The CIA response to the Libby defense request for a years worth of Presidential Daily Briefs was unsealed yesterday (Bloomberg, Breitbart). The CIA estimated it would take nine months to comply with the defense request for nearly a year's worth of PDBs, and three months to comply with the judge's suggestion for summaries over a restricted time period of about 40 days. From Bloomberg:
The request for more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief would impose an ``enormous burden'' on the agency because it would have to ensure that any classified information in the reports stayed secret and because the request would take nine months to comply with, the Central Intelligence Agency said in court documents unsealed today in Washington.
``Any disclosure of the PDB beyond its intended narrow audience -- the President and his most senior advisers -- increases the possibility of damage to the national security,'' Marilyn Dorn, information review officer at the CIA's National Clandestine Service, said in a sworn affidavit.
From Breitbart:
But Dorn estimated it would take about three months to comply with a more streamlined request of about 40 days of the briefings that U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton suggested. That period would cover when Libby allegedly spoke to three reporters, along with two days before and after he was interviewed by FBI agents and testified before the grand jury.
"While the size of the task would be reduced if the time periods were restricted, the process is nevertheless time-consuming and laborious," Dorn said.
Three months sounds OK to me, especially since I don't have to do the work.
Shouldn't they include the time when he talked to Bob Woodward?
Posted by: Patton | March 08, 2006 at 06:50 AM
I don't understand, Libby was part of the 'narrow, intended audience' and has already seen all this material. How sould a second reading hurt National Security?
Posted by: Patton | March 08, 2006 at 06:52 AM
The time periods are utter bullshit. They can get the documents together in less than a day, because its just the daily editions of the same report.
Reviewing them and redacting the naught bits might take a bit longer, but hey, if the CIA doesn't want to have to do shit like this, they shouldn't make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecution.
Posted by: R C Dean | March 08, 2006 at 07:19 AM
Reviewing them and redacting the naught bits might take a bit longer . . .
I presumed that was what Ms Dorn was referring to (she may well have believed that was understood, coming from the "information review officer"). But I, like you, have little sympathy for the "burden" on the CIA to review its own work.
However, I think both articles almost completely missed the point. The issue at hand is the Executive's privilege to secure information for decisionmaking. Assuming that privilege is invoked (which I think is the odds-on favorite), the President will make the decision, and it won't be based on the workload at CIA.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 08, 2006 at 08:47 AM
I do have sympathy for the CIA having to determine what is too classified to release publicly and what is not, and how best to release a summary of one of the most top-secret documents in the land, while preserving said secrecy. Over a year? Get out. There must be so many intertwined bits of information in those documents. Can't give away an ongoing secret or even a past secrety that isn't ready to be declassified.
I'm sure there would be a lot of research that would have to go into summarizing each briefing.
Having said that, there's simply no way Bush will budge on allowing them to be released. The precendent would be horrible, and while he can pardon Libby he couldn't put that particular genie back in the bottle.
Posted by: MayBee | March 08, 2006 at 08:55 AM
It seems a little ironic that the CIA has more problems with complying with a subpoena than they do when it comes to leaking to the NYT. Maybe Libby should subpoena CIA reports about covert European prisons and see what they say about security concerns on those...
Posted by: Rob Crocker | March 08, 2006 at 09:00 AM
In a former life I handled classified intelligence on a daily base, up to the TS level. I also had to use that intelligence to prepare unclassified briefings and orders. It requires thought and effort. I have never seen a PDB, BUT I sincerely doubt that it should take the CIA, with its vast resources, 90 days to prepare unclassified summaries of 40 PDBs. Because each paragraph in a classified document is marked with the classification level of that specific paragraph, it is relatively easy to spot the highly classified stuff.
The first question should be the scope of the final product desired by Libby, et al. I think what he is seeking is more or less a graphic presentation aid that will allow the defense to talk to the volume of high priority issues Libby dealt with on a daily basis, as well as the relatively insignificant priority of Plame. If that is so, then I would think a product that listed basic topics, with a line or two vaguely describing the issue, and a couple of metrics for actions required, urgency, etc., would fit the bill. This type of product stirps away virtually all the classified content and should be relatively quick and painless to produce. Anything that remains sensitive would stand out in the review done by CIA authorities before it leaves their hands and would be made even further non-specific.
