Saturday, July 16, 2005
by Rep. Henry Waxman
A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.
Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA official. ...
After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president's No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.
The July 11, 2003, e-mail between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is the first showing an intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper just days before the Time magazine reporter divulged CIA officer Valerie Plame's secret identity. ...
by Paul Krugman
... I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.
But the real demonstration that Mr. Rove understands American politics better than any pundit came after 9/11.
Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering. ...
Prosecutors in the CIA leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a CIA officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.
Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the CIA officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.
The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said. ...
Friday, July 15, 2005
Though the GOP hatchetman claims he’s never spoken to the grand jury about the column, a well-known Democratic pundit tells Radar, “Novak is the media’s Joseph Valachi,” referring to the 1960’s mafia capo who was the first mobster to testify against La Cosa Nostra. “There’s no question he rolled over.” According to our sources, Miller shared Plame’s identity with her perfidious fellow neocon after deciding not to publish it herself; Novak then called his two White House sources—one of whom was Karl Rove—for confirmation and wrote the July 14, 2003 column that blew Plame’s cover.
Soon after, Fitzgerald dispatched agents to question Novak about his sources and he promptly spilled the beans. The special prosecutor then subpoenaed Miller, who’s currently in jail on a contempt charge. Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson—whose Times’ op-ed triggered the leak in the first place—is open to the theory. ...
NORTH CAROLINA TO ANDREWS
On the tarmac in North Carolina, your pool was able to walk briefly alongside the president and ask if he still had faith in Karl Rove. The question was met with a stare straight ahead, silence and a quick brush-off motion of Bush's left hand, as if the president were swatting away an insect.
Karl himself was more jovial on the tarmac, where when surrounded by reporters he grinned and held up the president's suit jacket, as if to say that he was a coat-holder and nothing more. The president at this point was under the hot sun in shirt sleeves signing autographs for a crowd of onlookers.
Despite his antics, Karl answered no questions, and soon trundled quickly away from your pool toward the stairs of Air Force One.
Other than that, nothing of interest happened. The president signed autographs for nearly half an hour. Air Force One took off around 2:30 p.m., and we're now airborne.
Touchdown at 3:31 p.m.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Washington Post, July 13:
by Howard "Howdy" Kurtz
... I tuned into O'Reilly and Hannity on Monday night, but there was no mention, none, of the Rove/Plame affair. Imagine if an e-mail had surfaced showing that a top aide to Clinton--say, Sid Blumenthal--had told a reporter about a covert CIA agent. Would those Fox shows have given the controversy a bit of air time? (Last night, O'Reilly said "some in the media are foaming" over the story but did call on Rove to "clear the air," then hosted Newt Gingrich, who attacked Joe Wilson. ...
by Rep. Louise Slaughter
When he took office, President Bush told the American people that his White House would be defined by honor and dignity. After the attacks of September 11th, 2001, he told us that he would do everything in his power to keep Americans safe. In the wake of the revelation that Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's Chief of Staff, revealed the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to a reporter, the strength of the President's word is being tested. ...
Fire the bastard!
by David Corn
The White House may be stonewalling on the Rove scandal, but the Rove camp--aided by its echo-ists in the conservative media--has been busy establishing the twin-foundation for his defense: he did not mention Valerie Wilson/Plame by name; he did not disclose classified information. The first of these two assertions is misleading and irrelevant; the second is wrong. ...
Far be it from us to denounce leaks. Newspapers have relied on countless government officials to divulge vital information that their bosses want to be kept secret. There is even value in the sanctioned leak, such as when the White House, say, lets out information that it wants known but does not want to announce.
But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary. And Karl Rove seems to have been playing that unsavory game with the CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, a career diplomat who ran afoul of President George W. Bush's efforts to justify the invasion of Iraq. An e-mail note provided by Time magazine to the federal prosecutor investigating the case shows that Rove's aim in talking about Wilson to Matthew Cooper, a Time reporter, was to discredit Wilson, perhaps to punish him.
