Sunday, July 31, 2005

thumbnail

Enough - Appoint Bolton Now!


Foxnews: Democrats Decry Bolton Appointment

""He's damaged goods; this is a person who lacks credibility. This will be the first U.N. ambassador since 1948 we ever sent there under a recess appointment. That's not what you want to send up, a person who doesn't have the confidence of the Congress," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., told "FOX News Sunday"

Shut up Dodd. We don't have confidence in YOU.

Enough already! Send Bolton to the UN!
thumbnail

I told you, it's not 1972!

Michael Barone: Bush Bashing Fizzles

Michael Barone tells us:

"This summer, one big story is replaced by another--the London bombings July 7, the speculation that Karl Rove illegally named a covert CIA agent, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, more London bombings last week. But beneath the hubbub, we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media--the New York Times, etc., etc.--to delegitimize yet another Republican administration."

The rest of the article goes on to tell you what I said here. That, just as they did in 1972, and during the Regan years, time and time again the whiney left has done NOTHING but bash Bush. So much so that even when they had a chance and the entirely of MSM rallied around the Democrats to collapse Bush's reelection efforts in 2004, with bash book after bash book, Michael Moore, etc, they blew it with a stiff Candidate like Kerry and NO message that people really wanted to hear.

Moreover the the 2004 election was the beginning of the end of leftwing media's stranglehold over popular opinion. As Mr. Barone said,

"The bombings and attempted bombings in London have brought home to the American public that we face implacable enemies unwilling to be appeased by even the most emollient diplomacy. Yet, mainstream media coverage of Iraq has been mostly negative. But mainstream media no longer have a monopoly; Americans have other sources in talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere. Bush's presidency is still regarded as illegitimate by perhaps 20 percent of the electorate. But among the rest, the attempt to delegitimize him seems to be collapsing."

Yet while dying, mainstream liberal media is only in it's death howl and you can bet they'll howl louder than ever before they finally and mercifully die out.
thumbnail

Time's Coverup - "They knew, when YOU told them"

Time Magazine: When they knew

Time goes into spin mode:

"As the investigation tightens into the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, sources tell TIME some White House officials may have learned she was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson weeks before his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed piece criticizing the Administration. That prospect increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer."

Time spins this into Rove HAD to know from somebody besides reporters.

As far as I'm concerned, everything the employer of Mr. Cooper has to say, is suspect - period. Especially since Calabresi has frequently co-written with Matt Cooper on less than glowing reports on the Bush Administration and the War in Iraq. Especially in this article that details the Niger incident, and on this article "It's your money, he (Bush) just spends it", in February of 2005. They also co-wrote, "War on Wilson?"

As well Calabresi get's "front stage seats" to the Wilson household for "The Rove Problem".

Come on! Am I the only one who smells the irony?

In short, I think Mr. Calabresi is simply running "point" for Cooper. In any case this new article doesn't implicate Rove, in fact, it bolsters his defense. No matter how much the MSM try to spin it all on Rove and Libby, they themselves are the prime suspects for the "designed leak", and this article is just another signal that proves they know it.

John Poderhertz at National Review nailsCalabresi on his "conclusions":

"So what does this tell you?

It tells you that the State Department, which leaks like a sieve, knew about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame in June. It also tells you that neither Powell nor Armitage talked to anybody in the White House about it until after Joseph Wilson published his New York Times op-ed on July 6 -- though he had clearly been the anonymous source for a piece by Pincus and an op-ed by the Times' own Nick Kristof back in early June.

So for those who think something very bad happened here, why isn't attention now circling around the State Department, whose two top guys at the time -- Colin Powell and Richard Armitage -- leaked like sieves to the media?

Instead of asking that question, Time's Calabresi instead suggests that this "increases the chances that White House official Karl Rove and others learned about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts. Rove has told investigators he believes he learned of her directly or indirectly from reporters, according to his lawyer."

That doesn't follow at all. Doesn't this tale "increase the chances" that Rove and others are simply telling the truth? It seems a bunch of people knew a bunch about this in June, and their names are Walter Pincus of the WaPo, Kristof and evidently Judith Miller of the Times, not to mention Colin Powell and Rich Armitage at State (not to mention State's Marc Grossman and Carl Ford, who generated the memo). Their names are not Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."


Again, as far as "letting the cat of the bag", there are more suspects in the media than at the White House. Which just makes Mr. Cooper's involvement all that more suspicious. Could he have been the "point man" used to set up the Administration? After all, taking his word for it that he didn't remember calling Rove about Welfare Reform, what possible reason would he have "out of the blue" calling Rove about Wilson? Research for "War on Wilson"? Bull crap, he could have gotten all the information he wanted from any number of other sources for that article. He called to set Rove up and he knows it.

I'll wait and see how this pans out. Like I said before, it truly doesn't matter given the greater crime of what I believe to be treason commited by Plame and her husband. Yet all this "hoofing" by the MSM may be a blessing in disquise, because just as the CIA and their co-horts in the MSM have been "having their day" for the last three years, that is about to come to an end. The icing on the cake would also bring the leaky elements of the State Department into light as well.

Tom Maguire thinks , Maybe the TIME piece should be re-headlined - "Lots of People Kept A Secret For A Surprisingly Long Time"
thumbnail

The Duck and the Donkeys

Bush Victories Delay Lame Duck Status

"WASHINGTON, July 31 (Reuters) - Two months ago, President George W. Bush faced accusations that he was out of touch with Americans, had lost his touch with Congress and was looking at a cold, lonely second term.

But after Bush won key battles in Congress over energy and trade legislation, political analysts were not ready to write him off yet as he prepared to spend August back home in Texas.

And the White House, battered for weeks over questions about a CIA leak probe and frustrated that Bush's signature issue, changing Social Security, had failed to gain traction, was ready to do a little bragging to reporters who had questioned whether Bush had become a lame duck far earlier than normal in his second term.

"All I know is that there was a lot of coverage saying, two months ago, that the president wasn't going to get anything done on the domestic agenda, that he was maybe entering lame duck status, and the facts say otherwise," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said."


When history is written about President Bush's two terms, one thing will stand out. More than Iraq, judicial nominees, more than Plame Gate - this time will say more about the Democrats than the Republicans.

One key paragraph in this article:

"Democrats who have fought Bush at every turn this year were as combative as ever. They criticized the energy bill as favorable to special interests, and hit Bush on the leak probe and for nominating conservatives to judgeships."

When you look at the democratic party since 2000, one thing comes to mind - 'bitching'. Their entire party platform has been one continual bitch session from day one.

The Democrats remind me a lot of an aunt I used to have - she passed away some time ago. She was a nice enough lady, but she was also a pain in the butt sometimes. You see, she complained and moaned and bitched about everything. She never had a positive thing to say about anyone, or anything.

She reminds me a lot of the present Democratic Party, or should I say, “Party Poopers”.