An additional question that should be asked is whether the final product needs to be "Unclassified", or merely classified at a lower level, such as "Confidential". "Confidential" extracts would be much easier to produce than unclassified and should, in my opinion, be easily handled by courtroom security.
Example:
(Date) "Iran Update" - Nuclear program developments, status update on multi-source collections (Urgency 3, Action 2);
Terrorist groups in Phillipines, activities and status of all known groups (Urgency 4, Action 4);
London Bombing, updates and links to known groups (Urgency 2, Action 1);
(REDACTED*) (Urgency 1, Action 2)
* There may be some information in a PDB that is so extremely sensitive that the topic can't even be mentioned. I suspect that should be the exception rather than the rule and that there should be a way to provide a memory jogger without giving away anything.
Posted by: Dave in W-S | March 08, 2006 at 09:10 AM
I think he also wanted vopies of the brieifings perpared for him with a notation of which were action items he was responsible for..He wants to show that the information he received and his duties were so much more significant than Plame that he had no particular reason to remember that part of the briefings.
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 09:28 AM
The file copies of the PDB as reviewed should include who was assigned actions for specific topics. I would think so, at any rate, since that is pretty standard practice for any executive review, whether military, government or business. Only those action notes that directly or indirectly pertain to Libby are of interest and should be provided. Libby can flesh that out with his own recollections and notes.
Posted by: Dave in W-S | March 08, 2006 at 09:42 AM
I sincerely doubt that it should take the CIA, with its vast resources, 90 days to prepare unclassified summaries of 40 PDBs.
I haven't worked with PDBs, but I used to be in the section that prepared the briefs for a Combatant Commander (what we used to call a "CinC"), and they were a mishmash of operational reports, intelligence, indicators, etc. They were also preliminary, sometimes wrong, and often misclassified. Further, the challenge is not to strip all classified information (which would yield an unusable product in any event), but only the stuff that's too sensitive for the CIPA process. Seems to me that'd require a bunch of very fine judgments, and that CIA is unlikely to have a current process in place to handle it. Personally, I thought it was an optimistic estimate (and, in fact, I'll boldly predict that, if tasked, the CIA will be late . . . and the recipients will gripe about the product).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 08, 2006 at 09:44 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these things called Presidential Daily BRIEFS/BRIEFINGS (Emphasis on the brief part)? I cannot imagine them being highly detailed or lengthy. Ten months to prepare nine months or 90 days to prepare 40 of them is ludicrous. If one person can't do five or ten a day, they need to fire the whole bunch and start over.
Posted by: Larry | March 08, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Larry,
Think back to the August 2001 PDB that confirms Bush knew or should have known about 9/11. /sarcasm/
Less than 2 pages. Very concise. I would imagine they are very brief.
Posted by: Sue | March 08, 2006 at 10:15 AM
It took 'em a few days to make the referral though right? :)
Posted by: dorf | March 08, 2006 at 10:19 AM
In my (long ago...retired USAF '84) experience, generally, the higher level the target of the briefing, the less detailed the brief. The pres doesn't need or want to know the grid coordinates of yesterday's S. O. input, target and ops status like some levels below him do. His version would say like, "Operation Red Sneaker initiated on schedule." If he wants details, he asks.
In every USAF outfit I was in there were always several guys who knew how to do stuff. Commanders and staff ID'd them and used them. Example: When I wrote papers for generals, I always overwrote, then had some young dude come over from his primary job and tear heck out of them, boiling 3 pages down to 1. CIA has people who know how to do stuff, whether they have a procedure or not. If they don't know who these people are, shame on them, they should all be fired.
Posted by: Larry | March 08, 2006 at 10:31 AM
. . . the higher level the target of the briefing, the less detailed the brief . . .
