actual source for the Post, as Isikoff and Corn’s book, Hubris, at times hints; Novak has taken that as an assertion, and I think that’s not necessarily correct. What makes me doubtful is that I doubt Levine qualifies as a senior administration official, though if he does, I wouldn’t bet against Levine.

  33. Rayne says:

    Okay…now how do I write a linear equation for that?

    1â€x2â€x6†= Jeff’s bet =

    (where 1†may be any 1 or 1’) x (Rove/Libby) x (Any 6 or more)

    True? False?

  34. Jeff says:

    Close. In place of (Any 6 or more) put in (Multiple, but likely less than 6).

    I’ll stick with â€any†if I can. But for record, they probably include Miller, Cooper, and Novak. Pincus appears to be out, unless Rove was his source, which is possible but not likely. Woodward doesn’t count, not Dickerson. And unless something has changed recently, Fitzgerald knows of no other reporters who became aware of Plame before Novak’s column.

  35. Rayne says:

    Ah, capice. Which definitely means 6â€, different from EW and Swopa equations.

    So…how does one pay up? As I see it, this is a matrix; there are three different variables, therefore three different bets, unless you three have agreed on an all-or-nothing. Methinks EW has a bet on 2 versus 2’ with Swopa, and with a 2’=2†condition, both you and EW would have to buy Swopa that beer. But in a condition where 2’ exists but 2†does not, EW is on the hook for the beer by herself.

    ?

    Might have to make a drinking game out of this, replete with board and tiddly-winks…

  36. Jeff says:

    As best as I can see, the dinner bet really hinges on the identities of 2. There is perhaps a sort of gentleperson’s bet on who 1 is or even more on how 1 came to believe what s/he believed about 2 (specifically, through direct observation, on AF1, or some other way, as through later discussion, for instance). And there’s a kind of side bet for beer strictly on whether Pincus’ July 12 source was Fleischer. There are a number of related interesting questions (who were the reporters, how many were there in reality, and so on), but I don’t think any bets hinge on them.