60 Minutes Tonight

[Dave_Schuldt]

Bad shit,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/60minutes/main994753.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

[billcoe]

Bad shit ? You rememember when the CIA station chief in the middle East was captured by militants and tortured to death? Wonder what they were discussing?

 

So where's William Buckley?

 

"................At the same time, his second term brought an acute deterioration in his White House team, with disastrous consequences. He allowed James A. Baker, his pragmatic chief of staff, to trade jobs with Donald Regan, his secretary of the Treasury. For four years, said Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus, Baker had helped guard Reagan "from his own worst instincts." Regan, on the other hand, let Reagan be Reagan. The loss of Baker at the White House, along with his political savvy, was widely blamed for many of the subsequent troubles that befell the president.

 

Regan and McFarlane distrusted each other; Cannon said they barely spoke. McFarlane also was at odds with Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of Defense Weinberger, especially on Iran. McFarlane wanted to woo Iran away from Soviet influence, even if it meant encouraging the sale of Western arms to Iran for its ongoing war against Iraq. Shultz and Weinberger opposed it adamantly. American policy forbade selling arms to Iran and other sponsors of terrorism.

 

To Reagan, this was yet another wrangle over government policy. He was not really interested in government, Cannon said. He "was so obviously wearied by extensive analysis, particularly of foreign policy, that aides plunged into arcane material at their peril. If Reagan became sufficiently bored, he simply nodded off."

 

He had even less appetite for personal conflicts among his staff. "Reagan had learned in childhood from his father's alcoholic eruptions to withdraw at any sign of disharmony," Cannon said.

 

In March of 1984, William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, had been kidnapped by terrorists linked to Iran, and CIA Director Casey told Reagan he wanted Buckley back. Moreover, Casey saw merit in McFarlane's Cold War view of Iran as a barrier against the Soviet Union.

 

Terrorists took more hostages, seven Americans in all.

 

This seized Reagan's attention like no policy debate ever could. It evoked what Mayer and McManus call the "hard-liner's soft touch." The danger, they say, "was that, left to his own good intentions, the president would confuse the human interest with the national interest…. There was no clearer example of this danger than in his approach to the hostages."

 

In August 1985, McFarlane later testified, Reagan secretly approved the first of eight shipments of missiles and missile parts to Iran. Four of the shipments were made through Israel, which provided the arms and received replacements from the United States. The other shipments were made directly.

 

Reagan signed three "findings," or authorizations, for the secret sales. One spoke of freeing the hostages. Attached to another was a memo. Cannon says Reagan did not bother to read it, so Adm. John Poindexter, who had succeeded McFarlane as national security advisor, initialed it on Reagan's behalf. It approved using a private agent as a go-between.

 

North already had arranged for such an agent. He called it the Enterprise. It was a network of secret operatives, shadow corporations and Swiss bank accounts. He could use them to do something that might be illegal under Boland II but would further a cause dear to the president. He could divert profits from the Iranian arms sales to the Contras. It would keep them together "body and soul."

 

Secretly, Cannon says, North and the Enterprise demanded far more money from the Iranians than they paid the Defense Department for the missiles; just two of the shipments had yielded $6.3 million in profits. North kept none of the money for himself, but fellow operatives in the Enterprise pocketed some. North gave much of the rest to the Contras.

 

On Nov. 3, 1986, a Lebanese magazine, Al-Shiraa, told about a McFarlane visit to Iran and said he had sent weapons on Reagan's behalf. Three days later the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post broke the first full story of the Iran arms sales. Diversion of profits to the Contras remained a secret, but Congress exploded in anger, and the trading of arms for hostages sputtered to a close.

 

By Cannon's count, Reagan had sold more than 2,000 missiles and in excess of 200 spare parts to Iran. Operatives in the Enterprise had pocketed $4.4 million. Another $3.8 million had gone to the contras, in defiance of the law established by Boland II. The CIA's Buckley had died in captivity. Three American hostages had been released, but terrorists had taken three others in their stead.

 

The president's first reaction was a "no comment," his second, a denial. Then his denial became confusing: He said that Weinberger and Shultz had supported an initiative toward Iran, which he had already denied existed. He refused to concede that he had traded arms for hostages. "Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands," he declared to the American people in a televised speech. "That no-concessions policy remains in force, in spite of the wildly speculative and false stories about arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments.

 

"We did not — repeat, did not — trade weapons or anything else for hostages."

 

Playing "Wheres William" During Reagans 2nd term

 

And that's a good thing that we were not trading weapons for hostages, cause we seemed to give those dickheads a lot of weapons and didn't get Buckley back.