Yes, for each individual subject, but as you go up in level, you add more subjects (from more sources). Further, there are additional things not normally seen at lower levels (e.g., assessments of indicators, recon missions, black ops) . . . often very sensitive and highly classified.
. . .then had some young dude come over from his primary job and tear heck out of them, boiling 3 pages down to 1 . . .
Heh, so true (we used to call that "dumbing it down for the brass"). But this isn't really the same subject. Someone now has to sift through all that crap deciding what's truly sensitive, and that usually involves tracking down someone who knows the subject matter intimately (after deciding what level of risk they were willing to accept in providing the material to CIPA). In your example, the young dude would have to come back to see you, explain to you what the ground rules were, and then ask what of your brief would give away unacceptably sensitive information--and if there was some way to summarize it to remove that particular concern.
Repeat that process for each subject matter expert involved, and it adds up to considerable effort. I also suspect they'd have a couple iterations as decisionmakers argued over and then refined the acceptable level of risk. I admit guessing on the timeframe, but I think some here are grossly underestimating the difficulty.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 08, 2006 at 11:02 AM
Not to mention, but if the CIA has some competent people, I think they are better used fighting terrorists than helping to convict ex vice presidential aides of crimes of High Bafflegab and Low Autism.
cathy :-)
CIA used to have those people, but then the Clinton administration cut their budget by 20% and erected Gorelick Walls, and generally blew through the "peace dividend" like drunken sailors. Lots of CIA people left in disgust, and a bunch of the rest were outted by Aldrich Ames. Not to criticize the Clinton administration -- we were all in an "irrational exuberance" during that time, not letting any wacko muslims damp our optimism for a world free of the fear of the US and USSR exchanging our complete inventory of thermonuclear weapons.Posted by: cathyf | March 08, 2006 at 11:04 AM
The one I used most's first name was Bill. I called him Shakespeare. Gen would say this reads well, Larry. I'd tell him Shakespeare was my ghostwriter, aka, Capt. Jones.
Okay, okay, I'm a gross misunderestimater.
Cecil: "I also suspect they'd have a couple iterations as decisionmakers argued over and then refined the acceptable level of risk." I think we all know this CYA is half or more of the time required. LOL
Posted by: Larry | March 08, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Cathyf: "...if the CIA has some competent people, I think they are better used fighting terrorists than helping to convict ex vice presidential aides of crimes of High Bafflegab and Low Autism."
If CIA is anything like USAF, 10% of the people do 90% of the work anyway. Hope they didn't let too many of the 10%ers get away.
May I use that, "High Bafflegab and Low Autism."?
Posted by: Larry | March 08, 2006 at 11:47 AM
The court already has a procedure in place for dealing with classified info in this trial. If it takes the CIA 90 days to figure out what's sensitive info and what's not in 40 PDB's, they're in the wrong business. This is a turf issue from start to finish, not a burden issue.
Posted by: JM Hanes | March 08, 2006 at 11:51 AM
I'm still tinkering with the slogan...
Whaddya'all think?cathy :-)
Hey, that's not just the USAF, that's most any organization. I've always maintained that the key and indeed only job of management is keeping the 90% out of the way of the 10%. But, alas, only 10% of management is up to the job. A big push of management guruism out there involves either directly harassing the 10% by management, or setting up incentives for the 90% to harass the 10% and sabatoge their work. But, y'know, at least we have Scott Adams on our side!Posted by: cathyf | March 08, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Let's hope they take their time coming to a resolution of these "turf" issues. They should have thought about all these burdensome problems before they made the erroneus referral.
Posted by: maryrose | March 08, 2006 at 12:01 PM
I'd be surprised if they didn't, Maryrose. Probably said if it all turns to doodoo, we'll just misundercooperate.
Posted by: Larry | March 08, 2006 at 12:08 PM
I don't believe that "how long" will be relevant at all because I agree with Cecil's assessment of the Executive's respone, which, briefly summarized, will be: Go Fish.
