There's a good piece on DU today, titled "Fitzgerald's Case: Clues Suggest This is Much Bigger Than We Know." First among those clues:
1) The original "senior administration official". When this leak was reported about in the Washington Post (9/28/03), they quoted a senior administration official who outright stated that two WH officials called six reporters and leaked Valerie Plame info "purely and simply for revenge."
Let's think about that for a second. Doesn't that senior admin official sound outraged? So outraged, they were willing to spill the beans to one of the biggest newspapers in the country. What else did that senior administration official know about the White House? You can be sure that Fitz has talked to whoever it was. And if that person has a bigger beef, Fitz hit the jackpot.
Actually, the identity of this official was revealed a couple of days ago. It's Colin Powell. Does that constitute hitting the jackpot? I doubt it. Powell owes too much to the elder Bush...
The biggest clue about Fitzgerald's whole case comes from his line of questioning. Notice what he continued to ask Miller about? Cheney. Notice what he wanted to talk to Rove about? Someone other than Libby & Miller.
I agree that Fitz is loading for bear -- big bear. But I doubt that he can get at a whole den of man-killers, which is precisely what we find in this remarkably good Kos diary entry
. The piece focuses on Cheney, his cronies (including seemingly omni-present Michael Ledeen) as they prepare us for the next war:
The neo-con wing of the Aspen Institute began targeting Iran decades ago - even holding a symposium in Persepolis, Iran, in 1975. Now 30 years later, they are ready to move in and realise their ambitions.
I think it will be air strikes on the supposed nuclear facilities, but only as a ruse to justify the occupation of the oil-rich Ahwazi region bordering southern Iraq as a "security zone".
The USA and UK regimes are manufacturing a rationale for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. I also expect occupation to the Ahwaz region. The fact that so many are on to their fraud this time has forced them to accelerate beyond prudence. I don't think they care that we know it's a fraud.
The Aspens are connected at the roots. Get it? I'm sure Judy did:
Judith Miller - who spoke at the Aspen Strategy Group in 2003 on "What About Iran Should (or Shouldn't) Concern You" - will indeed have "work to do", as Scooter suggested. He wants her to focus on areas of interest already to the Aspen Institute: Biological threats and the Middle East.
A plan begins to take shape. Are we talking about justifying war via a CBW attack (ascribed to the Iranians) on the United States? Or perhaps these addled Aspenites were considering launching germ warfare against Tehran?
Today, Iraq; tomorrow, a world...in chaos.
Ponder, if you will, the surreal spectacle of a newswoman claiming that she went to jail to protect a source whose name she now cannot recall. Some witnesses ask for amnesty; Judy hopes to be granted amnesia.
Clearly, this plot includes the men at the very top. Clearly, Miller's in with the bastards.
So how did she achieve such autonomy at the NYT? I've long suspected the existence of a program to give "spooked up" individuals top journalism positions. Some feel that Bob Woodward himself was the beneficiary of such an arrangement. The Wshington Post's Reagan-era Moscow correspondent was CIA, as were several other reporters working behind-the-Iron-Curtain beats.
Why would the Times editors acquiesce to a scheme of this sort? We may presume the existence of the usual carrots and the usual sticks. Who knows? There may be more Jayson Blair-sized skeletons in the Times' closet.