For the last five years they have ranted, accused, raved and screamed about everything, but without saying anything. When you look at the lunatic fringe of the left in this country there was a time when you could distinguish the difference between them and "mainstream" Democrats. But no more. The Democratic Party has been high jacked by the far left and now they are far out there with them - I mean way out there. This isn’t all the Democrats. There are some fine Democratic leaders but by and large the lunatic fringe has defiinately taken over.

I noticed that every time you ask a Democratic Operative a question he spins it off like a child caught doing something wrong. “What about that other guy?” “What about Johnny, you never yell at him!” It’s always “the other guys fault”. Notice that when a democrat is accused of something they scream, yell, accuse? Where have you seen this behavior before. Look no further than Kindergarden for your answer.

The Democrats have the media on their side for sure, that really isn’t debatable. CBS proved this by creating a story based on faxed documents. Their motive? The memos had “Bush” written on them. Seems to be the only litmus test you need for the left. If you want to sell a lot of Books just make up a story about how you and George used to chase skirts and smoke doobies instead of going to ‘Nam and I guarantee you, you’ll be on 60 Minutes in a flash.

You've got the same thing going on now with the "Plame Game", where the MSM is presenting the story they want you to believe about the "leak". Carefully crafted and designed to "Get Bush"; instead of telling you the truth that they haven't a clue and in fact ignoring that there are more journalist implicated than any other persons.

Yet 'proof' or 'reality' isn’t the issue for Democratic Leaders such as Senator Pelosi, Reid and Kennedky. “Bush Sucks” is the only headline that moves at the networks. Just looking at Senator Nancy Pelosi's insane accusations of "bribing" in regards to the pass of CAFTA, is enough for me to pull the sharp objects out of her reach.

The fact is that no President in recent history has taken the heat that has been thrown his way by negative books, so called documentaries, fabrications, and outright lies, and has held his grace and dignity, and the office of President like George W. Bush. While he has been called ‘stupid’; he ‘can’t talk’, he ‘can’t read’, etc, he continues to thrive when it comes to his agenda. He is getting things done in spite of being 'nipped at the heals' at every turn.

Just about every imaginable thing has been thrown at him from day one. Yet he hasn’t lashed back. Give me an example where he "got down in the mud" and returned the insult?

You'd be hard pressed.

Is he perfect - no, but considering Clinton, he's light years ahead. I really makes me laugh when I hear or read the left talk about corruption in "this present administration". Take a look between this and the Clinton Administration and there is absolutely no comparison.

When Clinton was being impeached for lying about getting his "jollies" while ordering troops into battle, he sent his wife to the media to claim a "vast right-wing conspiracy”. Of course they bought it. Forget about what was the real truth - "You're husband is a weasel", instead the message the MSM sent out was "He wouldn't have gotten his jollies if that Right Wing Conspiracy would just leave him alone and stop stressing him out!"

No administration owned the MSM more than the Clinton machine - and still does.

Bush has never done anything remotely like Clinton's "finger pointing". Yet without answering a word, nor hiding behind his wife, he has remained cool and collected. No, the polls aren't as good for sure now, but then polls about Republican's are rarely good - consider the source of the polls.

I would say he's doing better than most would, considering the five year onslaught that Democrats, the MSM have raged on him. In fact, it's a wonder he is in office at all!

During 2004 MSM, in colusion with the Democrats had you believing that Bush was through - that John Kerry and the Wonderboy Edwards were going to sweep the Nation! But four million votes later - Mr. Kerry went back to jet skiing, Edwards to suing the hell of people, and combing his hair. Why did Bush win? Because aside from the doom and gloom that was presented when the left and their partners in the MSM threw everything they had, when it got right down to it, the American public can see that he is a kind, honest and decent man.

Like I said, the Democrats remind me of my Aunt, they are always complaining, but saying nothing. They're never happy, everything is dark and sinister and dead and decaying.

Though I loved her, I didn’t like hanging around Aunt too much, I couldn’t stand the negativity.

I got a feeling that a lot of voters are feeling the same about the Democratic Party right now.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

thumbnail

More Christian Right reaction to Frist's Defection

American Life League

Via my previous post, here is more flak for Frist from the Christian right:

Judie Brown, president of American Life League, the nation's largest grassroots pro-life educational organization, issued the following statement regarding the news that Sen. Bill Frist now endorses the expansion of human embryonic stem cell research:

"Sen. Bill Frist's announcement that he has reversed his opinion on the expansion of human embryonic stem cell research is beyond repugnant to many in the pro-life community. What has happened to this man, who once showed promise of becoming a strong pro-life voice for the American people?

"Sadly, Sen. Frist now joins the ranks of numbers of politicians who have sacrificed the truth to satisfy other, less noble, goals. Frist claims that his opinion is one based on 'science.' However, Sen. Frist is certainly ignoring one of the basic facts of Biology 101, which unequivocally tell us that life begins at fertilization, when a new human person with unique DNA is created. We are talking about our fellow human beings. In his heart, Sen. Frist must know that killing those human beings, for any reason, is always wrong.

"While it is not surprising that those who support the killing of embryonic children are applauding Sen. Frist's latest move, it is quite disheartening that that so-called pro-life officials in the Bush administration are excusing his crisis of conscience as 'understandable.'

"Sen. Frist's statements are a perfect example of the hypocrisy that has slowly infected many in the political arena, even among Republican Party officeholders claiming to be pro-life. The fact is, whether an innocent human being is a few hours old or nine months old, an act that intentionally kills him is always intrinsically evil and evil can never be justified - no matter the perceived 'good' end. Human embryonic stem cell research kills innocent human beings, and therefore is inherently evil."


My question, and this really- really bugs me is all the placating silence of the right on Frist's move? Where is Michelle Malkin, Cpt Ed, and others on this issue?

The silence is not only disturbing, but it is an insult - and frankly a sellout. Alas issues such as these truly "divide the sheep from the goats". Hugh Hewitt's absense or rather "compilance", is especially noteworthy. Redstate is on board however, and correctly states how conservatives should view Senator Frist.

Perhaps there are some who believe Frist's defection will not be a big issue in 2006, and 2008, let me assure you - it will. The groundswell has already begun. Never bite the hand that got you where you are.

Here is a statement from Cardinal William H. Keeler, chairman of the US Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities:

""Today Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced he will support using federal funds to encourage the destruction of living human embryos for their stem cells. Despite the Senator's disclaimers to the contrary, this position is not 'pro-life.'
"Especially disturbing is the Senator's insistence that human embryos unwanted by their own parents are owed 'the same dignity and respect' as children and adults, but may nevertheless be killed for research material.

"Such destruction of innocent human life, even out of a desire to help others, rests on a utilitarian view that undermines human dignity and human respect, as Senator Sam Brownback ably pointed out today in his response.

"Senator Frist's effort to make an analogy with organ transplants also fails, because it would be gravely immoral as well as illegal to harvest any patient's vital organs when he or she is still alive.