Someone of a cynical bent might surmise that the CIA has a very strong suspicion that Executive will respond in just such fashion and is providing a bit of padding for the anticipated response. If the matter were going to be tried and if the verdict by chance were against Libby, the Executive's exercise of its privilege would provide for an interesting appeal. We'll never know.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 12:10 PM
I think we all know this CYA is half or more of the time required. LOL
Agreed (though in my opinion that's why they can't get it done in 90 days). And I maintain it's all theoretical anyway, because the White House isn't going to go along. (I further suspect the Judge, knowing this, will rule Libby doesn't really need that stuff--probably aided by Fitz's willingness to stipulate Libby was busy with "weighty matters.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 08, 2006 at 12:18 PM
But.......but........but, we spent all this money on presents and there's no Fitzmas? Next thing you know, you'll tell me there's no Easter Bunny.
Posted by: Larry | March 08, 2006 at 12:26 PM
We should be getting Fitz' response to the Motion to Dismiss soon. Certainly this response by the CIA will also be on J. Walton's mind when he reads it. (As in,"The appointment issue is a strong one, do I want to kell myself for a year on a case which may have a strong basis for appeal built right into the heart of it.") Remember, it's not the busyness argument alone, but rather these reports had really important stuff in it Libby was charged to deal with and crap like Plame that meant nothing in comparison.)
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 12:29 PM
"kell"=KILL
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 12:30 PM
. . . and crap like Plame that meant nothing in comparison.
This is the main reason I can't see Walton ruling against Libby on the damage assessment and whether she was actually covert (along with the fairness issue). The obvious lack of import makes that whole "outed for revenge" meme incredible; it also makes it considerably more likely it was a footnote to the whole "who sent Wilson" issue. And though I'm not sure the legal rules comport with my sense of fair play, I suspect the latitude traditionally extended to the defense will carry the day on that one.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 08, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Do you remember what the due date is on Fitz's response? I am so dying to hear what he has to say and sometimes wonder if he's got staff desperately trying to figure out some excuse for filing it under seal...
Posted by: JM Hanes | March 08, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Meant to direct previous question to Clarice.
Posted by: JM Hanes | March 08, 2006 at 12:40 PM
The most qualified people to do this job have more inportant tasks. Any bit of imformation has to be traced back to a busy expert to detemine how much can be released, Since the briefings are interrelated and the whole may be gretaer than sum of parts in revealing sources that too has to be evaluated. I could go through the PDBs and cut enough out to ensure no secrets were released but what would be left would not be responsive to defense request for anything that had meaning. Let Fitz make a stipulation that is acceptible to defense. That would ruin Fitz's case in a honorable way.
Posted by: PaulV | March 08, 2006 at 12:41 PM
I too handled classified data a few years back (Up to TS level). Knowing how bureaucracies work, I'd be willing to bet there is a file cabinet somewhere with every single PDB all bundled by day, month, and year. Simple - open the drawers and withdraw the info. I suspect the problem is that it will take the CIA 9 months to find the cabinet...
Posted by: Specter | March 08, 2006 at 04:32 PM
I´m baffled about comments suggesting his line of defence might be that when (supposedly) told that Plame sent her husband to Niger his response meant that he was unaware that the press knew. But acc. to the indictment he states that he was unaware of him being married at all. There is evidence to suggest he was told repeatedly, and considering the issue (allegations that the VP sent him) I cannot believe he forgot about it.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: blubi | March 08, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Libby allready has a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) set up at his lawyers, he's seen all this intelligence...this is all stalling on the part of the government.
And yes, I too have had above TS/SCI clearance for more then 20 years and while I was producing intelligence, we usually considered the CIA analysts as some of the worst in the community.
Posted by: Patt | March 08, 2006 at 06:55 PM
This is a "crazy report", especially considering it is from a far left site. Thought I would link for fun.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 09:25 PM
I read today a phrase in a sentence referring to old information that the NYTimes had purchased About.com.
I learned it as if it were new. I said, wow I didn't know that. Then I vaguely remembered I DID know it but had forgotten it. And for the life of me I don't remember where or when I learned it.