Wilson had published an Op-Ed article in The New York Times about being assigned to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger - a claim that was popular among the White House and Pentagon officials eager to make the case for war with Iraq. Wilson said the allegation was unsupported by evidence, and it was later withdrawn, to Bush's embarrassment.
Before that happened, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove said the origins of Wilson's mission were "flawed and suspect" because, according to Rove, Wilson had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the CIA. To understand why Rove thought that was a black mark, remember that the White House considers dissenters enemies and that the CIA had cast doubt on the administration's apocalyptic vision of Iraq's weapons programs.
Cooper's e-mail note does not say that Rove mentioned the name of Wilson's wife, which later appeared in a column by Robert Novak. White House supporters are emphasizing that fact in an effort to argue that Rove did not illegally unmask a covert officer. We don't need to judge that here. But there remains the issue of whether the White House used Wilson's wife for political reasons, and it's obvious that Rove did.
The White House has painted itself into a corner. More than a year ago, Bush vowed to fire the leaker. Then Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, repeatedly assured everyone that the leaker was not Rove, on whom the president is so dependent intellectually that he calls Rove "the architect."
Until this week, the administration had deflected attention onto journalists by producing documents that officials had been compelled to sign to supposedly waive any promise of confidentiality. Our colleague Judith Miller, unjustly jailed for protecting the identity of confidential sources, was right to view these so-called waivers as meaningless. ...
President George W. Bush passed up a chance Wednesday to express confidence in senior aide Karl Rove in a political fight over a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity. The lack of endorsement surprised some White House officials who had been told Bush would back his embattled friend.
"This is a serious investigation," Bush told reporters after a cabinet meeting, with Rove sitting just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."
Later in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Rove did have Bush's support. "As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the president," McClellan said.
Bush said he would not discuss the matter further until a criminal investigation is finished.
Across town, a federal grand jury heard more testimony in its investigation into whether anyone in the administration illegally leaked the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame in July 2003. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's rationale for invading Iraq, has said the leak was an attempt to discredit him. ...
l of a sudden, the White House isn't talking about Karl Rove and the leak that outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. The ``no comments'' are not improving Rove's image or the president's.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan was happy to talk in September 2003 when he said it was ``totally ridiculous'' to think that Rove, Bush's senior adviser and political guru, was involved. Two weeks later, he said the rumors were ``simply not true.''
President Bush said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have revealed the agent's name, which was published in a column by Robert Novak in July 2003. Revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent is against the law.
The revelation of Plame's CIA job was part of an attempt to discredit a report from her husband, Joseph Wilson. That report undercut one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, the premise that Saddam Hussein had gone shopping for uranium in Africa.
But now that Rove's attorney acknowledges that Rove talked with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper about Wilson's wife, before her name was published, the White House is saying an investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald requires it to keep mum.
What makes that so unpersuasive is that the investigation already was under way when McClellan and the president made the previous comments. ...
by Timothy Noah
Why aren't the major newspapers running editorials calling for Karl Rove's resignation? The Washington Post is silent. So is the Los Angeles Times. Maybe they're waiting for more information. But what more do they have to know? The White House deputy chief of staff revealed the identity of an undercover CIA employee to Time magazine. He did this solely for the purpose of attacking the credibility of an administration critic. He did not check first to find out whether said CIA employee was undercover. Or perhaps he knew and didn't care. Either way, such reckless behavior is a firing offense. Next case. ...
Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.
With a growing number of Democrats calling for Rove's resignation, the Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans sought to discredit Democratic critics and knock down allegations of possible criminal activity.
"The angry left is trying to smear" Rove, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, a Rove protege, said in an interview.
A federal grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration unlawfully leaked the name of a CIA official, Valerie Plame, to the news media. Although the White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the episode, a recently disclosed internal Time magazine e-mail shows that Rove mentioned Plame, albeit not by name, to reporter Matthew Cooper before her name and affiliation became public in July 2003. The grand jury is scheduled to hear from Cooper today. ...
