Skip to main content

Plame Game Update - 8 "And the source of the leak is?"

While everyone is talking about Robert Novak and July 14th, 2003 column where he named the Plame, there were a few other journalists who where involved in the story before him, and according to my sources they may need to "cool" their heals a little as the Grand Jury has begun to turn their scrutinty from White House personnel to these two reporters:

Walter Pincus; David Corn.

Specifically with Walter Pincus. I will have more on Korn tomorrow.

I have been hearing rumors of who Pinucus's s"CIA" source was for the July 12th, 2003 article - in fact a few friends of back in VA KNOW who it was. So today I thought I would drop the "dime", but a poster over at Free Republic, beat me to it.

"As those of us who have been following this saga know, Walter Pincus (husband of Clinton appointee, Ann, and close pal of both Clintons) cited two unnamed sources for his "news" story in the Washington Post back on June 12, 2003.

We know of course that the first source was none other than "Admiral" Joe Wilson. But who was the second source? A "senior" CIA analyst who was so willing to risk his job to get out these "truths" about Bush lying to get us into war with Iraq?

CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data
Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more."

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

I put it to you that there is very little doubt that this CIA analyst was none other than the lovely Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) herself.

Normally a mid-level CIA desk jockey would not be talking to high-powered WP reporters (editorialists) for fear of losing their jobs. Also, such a mover and shaker would probably not bother to take her call.

But since we know that "Admiral" Joe had already got Pincus on the line, it is more than likely that Valerie took time off from the twins to chime in with her deep thoughts about the mendacious Bush administration.

What other "senior" CIA analyst would do this? Who would risk their job? Who would know to talk to Pincus about this subject at this very point in time?

At this same time "Admiral" Joe was already coordinating his efforts with the ultra-lefties David Corn and Ray McGovern. Plame probably talked to them, as well. So by this time they were used to doing this one-two punch.

If so we might be looking at exactly the person her alerted the media about her position at the CIA. Valerie Plame Wilson."

First you notice that in the bold this senior CIA analysists words sound a lot like Democratic talking points. In fact it is quite opinionated, not the kind of quote you would normally get from a Senior CIA analysist being interviewed. Yet it is consistant with the "leaks" that came out about Iraq and the War during the 2004 election.

The fact is that while everyone has concentrated on the "administration" officials Pincus cited, one would have to rightfully ask, "Who was the CIA official?", and more important, a more obvious investigative question would be, "Did this CIA official inform Mr. Pincus of the ambassador's wife recommending him for the job?"

i have of course noticed the refernce of Mr. Pincus's affiliation with the DNC through his wife, another "coincidence" because so does all the reporters have, with the exception of Novak - a conservative. Too many dots....

Again, do not be deceived into thinking these kinds of "links" would not be significant in a prosecutor's mind. You look for "motive" and "opportunity". Yet during my career many times the investigation turned from the one everyone thought was heading in a certain direct, only to turn at the last moment in an entirely unexpected direction.

The "turn" is coming - soon.

Filed under:


Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?


As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Able Danger - Sign Up - Get the Truth

Per the Able Danger Blog (newly added link), get over to this petition and sign ur name. Again, if there is any chance of true bi-partisan hearings, the people are going to have to speak up and loud.

Just do it!

Newsbusters Busts the MSM on Bush Event

Newsbusters, the blog of Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, exposes the MSM attempt to spin President Bush's meeting with troops into a 'staged event'.

Truth is that the event was not staged, the troops were telling their real feelings: that they support the war and our President.

I guess they might have this story mixed up with the "planted question" to Sec. Rumsfeld back in December 2004.

Yet, that wasn't the case here, Soldiers when asked, will tell you the truth.

Just like in this picture, they tell it like it is!

Michelle Malkin has links to other reactions. Also Blogs for Bush.

UPDATE I: Michelle has a further reponse from one of the soldiers in the video. Here's an excerpt:

"First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share …