All I can surmise is at the time I learned it, I also learned so many other things that were more important that this bit of info just didn't sink in.
So, blubi, there you have it.
Posted by: Syl | March 08, 2006 at 09:28 PM
ts what an odd story...
How crazy are the kosniks?Some are claiming the Reps rigged the Texas Dem primaries.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_03_05.PHP#005334
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 09:35 PM
I read today a phrase in a sentence referring to old information that the NYTimes had purchased About.com.
I learned it as if it were new. I said, wow I didn't know that. Then I vaguely remembered I DID know it but had forgotten it. And for the life of me I don't remember where or when I learned it,
even though I learned it from my boss almost exactly a month ago, heard it again from two colleagues in the next couple of days, complained to someone who works at the Times about the purchase about two days after that, told a reporter about it nine days after that, told a colleague who talks to the press a lot about it about two weeks later -- which is to say three days ago -- heard about it from a subordinate a day later or so, and on that same day talked to the reporter about it again. That same day I also had a conversation with another colleague about such purchases.
Like I said, when I read that sentence today I learned it as new and was taken aback. And so on.
Posted by: Jeff | March 08, 2006 at 09:43 PM
Hmmm about that Brewster Jennings story, Top9.
I think it makes perfect sense that BJ, even if it was a CIA front company, wouldn't be hiding its existence. The idea is to create a normal-seeming company that does secret activities. The existence of the company isn't a secret, its real work is.
Posted by: MayBee | March 08, 2006 at 10:02 PM
topsecret - Maybe this is a misreading or an overreaction, but it seems to me there is reason to be troubled by that report (and I don't mean by its completely faulty logic, although the transparency of that faulty logic is part of what makes me suspicious).
Posted by: Jeff | March 08, 2006 at 10:05 PM
FTR I thought it was pretty much a moot point, and thought it awfully strange that a lefty site would be flatly stating Libby should be in the pink because of it.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Ts9- You are right, that part is very strange.
Posted by: MayBee | March 08, 2006 at 10:13 PM
Clarice,
That's an evenly split district so the Kosling choice winning 40% would equal 20% in the general. I'd say that's a damn good showing for the 13%ers. Heh, maybe next week when the FAIR profs finish the wearing dunce caps (per SCOTUS mandate), the profs can file some sort of silly suit? Nothing like joning together in another act of utter futility - it's good for the team spirit.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Really, I feel as if I'd been dropped into some utterly mad alternative universe.
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 10:29 PM
How crazy are the kosniks?Some are claiming the Reps rigged the Texas Dem primaries
Really, I thought Dems accusing a fellow Dem of Voter fraud was craziest I heard.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 10:34 PM
Tides FOundation (Soros and Teresa's charitable money laundering outfit) and Fenton communications (every left operation in the country's pr firm) have worked up an ad called Def/Con (Defend the Constitution) which attacks Reed and Hobson tying them to Abramoff. Problem is that Hobson has zero connection--never took a dime from Abramoff or his clients.
It'll be a good chance of Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke law prof who was a named plaintiff in the FAIR case) to shoe us yet again his legal skills.
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 10:52 PM
FOR Erwin.....to shoW
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 10:52 PM
Rick:
I know you directed the comment to Clarice but if you are referring to it as evenly split 50/50, I just want to know evenly with who. It sure aint Republicans for a 1/2 in Webb County and the west side of San Antonio, which is the barrio.
Ciro was an incumbent who lost to Cuellar last time by 58 votes. He got the strong backing of Kos and promptly got his head handed to him. It was not close this time. Ciro headed towards zero. This is not spinnable to anything other than a juge blackeye for Kos ( and the Hamster lady).If I am a Democrat running for office and I see Kos coming my way, I am ducking into the alley and hiding until he goes away.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | March 08, 2006 at 10:58 PM
I'm trying to get the job as Kos' bag lady--pay us and we won't endorse you--He's being balky on terms..
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Gary,
I was thinking of TX-17. You're absolutely right about Cuellar's district. I'm still chuckling over how well the 'elect a vet' strategy worked.