[archenemy]

Worst shit eech

[Dave_Schuldt]

You have sunk to a new low.

[archenemy]

Thank you.

[Jim]

Bush, Rove, Cheney. They haven't a shred of integrity. Always more concerned with politics than leading.

[Stefan]

Didn't Reagan apologize for Iran Contra before the U.S. even though he said he did not know anything about it.

 

My opinion = I highly doubt Bush or Cheney will apologize, even though they may have known nothing about it.

[JayB]

This video contains several damning indictments of Bush, Rove, and Cheney....

 

http://homepage.mac.com/poorboyz/.Public/Trailers/WAR_LoRes.mov

[olyclimber]

I counted 2,025 damning indictments.

[TREETOAD]

Isn't outing a spy an offence of treason? Shouldn't these guys be getting the old terminal injection?

[mattp]

I believe it is very hard to argue that these guys are loyal to America, even if you agree with their basic positions on social issues or even the war. Seriously. Do even the right wing loyalists think they didn't out a CIA operative for political reasons? Isn't it clear that Rove and Cheney were involved at least at some level? Isn't this treasonous even if you can make some legal argument how they didn't break the law? It might be different if they were saying that Valerie Plame was a rogue operative or was somehow acting against our national interest but we have not seen a hint of that. In fact, we've seen no attempt to justify what they did, and they are not denying they outted her for political payback against her husband or to deflect criticism based on what he was saying.

 

At first, the President's spokesman denied any high level involvment - saying he'd been assured by Rove and Libby they weren't involved. Then, Bush said "we'll never know, but it is up to Ascroft to investigate." Since then, silence except to say "Libby is a good man and I can't comment on an ongoing investigation." Isn't Bush at some level responsible, whether he knew or not?

[Jim]

If you ever had any doubt about the tactics of this administration this peak around the facade is revealing. With all the talk about nationalism and protecting our country they don't blink an eye when it comes to compromising not just this one person, but the whole covert operation they built as her cover and those associated with it now - and those who in foreign countries who have been associated with it.

 

The other peak around the curtain is how the press in this country is just a lap dog for the government. To gain access to high powered people you have to toe the line, otherwise you'll be a cub reporter forever. Judith Miller was just scanning the admistrations assertions and putting them under her byline. You bet there's a media bias.

 

Libby is a well seasoned right-hand guy. He would not have leaked such sensitive information on his own. Most likely Rove and Cheney devised the scheme. My guess at a likely outcome. Libby will fall on his sword and Bush, in his parting days, will pardon him. Just as Reagan did so with his felons.

[Stonehead]

I thought this op-ed piece in WSJ was interesting.

 

This morning I heard snippets of Bush's plan for combatting a potential avian flu epidemic...Hmmm, another crisis that the Presidency will save us from? How convenient.

[Stefan]

Um.

 

I read the indictments closer. They are for Libby becuase he lied to the grand jury.

 

None of the indictments are for anybody who exposed Valerie Plame.

 

WTF? Then who outed Valerie Plame?

[catbirdseat]

They'll get it out of Robert Novak once they put him on the witness stand and he is under oath.

[Jim]

Um.

 

I read the indictments closer. They are for Libby becuase he lied to the grand jury.

 

None of the indictments are for anybody who exposed Valerie Plame.

 

WTF? Then who outed Valerie Plame?

 

You just became aware of this? And why is this? Libby fabricated such a tale that it was a slam dunk to have him indicted on false statements (not under oath while being interviewed by FBI) and false testimony (under oath in front of Grand Jury). Likely he was not charged for the leak because he was not the first - this was person A in the White House, which all believe was Rove.

 

Why he wasn't charged with the leak is not clear to me even if he was the second one to do it. Hopefully Rove will get nailed and booted out. Slimeballs.

[Stonehead]

there is a cancer on the presidency

[Stefan]

I just figured it out.

 

Libby is going to get a presidential pardon when Bush leaves!

[catbirdseat]

Yes, Libby will go to trial and it will drag out for a couple years. He'll avoid jail until 2008 at which time the pardon will be doled out.

[Norman_Clyde]

Likely he was not charged for the leak because he was not the first - this was person A in the White House, which all believe was Rove.

 

Why he wasn't charged with the leak is not clear to me even if he was the second one to do it.

 

I think Fitzgerald said he didn't charge anyone with the crime of outing Plame because the law says it's only a crime if you do it on purpose, and there was not enough evidence to pin it on any one person making the name public "on purpose". Not that he was sure no crime was committed, but that he was not going to have evidence to prove it so he didn't charge anyone.