"Despite his warning against offering 'false hope' to patients, Senator Frist also repeated claims that are untrue or misleading about the unique 'promise' of embryonic stem cells. No one has identified any disease that can be treated only with these cells; no one even knows whether they will ever provide a safe and reliable treatment for the conditions already being successfully treated using adult stem cells.

"These factual issues will no doubt be explored by others. My own central concern is that neither sound ethics nor good government can rest on the principle that 'the end justifies the means.' I commend President Bush for his laudable pledge to veto such legislation."


This issue is non-negotiable for pro-life conservatives. Again, I and others will mark the silence of as a signal. "Those who aren't with us, are against us.
thumbnail

No, President Carter - You're Disgraceful


Carter: Guantanamo Detentions Disgraceful

Ex- President Carter, has a penchant for criticizing things - especially things which he was no damn good at. Specfically national security.

In the Washington Post, Mr. Carter is quoted as saying:

"BIRMINGHAM, England -- Former President Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.

Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."


Well, Mr. Carter - I'll put aside your asinine remarks that simply echo so many of the clueless on the left.

But more importantly, I am especially offended when you speak of National Security, when your inept leadership got some of my friends killed on a certain mission in 1979. In fact, if you want to know the truth, you're ineptness was the reason those hostages were taken in the first place.

What is happening in Iraq - Gitmo and the War on Terror, may not be representative of YOUR will - but it is the will of millions of Americans and quess what Mr. Carter- it's working.

Thank God your presidency was in the malaised and distant past. We could ill afford your lack of leadership then, I am thankful we don't have to experience it now.

Friday, July 29, 2005

thumbnail

I hope Frist has a day job...Followup

Dobson Disappointed Frist Backing Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

Per James Dobson, Focus on the Family:

"Colorado Springs, Colo. -- Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman Dr. James C. Dobson issued the following statement today after learning that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had come out strongly in favor of increased federal funding for destructive embryonic stem-cell research:

“It is an understatement to say that the pro-life community is disappointed by Sen. Frist's decision to join efforts to void President Bush's policy limiting the funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Most distressing is that, in making his announcement, Sen. Frist calls himself a defender of the sanctity of human life -- even though the research he now advocates results, without exception, in the destruction of human life.

"Sen. Frist argues that under the Bush policy, there are insufficient stem-cell lines to maximize what he calls the 'promise' of embryonic stem-cell research. That statement continues the common misconception that embryonic stem cells hold the greatest potential for human healing and therapy. In reality, recently published studies demonstrate that some adult stem cells can form most, if not all, body tissues, just like embryonic cells may be able to do. Furthermore, there will never be a sufficient number of new stem-cell lines to satisfy the sometimes unquenchable thirst for federal money to fund pet projects of researchers. A morally sound line must be drawn at the beginning of this journey into stem-cell research: that no human life is sacrificed for possible or proven scientific gain – period.

"The media have already begun speculating that Sen. Frist's announcement today is designed to improve his chances of winning the White House in 2008 should he choose to run. If that is the case, he has gravely miscalculated. To push for the expansion of this suspect and unethical science will be rightly seen by America's values voters as the worst kind of betrayal – choosing politics over principle.

"We urge Sen. Frist to reconsider his position in light of the values he has espoused during his career in public service."


According to what I'm see across conservative blogs, Frist is essentially toast. Good thing he can go back to doing surgery, he sure as heck knows how to use a knife - right Mr. President?

However, not all conservative blogs think Frist is a cad. Consider Hugh Hewitt:

"Senator Frist's position on stem cell research hurts him with the evangelical base he was said by the left to be playing to throughout the past year and especially during the Schiavo tragedy. Frist is hardly a frontrunner in need of a Sister Souljah moment. Perhaps he is what is so rare for the left to understand: A man of principle who reasons to positions and then defends them."

A man of principal? Or man who sells his soul for a vote. Right now, I would bet on the latter.

Frist's decision is yet another example of his "instability" as a viable candidate. Eric Cohen & William Kristol note this article from the Weekly Standard, Frist can't be pro-life and pro-stem cell at the same time. It was as if Frist was diplaying 'Mulit-personalities while on the floor:

"The incoherence of Frist's position is staggering. In his Senate speech, he explained that the "embryo is a human life at its earliest stage of development." He said that he believes, as a person of faith and a man of science, that "human life begins at conception." He reminded us that "we were all once embryos." He called on all citizens, including scientists, to treat human embryos with the "utmost dignity and respect." It was a clear and elegant statement on the dignity of early human life, backed up by a doctor's understanding of elementary embryology.

But then, as if giving a different speech, Frist called on the federal government to promote, with taxpayer dollars, the ongoing destruction of human embryos. In a television interview that day, he said that research using and destroying the "spares" can be done ethically so long as there is a "moral framework around informed consent." But if embryos deserve respect as nascent human lives, as Frist says he believes, it should not matter whether researchers have permission from their parents to destroy them. If embryos are "human life at its earliest stage," as Frist says he believes, then none of us possesses the authority to consent to their destruction. To promote embryo destruction and still claim to be "pro-life," as Frist did throughout his speech, is absurd."


You can't be on the fence on this: You can't have it both ways.

Again, that's why I think this had nothing to do with "principles", but with leveraging votes in 2008. His position doesn't make sense because those who "prostitute for votes" rarely do. Frist displayed yesterday that he isn't a man of principle, but a simple garden variety poll-driven politician.

"Which ever way the wind blows, eh Doc?"....

As Augustine at Redstate puts it: "As we all know, embryonic stem cell research is not banned in America; it is legal. The issue at hand is taxpayer funding of said research – and just as the GOP does not believe in taxpayer funding for the destruction of unborn people, we should not embrace taxpayer funding for the destruction of embryonic people."

Frist doesn't seem to want to support not only the President's views, but the views of the GOP. While it could be argued, many feel that George Bush would be on permanent vacation at Crawford Texas if not for the Christian Right. George Bush isn't running again. But George Bush praises loyalty above all else. Don't think President Bush's words about Frist's defection fool you - payback is "hell". Again, Frist is toast - mark my words, he won't even make it out of New Hampshire, IF he gets that far.

I personally think Frist - along with his screwing up of the Bolton nomination process, should resign from the Senate leadership - in fact, in the coming weeks the pressure from the Christian right to do so will be immense.

So for I hope he enjoys the applause he gets from the left and the hugs, because unless he runs on the Democratic Ticket, he hasn't got a chance of even getting through the first of the primaries for 2008.
thumbnail

....And now from Al Jazeera's corospondent in San Antonio...

Mansour El-Kikhia: Arabs shouldn't have to apologize

Mansour El-Kikhia, an apologist for Arab terror in general and Palestinian terror in particular is a regular columnist for the San Antonio Express News. You can read between the lines and see the veiled hatred towards the US and especially Israel. Therefore, since you know the source:

" I am fed up with the ceaseless requests by columnists, religious personalities and other American public figures for Arabs and Muslims to apologize for terrorist acts committed by thugs and murderers in the name of Islam.