So, really, the Koslings did extraordinarily well in losing badly or poorly? IYO, of course.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Yeah, that loss can't be good timing for Kos, with his book tour starting up and all.
Posted by: MayBee | March 08, 2006 at 11:06 PM
Actually, it is funny to watch.He beings with hard talk about winning..this time really winning. Nothing else will do. The troops are rounded uo. The campaign begins,,and by election eve he's already talking about a "moral victory".Time after time after time.
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 11:07 PM
We need a word beginning with S which would make the "Kiss Of S..." the meaning of K o s as an acronym. No foul language, please.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Sorry..Kiss of Death is the best I can come up with the KOS KOD
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 11:13 PM
Ciro was an incumbent who lost to Cuellar last time by 58 votes. He got the strong backing of Kos and promptly got his head handed to him.
Oh my that is right! WOW, then I am really reeling from their after the fact, we won because we lost letters.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 11:19 PM
Rick:
"Shame" as in "Kiss of Shame".
Not to be confused with "Walk of Shame", which is a completely different kind of shame.
Then again...maybe not.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 08, 2006 at 11:22 PM
"Kiss-O-Kos"
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 11:25 PM
I would love to be a fly on the wall at Yearly Kos. Do you think Reid will really show up, or do you think he'll have a suddenly family emergency?
Posted by: MayBee | March 08, 2006 at 11:26 PM
Soros or Shrummmmy??
Neither have won yet - have they?
Posted by: larwyn | March 08, 2006 at 11:27 PM
"Kiss-O-SIDs"
acronym plus another (something tells me I'll get in trouble for that one)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 11:28 PM
KOshutout
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Kiss of (the ) Scorpion..In fact, I feel a comic book in the wings.
Posted by: clarice | March 08, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Shame is not bad. Scylla would work - we can tell the Koslings it's a mythical figure of power and they'll probably start using it themselves. Styx works as well - the ferryman's payment.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 11:34 PM
I also thought "Kiss of Sighs" as a reference to the Bridge of Sighs, but it's a little to figurative to catch on.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 08, 2006 at 11:40 PM
too figurative, rather...
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 08, 2006 at 11:41 PM
Schrum is very good. Scorpion would take an article - but Scorpio(s) would not.
The Kiss Of Scorpio - good for a ride on the Styx, the Nepenthe or the Lethe.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 11:41 PM
Kiss of Stupid
really speaks doesn't?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Stuck on KOS
Stuck on Stupid
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 08, 2006 at 11:45 PM
TSK9:
Brilliantly simple
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 08, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Schrum has great potential. After the next round of Rove-masterminded defeats, it could easily go over to "Kiss OFF Schrum"
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 08, 2006 at 11:49 PM
Second?
Posted by: larwyn | March 08, 2006 at 11:49 PM
BTW,,,
I always thought KOS stood for "Kooks on 'Shrooms".
Shows what I know.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 08, 2006 at 11:51 PM
SR,
Weaving a nice legend abouth the Kiss of Scorpio given as one departs over 'Il Ponte dei Sospiri'. It becomes 'Il Bacio di Scorpio' in Italian, though. "Il Bacio di Scorpio, l'ultimo che si riceve al piede del Ponte dei Sospiri." It would make a nice tale.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 11:52 PM
'Kooks on 'Shrooms' does capture the essence.
I like second, too. It says it all.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 08, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Hmmm...
Scorpio as an actual entity. Sort of a Richelieu type of figure. Has potential for tomorrow night.
We're getting a whole conspiracy Justice League of America up here. Have to start passing out programs.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 08, 2006 at 11:59 PM
I like it..Scorpio,Spiderwoman, the Wasp, the Bee ,Mosca....lots of interesting characters.
Posted by: clarice | March 09, 2006 at 12:04 AM
Night on the Bridge of Sighs--a real film noirish quality..just footsteps and heavy breathing..