Monday, July 11, 2005
July 11, 2005
... Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.
Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
Go ahead, Terry.
Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
Q Do you recall when you were asked --
Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.
Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?
MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.
Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.
Go ahead, Dave.
Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.
Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.
Go ahead. ...
Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.
Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.
Q Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.
Q Can I finish, please?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go ahead, Goyal.
The White House on Monday faced intensifying pressure over the role that Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, may have played in leaking the identity of a covert Central Intelligence Agency officer.
New revelations about Mr Rove's involvement in the case, which a federal prosecutor is investigating, contradict earlier White House assertions that he had nothing to do with the leak.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, was visibly uncomfortable on Monday as he faced heavy questioning about the case. “We're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium,” he said.
Mr McClellan persisted with that answer several times, even using it to deflect a question about whether President George W. Bush still had confidence in Mr Rove, his deputy chief of staff.
Mr Rove was dubbed the “architect” of Mr Bush's 2004 re-election victory, and earlier this year his powers were expanded beyond politics to include the co-ordination of domestic and economic policy. Any threat to his role would come at a difficult time for Mr Bush, who faces several key tests, including the appointment of at least one Supreme Court justice, the ongoing violence in Iraq, and the uncertain fate of his proposed Social Security reform. ...
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Go to Original
The Newsweek story I described below is out. Reporter Michael Isikoff has obtained a copy of an email that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper sent his bureau chief, Michael Duffy, on July 11, 2003--three days before conservative columnist Bob Novak first published the leak that outed CIA officer Valerie Wilson/Plame. In that email, Cooper wrote that he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." "Agency" means CIA. Read the full Newsweek piece here, and read my item below on why it is so important. There now is clear-cut evidence that Rove was involved in--if not the chief architect of--the actions that led to the outing of Plame/Wilson. If he's not in severe legal trouble, he ought to be in political peril. I explain in full the ramifications of this smoking email below.
DavidCorn.com, July 9:
Go to Original
Time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march?
I don't usually log on Saturday evenings. But I've received information too good not to share immediately. It was only yesterday that I was bemoaning the probability that--after a week of apparent Rove-related revelations--it might be a while before any more news emerged about the Plame/CIA leak. Yet tonight I received this as-solid-as-it-gets tip: on Sunday Newsweek is posting a story that nails Rove. The newsmagazine has obtained documentary evidence that Rove was indeed a key source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper and that Rove--prior to the publication of the Bob Novak column that first publicly disclosed Valerie Wilson/Plame as a CIA official--told Cooper that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and was involved in Joseph Wilson's now-controversial trip to Niger. ...
Newsweek, July 18:
by Michael "Izzy" Isikoff
It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA. ...
Document Packaging and Brokers Inc., Pelham, Ala., was awarded July 6, 2005, an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for an estimated value of $200 million to be completed by June 30, 2010. The contract is to provide a comprehensive marketing program on a task-order basis for recruiting and retention in support of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard along with the National Guard Bureau’s public affairs, youth programs and family programs. The National Guard Bureau is the contracting activity. (W9133L-05-D-0011)
Pentagon Pork Report, July 8:
... L-3 Communications Government Services Inc., Chantilly, Va., was awarded July 6, 2005, a time and materials contract amounting to an estimated face value of $179,616,040 and a potential cumulative value if all options were exercised of $426,552,388 for intelligence support services in Iraq. The estimated completion date is June 30, 2009. The Weisbaden Contracting Center, in Germany, is the contracting activity. (W912CM-05-D-0011) ...
persons, specially designated nationals, specially designated
terrorists, specially designated global terrorists, foreign terrorist
organizations, and specially designated narcotics traffickers
designated pursuant to the various economic sanctions programs
administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC''). This
appendix is periodically amended to reflect the names of individuals
and entities added to, or removed from, the list. This appendix also is
periodically amended to provide updated identifying and clarifying
information, as well as alternative spellings and additional aliases,
for certain individuals and entities included on the list. ...