Mr. El-Kikhia, it is called "Wahhabism", and like it or not, it's a form of Islam - religion of submission - not peace.

While not every person that practices Islam is a terrorist, you cannot separate the "Moon", though there is both a "light and dark" side.

But that's not my point. Mr. El-Kikhia then goes on his typical anti-Bush/Blair rant:

" It is rejection of U.S. and British policies in the Middle East, not Islam, that has promoted terrorism against America. And for the benefits of those who do not know, 95 percent of Middle Easterners are Muslims. Hence, it is only natural that those opposing the United States and Britain in the region would be Muslims. In India, they would have been Hindu; in Latin America or Northern Ireland, they would have been Catholic.

More important, it was the British and the United States that drew first blood. The Middle East didn't come to America or go to Britain; rather, America and Britain went to the Middle East. Both powers used and abused regimes, toppling some and keeping others in power. They never thought that the people they were helping suppress were human beings with needs, beliefs and emotions. They didn't care as long as their interests were served."


Again, repeating the mantra that British MP George Galloway, and other nut cases made after the London attacks that they were due to America's and Britist involvement in Iraq - which is false and betrays the 3000 who died on 9/11 BEFORE we entered Iraq. The Middle East DID come to America in 2001 and before that in 1993.

If Mr. El-Kikhia is so convinced that America is a terrorist tyrant nation, then why not go back to the "Middle East" and join in the Islamic fight against in the infidel. At least it would be more honest than veiling his hatred while enjoying benefits of the "enemy".

For an excellent rebuttal of Mr. El-Kikhia, read "The Muslim mind is on fire".

Thursday, July 28, 2005

thumbnail

I'm on Wilson like it's 1999

I have filed a FOIA request for all reports, documents related to Joseph Wilson's 1999 trip to Niger, where he went - on Plame's recommendation, "For Uranium Related Matters".

The second trip that Ms. Plame suggested he go on because he would be there on business anyway......

I know,...fat chance. But worth a shot.

I'd really like to know what he wrote up (if he wrote anything) a report of that trip. I know that The Senate Intelligence Report said of this trip: "Because the former ambassador did not uncover information about (redacted) during his visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit" (page 39). So CPD didn't write up anything, but what about Joe (did he write, say, do, anything at all?

So many questions...

Yes, I'm trying to get "in the office" to find out, but the "door is locked" at the moment.

We'll see. I've got nothing but time on my side.
thumbnail

Arianna Huffington's Dream Vision

Judy Miller: Do We Want To Know Everything or Don't We?

"Not everyone in the Times building is on the same page when it comes to Judy Miller. The official story the paper is sticking to is that Miller is a heroic martyr, sacrificing her freedom in the name of journalistic integrity.

But a very different scenario is being floated in the halls. Here it is: It's July 6, 2003, and Joe Wilson's now famous op-ed piece appears in the Times, raising the idea that the Bush administration has "manipulate[d]" and "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Miller, who has been pushing this manipulated, twisted, and exaggerated intel in the Times for months, goes ballistic. Someone is using the pages of her own paper to call into question the justification for the war -- and, indirectly, much of her reporting. The idea that intelligence was being fixed goes to the heart of Miller's credibility. So she calls her friends in the intelligence community and asks, Who is this guy? She finds out he's married to a CIA agent. She then passes on the info about Mrs. Wilson to Scooter Libby (Newsday has identified a meeting Miller had on July 8 in Washington with an "unnamed government official"). Maybe Miller tells Rove too -- or Libby does. The White House hatchet men turn around and tell Novak and Cooper. The story gets out.

This is why Miller doesn't want to reveal her "source" at the White House -- because she was the source. Sure, she first got the info from someone else, and the odds are she wasn't the only one who clued in Libby and/or Rove (the State Dept. memo likely played a role too)… but, in this scenario, Miller certainly wasn't an innocent writer caught up in the whirl of history. She had a starring role in it. This also explains why Miller never wrote a story about Plame, because her goal wasn't to write a story, but to get out the story that cast doubts on Wilson's motives. Which Novak did."


You know what? The left has tooo much time on their hands. They want Rove hung, but it's taking too long for Fitzgerald to "get the rope", so Arianna - the maven of macabre, "invents" a senerio that "fixes" the crime to her liking. Oh! I get it Arianna, "Downing Street Fixed"! Ah, you kill me!

Except it's all based again on that baseless assertion that Joe "nailed the White House, so they schemed to get even." Except for one thing:

Arianna, like the rest of the left, is living in the past.

Have you ever noticed that the left and the MSM always deal with this issue exclusively in 2002-2003, but NEVER in 2004? Why? Well that "pesky" little Senate Intelligence Report (Moonbat Kryptonite), creams Joe and makes him a CAD.

See how central Joe is to the left's argument?

Listen, here is the deal. This leak business is bogus if Joe Wilson purposely lied - which unless he has pathological disorder - is already proven to be true, and more importantly if he conspired with Ms. Plame to doctor intelligence - i.e. the Niger documents, then it doesn't matter if Rove got up on the top of the White House with a megaphone to announce who she was. If we had a pair of traitors I'm glad SOMEBODY said something.

Well, Arianna, here's a tip, and I have it on good measure, that Fitzgerald is NOT looking so much at 2003 or 2004, but back into 2002. "Ears have it" that he found the Plame Truth.

Game over.
thumbnail

MoveOn's New Game Show - Name that Blame

Fire Karl Rove Slogan Contest

Fire Karl Rove Slogan Contest

"We want to create the sort of buzz about Karl Rove you can see when you walk down the street. That's why we've launched a Fire Karl Rove Slogan Contest to figure out the slogan for a downloadable poster we'll send to all 3.5 million MoveOn members. Suggest your best idea for a good slogan or rate the slogans of other MoveOn members. The collective ratings of MoveOn members will decide the winner. Slogan writing and rating ends at 8:00 PM Eastern on Tuesday, August 2, 2005. We'll then have a professional graphic artist design the downloadable poster that is the right size to print on a desktop printer and e-mail to all 3.5 million MoveOn members (with credit in the e-mail to the slogan's author). If you're the winner, we'll send you a framed copy of your poster in full-color."

Hmm, something for the Wilson "twins" to hang on the wall in their room!
thumbnail

John Conyers asks you to leak for the Nation!

Rep.Conyers: Bring me all your pre-war intelligence manipulation and secret pre-war deals

Hey! Rep Conyers's office wants you (who are in the know) to leak secrets for the "good of the country"

This of course is due the copies of the Downing Memo that Mr. Smith (London and Austin) is famous for.
thumbnail

Should Ex-CIA Larry C. Johnson be "frog-marched"?

CNSNEWS : Former CIA Agents Call Plame Leak 'Partisan Madness'

Ex-op Larry C. Johnson, the guy who told us before 9/11 we had nothing to worry about from terrorism, has been in the news a lot lately.