Posted by: clarice | March 09, 2006 at 12:05 AM
'Kooks on 'Shrooms'
Now that is brilliantly true, too bad not everyone can relate to what it means
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 09, 2006 at 12:11 AM
Kind Of Stupip
K.O.S.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 09, 2006 at 12:13 AM
Stooopid is what wa meant there
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 09, 2006 at 12:14 AM
"Mezzanotte Sul Ponte Dei Sospiri"
Esce - 7 Novembre, 2006.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 09, 2006 at 12:15 AM
Okay, can we incorporate my 11 year olds "sign" he made on "Paint"? Perfectly appointed yellow with black border...
:This sign
has no purpose,
please move on"
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 09, 2006 at 01:00 AM
Actually, I think KOSling is itself good enough. Rather reminds one of Quisling.
Posted by: Syl | March 09, 2006 at 02:21 AM
KOS-Sacked?
A' KOSted?
Kurse O' Kos?
Kossin Cousin's?
Posted by: Daddy | March 09, 2006 at 03:27 AM
Posted by: Jeff | March 08, 2006 at 06:43 PM
Jeff, don't worry, we can indict Syl on their testimony alone. They admit they knew it after thinking about it, even though they thought they didn't. Easy Perjury and Obstruction conviction.
Now if we can convince a judge that learning about "about.com" is relevant to
an actual crime.
By the Way, if Libby learned it from Woodward in June....most of your claims fly out the window.
Posted by: Patton | March 09, 2006 at 07:10 AM
Confusing Woodward and Russert is not a crime, and just because he confused two people doesn't mean he ascribed the timeline...Fitz created the timeline.
This would even point Fitz more toward Libby having heard it from Woodward, because it would be much more in line with just hearing the information.
And yes, I know, you are perfect, you are never not listening, your never daydreaming, your never thinking about something else while your boss is going on and on...you never start thinking about your next typepad post while some newspaper slug is bothering you, etc. etc.
But just to clue you in, alot of normal people don't remeber every conversation with total recall a year later. So if you life partner can't remeber something you said 6 months ago, don't holler at them for lying..it could actually be true.
It would be interesting to know that if Fitz had done a decent investigation and found UGO before he went hell bent after Libby he may have said something like:
Now, Mr Libby, are you sure that wqas Tim Russert who told you and not Bob Woodward?
Libby may have said...well, you know now that you mention it, I am not sure.
Posted by: Patton | March 09, 2006 at 07:17 AM
How about KIss of Surreal?
Posted by: maryrose | March 09, 2006 at 09:10 AM
Kos of death?
Posted by: Larry | March 09, 2006 at 09:45 AM
I just thought of something...
Did UGO make an agreement with Fitz to keep his identity secret??
Why did UGO, after talking with Fitz and admitting to talking to Woodward, STILL insist that Woodward abide by their non-disclosure agreement, except for telling the prosecutor?
UGO had to know at that point that Fitz planned to also not reveal his identity, otherwise the agreement with Woodward makes no sense.
Or did Fitz ask UGO to ask Woodward to abide by the now defunct agreement??
Posted by: Patton | March 09, 2006 at 02:04 PM
Patton, If it was Tenet why would there be an investigation at all
Posted by: PaulV | March 09, 2006 at 10:49 PM
Kos of death?
that's good!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 09, 2006 at 11:14 PM
TS--You can be the character named Segretta in the upcoming FNL if you choose.
Posted by: clarice | March 09, 2006 at 11:15 PM
I hope that perhaps with Rick Ballard's help I can show the comparisons I've made between the PDF file of Fitz's affidavit and a Word versions with various names substituted for the redacted names. I've made four GIF files (one for each of the redactied sections) with the Word version in blue and the PDF version superimposed in red. Due to differences in letter spacing in the unredacted areas, I can't claim the evidence is unequivocal. I can, however, say quite confidently that the length of the last name in Word is somewhere between the length of 'Fleischer' and 'Rumsfeld'. I also can say with fair confidence that at least Woodward's source's last name is almost exactly the length of 'Arimitage' (and I tend to believe Novak and Woodward had the same source).
Posted by: MJW | March 09, 2006 at 11:56 PM
topsecretk9
Interesting article on Brewster Jennings.
