Hearings on Iraq progress with Gen. Abizaid and Satterfield (CSPAN) are a joke

[phoebe]

anyone know Satterfield's history other than Senior Coordinator for Iraq? Well, just in case you needed a refresher..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Satterfield
snip

In the indictment: U.S. v. Lawrence Anthony Franklin, Steven J. Rosen, Keith Weissman, USGO-2 is mentioned, and in a New York Times article: David Satterfield, deputy chief of the United States Mission in Baghdad, is identified as USGO-2. In early 2002, Satterfield discussed secret national security matters in two meetings with Steven J. Rosen. The meetings, on January 18, 2002, and March 12, 2002, were confirmed by classified documents.

Yet he was found innocent of any wrongdoing..by whom enquiring minds want to know? By neocons Richard Perle, Feith et al?

http://www.tacomapjh.org/SecondHighestUSDiplomat.htm

snip

Second-highest U.S. diplomat in Baghdad is 'USGO-2' in AIPAC indictment (NYT)
On Thursday the New York Times cited "people who have been officially briefed on the case" as the source of the information that "The second-highest diplomat at the United States Embassy in Baghdad is <'USGO-2,'> one of the anonymous government officials cited in an Aug. 4 indictment as having provided classified information to an employee of" AIPAC.<1> -- "These people asked not to be identified because many of the matters related to the case are classified," the Times reported, its extraordinarily vague language used to describe its sources reflecting the sensitivity of what began as the Larry Franklin affair but which continues to develop in surprising directions. -- David M. Satterfield, the diplomat in question, "is the first higher-ranking government official to be caught up in the criminal inquiry," wrote David Johnston and James Risen. -- As has become standard practice in reporting on this case in the Times, there were almost as many exculpatory negative statements as positive statements in its account: -- (a) "The indictment does not accuse USGO-2 of any wrongdoing." -- (b) "or does it indicate whether he might have been authorized to talk with the lobbyist. -- (c) "Mr. Satterfield is not believed to be the subject of a continuing investigation." -- (d) "ne State Department spokesman said that Mr. Satterfield would not discuss the matter." -- (e) "Several Middle East experts noted that Mr. Satterfield was never regarded as particularly supportive of AIPAC's views on Israel." -- The Times hinted, without saying so, that there appears to be little to the investigation, which it called "one of the more puzzling national security cases in recent years," suggesting that the matter was the result of someone taking advantage of some minor technicality: "oreign affairs lobbyists and officials of the United States and other governments, . . . over the years, have routinely traded gossip and sometimes classified information. Under the Justice Department's theories of the case, it is no longer clear whether such conversations are legally permissible." -- A piece posted Thursday by the Jerusalem Post did a better job than the Times in describing the dramatis personae of the case, but added no new information.<2> -- The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, in a "behind the headlines" piece, took the same line as the New York Times, only more explicitly: "The fact that Satterfield is not a target of the case and was allowed to take a sensitive position in Iraq has raised questions about the severity of the information allegedly given to AIPAC officials, as well as about the government's motives for targeting Rosen and Keith Weissman, a former AIPAC Iran analyst, neither of whom had classified access."<3> -- Of course, it would also be possible take the opposite point of view, and say that questions were raised by the willingness of the State Department to post such an individual to an assignment in an historic Arab capital and cultural center. -- "The defendants and AIPAC supporters see the new revelations as evidence that federal prosecutors are targeting the powerful pro-Israel lobby for simply conducting the normal Washington practice of trading sensitive information," wrote Matthew E. Berger. -- Berger quoted Neal Sher, a former AIPAC executive director, as saying: "The trafficking in sensitive information, some of which might have been classified, is the norm in many instances." --Jim

Don't you just love the wordplay??

another article
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/politics/18inquire.html

and another article

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1124331702451

So here we are being led to believe that these hearings on Iraq are supposed to mean something. How Republicans and Democrats can ask this man anything about the future of Iraq with a straight face knowing his history is beyond the pale..and that he is in the same room with Gen. Abizaid head of US Centcom is breathtaking..

[pberq]

1. Absolutely - a sham!

[mike_c]

2. but-- but-- didn't Joseph Lieberman just say that Satterfield...

...and Abizaid were utterly convincing about the need for the U.S. to stay in Iraq?

That whole sham was to bolster the credibility of Lieberman and the other war pigs in Congress.