Yet while Mr. Johnson is running around talking about his "friendship" with "Val" and how her "outing" has affected National Security, it would seem he thinks that people sort of forget things, like he is a charter member of VIPS who made this headline back in 2003.

" WASHINGTON — Invoking the name of a Pentagon whistle-blower, a small group of retired, anti-war CIA officers are accusing the Bush administration of manipulating evidence against Iraq in order to push war while burying evidence that could show Iraq's compliance with U.N demands for disarmament.

The 25-member group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, composed mostly of former CIA analysts along with a few operational agents, is urging employees inside the intelligence agency to break the law and leak any information they have that could show the Bush administration is engineering the release of evidence to match its penchant for war.


This is the same group that is appearing before Democrats in Congress the other day, read here

Under the same criteria Larry is expousing "National Security", back then he and his group advocated a "coup" on the Bush Administration.


I think it's time for Larry to take a "walk".
thumbnail

The Question of "Who?"

I've have been pouring over past reporting on the Plame Gate incident. Yet from an angle that hasn't been pursued as much as the "who leaked", which is interesting, yet as I've I said, I don't think that matters "who leaked" if it can be proven there was a deliberate act by some people in the CIA to embarrass the President, purport a lie to the US in a time of War. If someone was trying to sabotage our efforts, I'm glad somebody blew the whistle on the scam.

In July 2003, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan stated, "The truth now, we know, is that a forgery was put together to get this country into a war with Iraq, that forgery found its way into our intelligence agencies, it found its way into the State of the Union, and the president of the United States should show more indignation and outrage that this was done." Buchanan added, "Somebody in our own government knew very well that was a forgery, and they advanced it on up the line."

I go now to Seymour Hersh, who in 2003 wrote this: "Who lied to whom?" (Note: I do not agree with a lot of things in this article, specifically with the veiled accusation that British Intelligence had something to do "sexing up intel" - but as with everything - When you are trying to understand something you "eat the hay and spit out the sticks")

"The chance for American intelligence to challenge the documents came as the Administration debated whether to pass them on to ElBaradei...A former intelligence officer told me that some questions about the authenticity of the Niger documents were raised inside the government by analysts at the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. However, these warnings were not heeded."

" 'Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,' the former high-level intelligence official added. 'It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.'


The question is - "Who is that somebody?"

Most of the comments I have read of this article link "agency" to US Administration. But "Agency" means - and always has meant in Intel Circles "CIA". The question is this. Did the CIA KNOW they were fake? More important, ask yourself, what office of the CIA would "this crazy report" have come through? More specifically to whom?

Now, hold that thought. Off to the WAPO Article of 2004 that referenced the Senate Intelligence Report and exposed Joe Wilson as a fraud:

" Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion."


Why is 1999 significant? Back to Seymour:

"The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.

It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co√∂peration, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”

This official told me that the I.A.E.A. has not been able to determine who actually prepared the documents. “It could be someone who intercepted faxes in Israel, or someone at the headquarters of the Niger Foreign Ministry, in Niamey. We just don’t know,” the official said. “Somebody got old letterheads and signatures, and cut and pasted.” Some I.A.E.A. investigators suspected that the inspiration for the documents was a trip that the Iraqi Ambassador to Italy took to several African countries, including Niger, in February, 1999. They also speculated that MI6—the branch of British intelligence responsible for foreign operations—had become involved, perhaps through contacts in Italy, after the Ambassador’s return to Rome."


Now the question: What was Wilson doing in Niger in 1999? That is besides the "Uranium issues". I wonder though, Did Joe happen to bring back, oh.. any Nigerian "letterhead" with him from his trip to Niger in 1999? Would have been real convenient if he did. In fact it would have been down right helpful for somebody "close" to Joe with connections to "Giacomo", could then really get things "cooking". Not muc, a little "date" here, a little "name" there, and "Presto!"

Maybe that would explain....

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters."

Yeah Joe, How did you know?
thumbnail

This is the Press on the Take - Any Questions?

Dan Froomkin: Washington Post: Deflecting Responsibility

""The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA"

You know, it wasn't long after I posted this that a WAPO hack came a running to reinforce the MSM party line:

"Ever since it started becoming clear that the war in Iraq was based on exaggerated and inaccurate assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the Bush White House has found itself, every once in a while, furiously trying to deflect the blame.

The effort has not been entirely successful. Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the public about WMDs.

But then again, President Bush did win reelection.

One of the more furious bursts of blame-deflection, of course, came after former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV disclosed in July 2003 that U.S. intelligence officials had plenty of reason to know that there was no evidence to support allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger -- but that Bush chose to assert as much in his 2003 State of the Union speech anyway.

White House officials launched a dual attack -- both of which involved the CIA. On one front, they began assailing Wilson, a process that eventually led to press leaks outing his wife as a CIA agent. On the other front, they forced the CIA to take responsibility for not having insisted that Bush remove the famous "16 words" from his address."


Notice the common use of the same script.

1. No WMD found (forget it all went to Syria - cripes we gave Saddam enough time to get rid of it).

2. Joseph Wilson is George Washington - "Hey look at him on that Vanity Fair cover - isn't he dashing?"

3. Wilson was ATTACKED by that shiftless Bush Administration! They guy was "doing his duty", he's a hero!

Again, we have to just resign to the fact that we're not going to get anything but "Twist and Shout" out of these guys. Thank God for blogs (and you wonder why the MSM hates them so much?)

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

thumbnail

Why Valerie is at the heart of the Plame Game

As I've said over and over, if Valerie Plame conspired with help to lie to the President during a time of war, Or as David Horowitz put it:

"In the midst of a war, a rogue CIA employee named Valerie Plame set out to sabotage the President’s war policy — a policy ratified by both political parties and both houses of Congress. To do this she sent her husband on a mission to Niger to discredit the President’s statement that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium there — in other words to discredit a justification for the war in which Americans were continuing to die."

That is treason, and it trumps any bogus leak charge. Period.

Now why do I and others think that Valerie is at the heart of the Plame Game? First let me say as a former member of Army Intelligence, and in civilian life, law enforcement, I'm not about getting "somebody off" just for political gain. Yes, I am conservative and not only voted for Bush, and I also support his agenda. If this WERE a case of somebody blowing a covert op's cover, I say, "Fry him!"

However, since the beginning of this case, where everybody else - MSM and even some conservative blogs are looking at the "Leak", only a few "sniffed" the aroma of a conspiracy from the get go.

Frankly, if you want to get technical, from what we know now, there isn't "one leaker" - there's a whole crap load of them, as everybody can be tied to giving Valerie's identity away at one time or another, even Joe himself. In fact, just from a law enforcement standpoint, the case is so muddled that even if Fitgerald were to indict EVERYONE - EVERYONE would get off - as there just isn't anything at this point that would hold in a court of law, and spare me the perjury angle. From crying out loud, one person contradicting another is NOT perjury.