17 NOVEMBER (a.k.a. EPANASTATIKI ORGANOSI 17 NOEMVRI; a.k.a.
REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION 17 NOVEMBER) [FTO] [SDGT]
32 COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY COMMITTEE (a.k.a. 32 COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY
MOVEMENT; a.k.a. IRISH REPUBLICAN PRISONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION;
a.k.a. REAL IRA; a.k.a. REAL IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY; a.k.a. REAL
OGLAIGH NA HEIREANN; a.k.a. RIRA) [FTO] [SDGT]
32 COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT (a.k.a. 32 COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY
COMMITTEE; a.k.a. IRISH REPUBLICAN PRISONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION;
a.k.a. REAL IRA; a.k.a. REAL IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY; a.k.a. REAL
OGLAIGH NA HEIREANN; a.k.a. RIRA) [FTO] [SDGT]
2000 DOSE E.U. (a.k.a. DOMA E M), Calle 31 No. 1-34, Cali,
Colombia; NIT # 805015749-3 (Colombia) [SDNT]
2000-DODGE S.L., Calle Gran Via 80, Madrid, Madrid, Spain; C.I.F.
B83149955 (Spain) [SDNT]
2904977 CANADA, INC. (a.k.a. CARIBE SOL; a.k.a. HAVANTUR CANADA
INC.), 818 rue Sherbrooke East, Montreal, Quebec H2L 1K3, Canada
A G REPRESENTACIONES LTDA., Calle 22 Norte No. 9-43, Cali,
Colombia; Calle 20N No. 5N-26 Of. 102, Cali, Colombia; NIT #
800132578-3 (Colombia) [SDNT]
A RAHMAN, Mohamad Iqbal (a.k.a. ABDURRAHMAN, Abu Jibril; a.k.a.
ABDURRAHMAN, Mohamad Iqbal; a.k.a. ABU JIBRIL; a.k.a. MUQTI,
Fihiruddin; a.k.a. MUQTI, Fikiruddin; a.k.a. RAHMAN, Mohamad
Iqbal); DOB 17 Aug 1958; POB Tirpas-Selong Village, East Lombok,
Indonesia; nationality Indonesia (individual) [SDGT]
A.I.C. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (a.k.a. A.I.C. SOGO
KENKYUSHO; a.k.a. ALEPH; a.k.a. AUM SHINRIKYO; a.k.a. AUM SUPREME
TRUTH) [FTO] [SDGT]
A.I.C. SOGO KENKYUSHO (a.k.a. A.I.C. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE; a.k.a. ALEPH; a.k.a. AUM SHINRIKYO; a.k.a. AUM SUPREME
TRUTH) [FTO] [SDGT]
A.T.E. INTERNATIONAL LTD. (a.k.a. RWR INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES), 3
Mandeville Place, London, United Kingdom [IRAQ2]
A.W.A. ENGINEERING LIMITED, 3 Mandeville Place, London, United
ABAS, Mohamad Nasir (a.k.a. ABAS, Nasir; a.k.a. BIN ABAS, Mohammed
Nasir; a.k.a. BIN ABAS, Sulaiman; a.k.a. "KHAIRUDDIN"; a.k.a.
"SOLIMAN"); DOB 6 May 1969; nationality Malaysia (individual)
ABAS, Nasir (a.k.a. ABAS, Mohamad Nasir; a.k.a. BIN ABAS, Mohammed
Nasir; a.k.a. BIN ABAS, Sulaiman; a.k.a. "KHAIRUDDIN"; a.k.a.
"SOLIMAN"); DOB 6 May 1969; nationality Malaysia (individual)
ABASTECEDORA NAVAL Y INDUSTRIAL, S.A. (a.k.a. ANAINSA), Panama
... To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don't need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give the bombers all the time they needed to prepare. ...