[phoebe]

3. Satterfield was also in the know about the Iran- Israel arms dealings

going on during the Reagan presidential run that subsequently defeated Carter.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_092106J.shtml

snip

Israeli Interests

In my work on the Iran-Contra scandal, I had obtained a classified summary of testimony from a mid-level State Department official, David Satterfield, who saw the early arms shipments as a continuation of Israeli policy toward Iran.

"Satterfield believed that Israel maintained a persistent military relationship with Iran, based on the Israeli assumption that Iran was a non-Arab state which always constituted a potential ally in the Middle East," the summary read. "There was evidence that Israel resumed providing arms to Iran in 1980."

Over the years, senior Israeli officials claimed that those early shipments had the discreet blessing of top Reagan-Bush officials.

In May 1982, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post that U.S. officials had approved the Iranian arms transfers. "We said that notwithstanding the tyranny of Khomeini, which we all hate, we have to leave a small window open to this country, a tiny small bridge to this country," Sharon said.

Entire article is a very sobering history lesson on how far Bushco. will go and has gone in the past to reach its goals.

[phoebe]

4. Satterfield is a Director of Kenilworth Systems

a rather shady looking organization - to put it mildly. Used to run nuclear security systems and now is a gambling enterprise (WTF?)

http://www.in.gov/legislative/igareports/agency/reports/IGC01.pdf

snip

Kenilworth states that it has an “invitation” from the Mayor of Tinian,
Northern Marianas Island, to broadcast from Tinian to the Asian market
from new casinos to be built over the next two years.

snip

Herbert Lindo:
1. Federal Felony Convictions: The Commission staff became aware, through a review of Kenilworth’s SEC filings,19that Kenilworth’s seventy-nine-year-old president, Mr. Herbert Lindo was convicted of violating federal securities law in 1993. The company’s SEC filings
indicate that Lindo “was convicted in 1993 on three (3) counts of having permitted three
(3) banks located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to sell unregistered, legended,
restricted Kenilworth shares pursuant to SEC Rule 144 prior to the bank having the then
required two (2) year holding period.” Filings indicate that Mr. Lindo was sentenced to
one thousand hours of community service, fifteen months of house arrest and fined six
hundred thousand dollars.

snip

2. CashTek Corporation
According to an opinion of the Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York,26CashTek Corporation (“CashTek”) was a company created in February 8, 1991 for the purpose of purchasing the assets of Kenilworth at the time it was involved in a chapter 7
bankruptcy. At the time, Kenilworth had been involved in developing a system of cashless wagering. The opinion in the tax tribunal case discusses Mr. Lindo’s involvement with CashTek. The opinion discusses the fact that Mr. Lindo resigned his
positions as president, board chairman and treasurer of CashTek after he was convicted in 21United States v. Herbert Lindo, 52 F.3d 106 (6thCir. 1995). 22Id. at 107. 23Id. 24Id. 25Id. 26In the Matter of the Petition of Mitchell G. Menik, 1999 N.Y. Tax App. Trib. Nos. 815718-9, available at www.nysdta.org/Decisions/815718.dec.htm, aff’d, Menik v. Roth, 720 N.Y.S.2d 265 (App. Div. 2001). 13federal court. Mr. Lindo’s son Jeffrey Lindo then became the president and treasurer of the company. In September of 1993 new directors had the company audited; the audit revealed “financial improprieties and shortcomings” in the finances of CashTek. The
auditors reported findings to the board in December of 1993. After investigating the problems, the board fired Jeffrey Lindo and “had him physically removed from the offices on January 4, 1994.”27In January of 1994, the CashTek board sued the Lindos in the Supreme Court of Nassau County seeking reimbursement of over $3 million dollars. The opinion goes on to state that the Lindos filed counterclaims against CashTek alleging that a press release describing the Board’s lawsuit was “issued with malice and ill will
and damaged the business reputation of the Lindos.”28The Commission staff has been unable to obtain additional information about the outcome of this lawsuit and the allegations made against the Lindos. However, this is certainly a matter that would
warrant further investigation should it become necessary to subject Kenilworth to a complete background check in the future.

and yet..despite this, and more - Kenilworth won their right to launch Roulabette...

[phoebe]

5. kicking this story -

n/t

[Skidmore]

6. These hearings now are just theater to give McCain

and the Rs a chance to look tough on the war while they still have the gavel for the committee. I hope that we will see hearings with teeth after the end of the year when Dems have subpeona power.

[phoebe]

7. theatre for the dems too by the looks of things - Satterfield was caught

red-handed giving away secrets and yet they seem quite comfortable having him pontificate on the (non) progress in Iraq.

The likelihood of him seeking a relevant strategy in Iraq is highly questionable considering his allegiances..