The author states that Jean Edwards has Brewster-Jennings as a former employer in her biography.
Not anymore. I checked. Edwards has changed her biography.
Here is the Cached version
Here is how it currently reads.
Three things have changed. In the cached version Brewster Jennings is mentioned twice as a former employer. Additionally Edwards originally had that she was "Central Intelligence Agency, Case Officer, 1989-1995"... this no longer appears on her biography page.
The author of the article that mentions Jean Edwards seems confused about when and where Edwards worked. The author also failed to note the 6 years with the CIA.
Jean C. Edwards' biography is now missing 10 years, 1985-1995.
For now you can see the former biography in the google cache link, I also have a screen shot of the earlier biography.
Posted by: pollyusa | March 10, 2006 at 01:12 AM
WOW Polly, that was a lot of work. I seriously didn't think all that much of the original article, other than it seemed to be a weird subject to be going after (at this point) and an odd site for it to be on.
Quick notes...
BA IN 1977? Um, either she has had a lot of work done or there's something kooky here, she looks like she's 26!
Also, wonder why she "airbrushed" her resume?
I am not sure if this is an accurate indication of when perhaps airbrushing took place, but google notes the date here as March 2...also tried WayBack machine, didn't work for me, maybe there is a techie out there that knows how to do these things
"This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.akerman.com/public/attorneys/aBiography.asp?id=908 as retrieved on Mar 2, 2006 18:21:36 GMT."
Did you look into the other dude too?
Looks like maybe they worked at CIA and used all the crap on their resumes...then the flap on Brewster made them erase so something like this article would not catch them. Who knows.
Thanks Polly! Take a bow.
oh had a weird thought. Does anybody remember that weirdo tinfoil guy who lived in Miami and said Valerie Plame and a bunch of others were recruiting him or something like that? The hotel picture on the wall was a mirror or something? Would be weird if this gal was one he mentioned too. Oh, who said this was like a Russian Spy novel again?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 10, 2006 at 02:28 AM
doo doo doo doo (fade out twilight zone jingle), is this the other one?
Czecho-German Uranium and the Cold War, editor, 2006
Huh? Wayback has this "blocked" with robot.txt file (BORIS? Isn't this your area?)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 10, 2006 at 02:51 AM
Got it.
This guy changed his resume, too!
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:OcPjgI9klNkJ:www.aac.edu/soubory.php/Ellmann_resume.doc%3Fid%3D573++Robert+Lawrence+Ellmann+Brewster+Jennings&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a>
cached version
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2006 at 04:46 AM
I note all three of them stopped working for Brewster Jennings in 1995/1996.
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2006 at 04:59 AM
This is kind of interesting. A letter to the editor of the International Herald Tribune.
Thursday, January 15, 1998
Regarding "Forget James Bond: The New Interpol Is the Real Thing" (Jan. 6):
.
I for one am not rejoicing at the establishment of the first building block of a world government, even if crime-fighting is its aim.
.
I see no way whatsoever to protect an individual's privacy in such a system. What a pity for the West to have won the Cold War only to impose international tracking and the wholesale loss of privacy.
.
What's next, international tax collection to fight money laundering?
.
ROBERT ELLMANN.
.
Prague.
Regarding "Forget James Bond: The New Interpol Is the Real Thing" (Jan. 6):
.
I for one am not rejoicing at the establishment of the first building block of a world government, even if crime-fighting is its aim.
.
I see no way whatsoever to protect an individual's privacy in such a system. What a pity for the West to have won the Cold War only to impose international tracking and the wholesale loss of privacy.
.
What's next, international tax collection to fight money laundering?
.
ROBERT ELLMANN.
.
Prague.
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2006 at 05:11 AM
OK,now I feel like I'm stalking the poor guy.
About the woman, though--Edwards. That's at least two people that went from Brewster Jennings to the CIA- how could someone that might have cared- you know, like someone that didn't want to be spied on- how could they not have noticed that the CIA seemed to hire a lot of B/J people?
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2006 at 08:25 AM