I've got more experience with Grand Juries than Daily Kos has moonbats dancing his head, and conflicting or differing testimonies are nothing new or uncommon during testimony. It doesn't necessarily mean that one person is lying and the the isn't. Hell, with my experience sometimes everybody is lying - that's the proscecutor's job to sort the crap out.

Heck, with the evidence I've seen so far, I and some of my colleaues are saying, "That's it? Is that all they got?"

Anyway, back to Plame. As with every sphere of happen chance there is a core - and Valerie is the core.

The MSM media won't tell you that because they have crowned her "Victim" and tell stories about her shopping with the twins. According to them as far as he recommending Joe to go to Niger, they would have us believe that she was sitting at her desk at Langly one day, when someone said, "There's this crazy report about Yellow Cake and Niger", and she just raised her hand and said, "Hey, I know, my husband can go check it out! You know, he's Mr. Bagdad, man of the world - likes mint tea, and has lots of contacts in Niger - you remember, I recommended him in '99?"

Please!

For the "un-law enforcement among us", in determining any crime, you need to establish two primary factors - "Motive" and "Opportunity"

First to Motive:

While I haven't gotten it all together yet, I can tell you that Valerie is quite the "MoveOn" kind of Girl! In fact she had more ties to Soros/Moveon and the DNC than she had anywhere in the world!

In short - she had a "motive". For the "opportunity", let me turn this over to Mark R. Levin of National Review in a articledated July 18th, 2005:

"That's right. Plame started this phony scandal. And so far, she’s gotten away with it. What do I mean? Plame has shown herself to be an extremely capable bureaucratic insider. In fact, we know she's accomplished — she accomplished getting her husband, Joe Wilson, an assignment he desperately wanted: a trip to Niger to investigate a "crazy" report that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger (her word, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, not mine). And she was dogged. She asked not once but twice (the second time in a memo) that her husband get the job. And there's more. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also found that a CIA "analyst's notes indicate that a meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger issues."

Now, Wilson didn't have an intelligence background. Indeed, the committee revealed that Wilson didn't have a "formal" security clearance, but the CIA gave him an "operational clearance." The fact is that there was little to recommend Wilson for the role, other than his wife’s persistence.

Indeed, the committee reported further that some at the CIA "believed that the embassy in Niger had good contacts and would be able to get to the truth of the uranium issue, suggesting a visit from the former ambassador would be redundant...."

Why Wilson?

This is the real scandal. Plame lobbied repeatedly for her husband, and she knew full well that he was hostile to the war in Iraq and the administration's foreign policy. She had to know his politics — and there can no longer be any pretense about him being a nonpartisan diplomat who was merely doing his job. By experience and temperament, Wilson was the wrong man to send to Niger. Plame affirmatively stepped into what she knew might become a very public political controversy, given her husband's predilections (and her own) about that "crazy" report of yellowcake uranium.

In fact, Wilson was so concerned that his wife's aggressive and clandestine efforts in securing his assignment would become known that he lied about who sent him to Niger to cover her (and his) tracks. So, in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, he lied to the American people, writing: "It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.”

And in his book, Wilson wrote: “Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.” Lie upon lie intended to conceal his wife’s role and perpetuate the myth to the American people that he was a mere diplomat approached by the CIA because of his supposed expertise and professionalism. Wilson didn’t want his and his wife’s motivations to spoil the firestorm he was about to unleash against the president — with the help of the New York Times (which, to this day, has not run a correction and, therefore, stands by Wilson’s demonstrable lies).

When Wilson returned from Niger, he never got around to filing a written report. After all, why produce a written report that would be circulated to real professionals and policymakers, who would subject it to serious scrutiny. However, Wilson was debriefed by the CIA and his debriefers did take notes. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the debriefers’ didn’t share Wilson’s information with, among others, the White House because they concluded Wilson didn't come up with much.

And remember, the crux of Wilson’s op-ed was that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger, that he had communicated that fact to the administration, that the administration ignored or rejected his findings, and that President Bush lied to the nation to justify the war when, during his January 2003 State of the Union address, he said that “the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Committee Considerations

Also remember that a year later, an independent British commission, which reviewed the intelligence behind the Iraq-Niger uranium claim, concluded that the president’s statement was “well founded,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that “a number of intelligence reports” contained similar information.

Significantly, the Senate Intelligence Committee learned that the debriefers' conclusions differed in several important ways from Wilson's, including respecting yellowcake uranium.

The committee wrote:

First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rogue nations, and noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refuse the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.

Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former [Niger] Prime Minister Mayaki.

Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [blacked out] intelligence service." In fact, the CIA did not provide Wilson with "any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and noted that there were no 'documents' circulating ... at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from [blacked out] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. ...[N]one of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report ...

So, Wilson lied about what he found (or didn’t find) in Niger, he lied about discussing with his CIA debriefers certain documentation and signatures he never saw, and he lied about the CIA telling him of certain classified documents and sources. His New York Times op-ed was fiction, as was information he later leaked to the Washington Post, information he gave to other media outlets, and significant aspects of his book.

To this day, despite all this evidence, the media embrace Wilson's story, evidence be damned. The media outlets that were used by Wilson, and published or repeated his lies, are very forgiving. They portray Wilson as he demands to be portrayed, not as he is. And they regurgitate the rhetoric about poor Valerie Plame — a patriot and victim endangered and ruined by politically motivated leaks and a powerful White House bent on discrediting her husband. Even Meet the Press’s Tim Russert, who fancies himself a hard-nosed interrogator, could not have a done a better job of misinforming the public and smearing the White House — cutting and pasting statements and video clips, and throwing softballs to, of all people, Bill Clinton’s (and now George Soros’s) hatchetman, John Podesta. Plame’s central and aggressive role in promoting her husband, who in turn hoped to damage the credibility of the president in the midst of a war — from her CIA perch — doesn’t even merit a mention. (Also, see Cliff May's excellent reporting about the Plame/Wilson/David Corn connections.)

And in an Alice In Wonderland-like storyline, the same media that demand confidentiality for their sources as a First Amendment right, also demand the identity of Bob Novak’s sources and the names of administration officials who’ve spoken to the media. They cheer the very criminal investigation they once claimed endangered their profession. Meanwhile, who’s under investigation? Not Plame and Wilson, who appear to have hatched this scandal, but those truly victimized by it — administration officials who, it appears, sought to correct Wilson’s lies. Their phone conversations with reporters and e-mails to colleagues are now scrutinized by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury as if they’re war criminals. No wonder Plame is the toast of the Washington establishment and appears in publicity shots in Vanity Fair with a big grin. Look what she’s wrought."


I was on the phone to the "office" today, thankfullly, there are still good people there who are willing to speak about this issue (Not everyone at the office was against the war). Suffice to say that there is more to come, and if I were Joe and Valerie, I'd put the champaign away for now.





Filed under:
thumbnail

Schumer Again!


And Now, Back to Karl Rove

Schumer again....

" (CNSNews.com) - Before news events overtook them, Democrats were on a roll about Karl Rove, the Bush adviser they've targeted for job termination -- even before a federal grand jury concludes its investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent to the press.

On Tuesday, various Democrats returned to the subject.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced it has compiled a timeline of events involving the leak -- "to set the record straight in a way that no amount of Republican spin can overcome."

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card asking for an explanation of the so called "12 hour gap." That refers to the length of time it took then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to inform White House staffers that the federal investigation was about to begin -- and that all documents pertaining to the leak of Valerie Plame's name should be retained.

The night he learned about the impending investigation, Gonzales told only Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Gonzales says he waited until morning to let other White House officials know, since most of them had gone home.

Democrats are suggesting that Gonzales' 12-hour delay in informing Bush administration officials was calculated to give them time to destroy documents.

"The time has come for the White House to shed some light on what happened at the very beginning of the [federal] investigation," Schumer said on Tuesday. "At every recent twist and turn in this investigation there seems to be another evasion from the White House.

"Andy Card ought to simply tell the American people whether or not he gave Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or anyone else advance warning about the document request from the Department of Justice."

Schumer's letter asks Card to "immediately disclose whether, at any time between when you were informed that evening and when the official document request was communicated to all White House staff, you informed Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, or anyone else that an official order to preserve any possible evidence related to the investigation was coming."


Again, how come everytime there is a "Wilson/Plame" there is a Chuck Schumer. Details to come.

Since the DCCC is talking about "timelines", how about this one.
thumbnail

Flash Back - Questionable Motivations of Joe Wilson

Spy Games

Sometimes we have to go back, to go forward. Today, I'm going back to September 29th, 2003. Clifford May writing for National Review:

"On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

I chose not to include it (I wrote a second NRO piece on this issue on July 18) because it didn't seem particularly relevant to the question of whether or not Mr. Wilson should be regarded as a disinterested professional who had done a thorough investigation into Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

What did appear relevant could easily be found in what the CIA would call "open sources." For example, Mr. Wilson had long been a bitter critic of the current administration, writing in such left-wing publications as The Nation that under President Bush, "America has entered one of it periods of historical madness" and had "imperial ambitions."

What's more, he was affiliated with the pro-Saudi Middle East Institute and he had recently been the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-Left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions and the no-fly zones that protected Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam."


I have a saying.

"If the premise is tainted, so will be the outcome."

No matter how the MSM tries to paint Joe Wilson, he had an axe to grind and someone at the CIA gave him the sharpening wheel.

Whether Plame acted on her own, or was used, it really doesn't matter. Here is the crux of the entire episode:

If rogue CIA was trying to threaten our National Security in order "play politics", then I don't give two flips who gave Plame up - WHOEVER DID IS A HERO.

I was a cop. I know the "code", but I also when there is a bad cop somebody BETTER let someone know! Plame, Wilson and whoever else, if guilty of treason, should be hung - not vindicated and protected by the MSM, and their operatives on the left.

We need hearings - and we need them now.
thumbnail

A Wider Net? Wider Misreporting

Washington Post: Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA"

(For why that quote is true, see Captain Quarters take here).

Today's WAPO, has an article with "new" details on the Plame Game.

Most of the article is the same old spin we've heard before. You know, "Joe was an Angel and he told the truth and the bad old Bush Administration set out to get 'em" because Joe had the GUTS to tell them they were full of crap!" It's amazing, the MSM has kept this unproven and baseless accusation of Joe Wilson alive for nearly two years!

Again, not a single solidary mention of the Senate Intelligence Report - no wonder the MSM readership/viewership is tanking.

Anyway, here is some of the WAPO new 'tidbits' (reality warning):

Let's call it the "Wilson Sting":

"In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said that he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and that they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said that he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."

Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said."


So, let's get this straight. Wilson has his friend stalk Mr. Novak, and then walk up to him and say, "Hey Mr. Novak! You heard any good Yellow Cake Stories Lately? Boy! that Wilson guy sure knocked that report out of the park didn't he?"

So Wilson - Mr. 'Tea" is giving "tips" to the Grand Jury. Swell!

The same guy for whom the straight talking Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts remarked:

"During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason not to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact"

"The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record."


In other words, (to be a help to the WAPO and the NY TIMES) a "liar" is giving tips about how he "traps" reporters. This guy is incredible! Now, I wonder who his "friend" was? Who was the "CIA" source. We'll soon know. Yet I also wonder if Mr. Liar, is versed on CIA regulations regarding contact with the media? I mean, was a law broken here?

In anycase something ain't kosher here....nope, not at all.

Then there is this other excerpt related to Plame's status, coming from former CIA Spokesman, Bill Harlow:

"Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy."


In other words, Harlow - who was a part of the "Tenet Group" - is "getting even". We have no idea if his unconfirmed story is true, but from what I know about how the "office" works, I doubt his story. Things don't work that way there. He didn't have to check and call back! There's a computer on his desk or nearby - punch her name in and ta-da! Cripes, these guys got the MSM licking out of their hands!

Anyway, even Harlow was trying that "Plame didn't send her husband", horse crap (Party line under Tenet), but again, that "pesky" Senate Intelligence Report begs to differ.

I would also like to note Tom McGuire's excellent work here. Yet, as I said before, nobody knows what Fitzgerald is looking at - but I got a feeling - a strong feeling he "stumbled" on to more than was bargained for.

UPDATE: Make sure to check out The Strata-Sphere for the case against Plame and Wilson.
thumbnail

Plame Game -5 "Connecting the Dots"

New York Post: Report: Plame Gave Money to Anti-Bush Group

"WASHINGTON — Outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen, it was revealed Tuesday night.

It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.

The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together (search), first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets.

The Federal Election Commission (search) record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."

A special prosecutor is probing whether Plame's CIA identity was leaked to retaliate against her husband, Joseph Wilson (search), for attacking President Bush's Iraq policy after he went on an Iraq-linked CIA mission arranged by his wife.

Wilson — who played an active role in Democrat John Kerry's (search) losing 2004 presidential campaign — said the anti-Bush concert was "great" and told Time that his wife "doesn't recall listing herself as retired."


Of course she doesn't....

"CIA rules allow campaign contributions, but the fact that Plame gave money to the anti-Bush effort is likely to raise eyebrows.

Federal rules require a political-action committee to ask all donors to list their employers.

"You don't have to provide it, but if you do, you shouldn't provide false information on those forms — like saying you're retired if you're not," said Larry Noble of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (search).

America Coming Together is one of the anti-Bush activist groups bankrolled by Bush-opposing billionaire George Soros (search). He gave the group around $10 million."


View her campaign contribution here.

(Anyone, besides me smell something...?)

While most of the concentration on blogs and in the media is on "who leaked -what/ were/here/there with whom"?

The connective dots of the real story behind the story are now beginning to come together.

Watch the damage control now! Yet I promise, this is only the tip of the iceberg reference to the connections I mentioned here.
thumbnail

Thieves at Air America?

AIR AMERICA: STEALING FROM POOR KIDS?!

Michelle Malkin has the low down on the low life (I mean, oh, leave it alone), shenanigans of Air America ripping off poor kids.

Via Radio Blogger:

"What happens when the mainstream media, after years of seething over conservative talk radio's success, discover its alternative got diverted public funds, earmarked instead for inner-city youth and seniors?

The answer, with one key exception: they pretend it didn't happen.

Yes, only because of a New York Daily News tidbit do we know that Bronx-based Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club nearly shut down major programs recently, because almost $500,000 in governmental grant money was instead diverted to Air America's liberal radio network."


Captain's Quarters has done some more digging on the story here.

Where is the MSM on this story?

Senator Schumer?......Senator Clinton?........

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

thumbnail

And They Were Expecting?

NY Times - Files Highlight Legal Stances of a Nominee

The NY Time breathlessly reports that Robert's papers shows he believes in strictly interpreting the constitution and not legislating from the bench.

"COLLEGE PARK, Md., July 26 - As a young lawyer in the Justice Department at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency, John G. Roberts advocated judicial restraint on the issues of the day, many of which are still topical, documents released Tuesday by the National Archives show.

He defended, for instance, the constitutionality of proposed legislation to restrict the ability of federal courts to order busing to desegregate schools.

On other civil rights issues, he encouraged a cautious approach by courts and federal agencies in enforcing laws against discrimination.

Judge Roberts, now on the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, also argued that Congress had the constitutional power "to divest the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over school prayer cases."

In another memorandum, he maintained that the Supreme Court, to which he is now nominated, overreached when it denied states the authority to impose residency requirements for welfare recipients.

This was an example, he wrote, of the court's tendency to find fundamental rights, like the right to travel between states, for which there was no explicit basis in the Constitution. "It's that very attitude which we are trying to resist," he wrote."


President Bush on picking judges: " I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench"

Ok, so the NY Times still doesn't understand? What's the problem?

UPDATE: WAPO joins the shock at the times! Clueless!
thumbnail

Spamming God Can Get You Killed?

Russian Media Hails Spammer’s Murder

"Russia’s most (in)famous spammer, Vardan Kushnir, 35, was dead in his apartment in downtown Moscow on Monday, July 25. Someone repeatedly smashed his head with a heavy object, authorities say, and then ransacked his entire apartment. The authorities have obviously got no clue as to who that someone might have been.

And, as a matter of fact, they don’t seem to really care: every day between 10 and 20 people meet a violent death in Russia’s capital, and a significant part of those crimes remains unsolved (Russia’s Interior Ministry reports 1,935 unsolved murders, 73,000 burglaries and 11,400 robberies between January and May in this year alone). There is no reason for Moscow’s law enforcement officials to give Kushnir’s case any special treatment, so they most probably won’t. But the Moscow-based media is awash with comments and speculations, expounding one simple, albeit largely irrational, theory: someone (ranging from God almighty to an irate IT office worker) finally punished Vardan Kushnir for his seemingly unstoppable spamming activities."


I'm an IT manager on the side, but I wouldn't put myself in the "God" category.....but spam does make me mad enough to......
thumbnail

Daily Kos - "That's Lame" Alert

The DailyKos, hrrump....is regurgitating a story - well, a rumor....well, not even a rumor...

Ok, trash talk.

"As a string of foes from John McCain to Richard Clarke can attest, Karl Rove has never been shy about using personal attacks for political gain. But as the Valerie Plame scandal rages on, the Bush administration's in-house bulldog may be forced to endure a taste of his own medicine [...]

For years, political insiders in the Lone Star State have whispered about Rove's close friendship with lobbyist Karen Johnson, a never-married, forty-something GOP loyalist from Austin, Texas. The two first became close when Johnson sat on the board of then-Governor George W. Bush's Business Council over a decade ago. Their friendship reportedly deepened after Bush appointed Johnson--a little-known spokesperson for the Texas Good Roads Association--to a seat on his Transportation Department transition team in 2000. The plum appointment enabled Johnson's lobbying firm, Infrastructure Solutions, to snare such high-paying clients as Aetna and the City of Laredo. Sources say Johnson now frequently travels between Washington D.C. and Austin, where she frequently appears at Rove's side at parties and unofficial functions.

Although there is no evidence that their relationship is anything but professional, the close association between the married White House aide and the comely lobbyist has long raised eyebrows in conservative Texas circles. Asked about the pair, a prominent political journalist who has written extensively about Rove says, "I've heard the stories, but I would never write about Karl and Karen. If you want to keep your job as a reporter in Texas, you make believe you don't see them together."


Kos writes:

"In a fortuitious coincidence, Jerome and I have just finished interviewing a long-time Texas political writer here in Austin who says that Rove is absolutely having an affair with Karen. Rove is married and has a teenaged son. According to this writer, Rove's wife is a hardcore liberal. "I don't know how he and his wife get along," he said.

Well, quite obviously, they do not."


Whatever Kos. You know the saying, "Leave a dog in the yard and he digs dirt.".......amazing.

The fact is IF Karl was having an affair he would be a Democratic Hero just like Good Ole Bill and John! (I mean, it isn't like he uses a cigar or anything like that....)
thumbnail

Connecting the Dots.....

How come every time Wilson shows up, Senator Schumer shows up? How come everytime Schumer is at the podium, Hillary Clinton isn't far behind. Schumer put in the original request for the investigation, and then showed up again when Rove was identified as Cooper's source.

Connections....connections.....

I found this "connection" on a post at Right Nation:

"1) Matthew Cooper's wife, Mandy Grunwald, is an inner-circle Clintonite, who has been one of Hillary's closest political advisers for years.

Cooper and his wife move in the very same social circles as Wilson and his wife. In the Washington political scene everybody knows everybody.
I have seen pre-"leak" pictures of Valerie Plame with Bill Clinton at black-tie Dem fund-raising parties.

Matthew Cooper didn't need a source to tell him what Plame does for a living, he knows damn well what she does.

2) Valerie Plame works in the WMD department at the CIA.
Judith Miller is the New York Times foremost expert on WMD's.

Both are big-time liberals who, again, go to the same parties, and Miller undoubtedly knows fellow journalist Matthew Cooper, who is famous in Washington circles for being the life of the party, according to Mort Kondrake. And so, by extension, Miller undoubtedly knows Grunwald, too.

Judith Miller doesn't need a source, either. She already knew all about Plame. These people all know each other.

And ask yourself, knowing what big time lefties these people are, why would they go to jail to protect Karl Rove?"


Now posts are not 'facts', but I find the links intriguing. Mandy IS a Clinton operative - that much is known. Hilary+Schumer+Wilson+Cooper+Mandy =?

Whether they all met at a party or about town is speculative, but knowing Washington, it is possible. The last sentence rings true though - WHO is Miller protecting? It couldn't be Rove - that's already on the table. Could it be Cooper?

For thing is for sure, I'm trying to get a copy of that photo. Anybody knows where it is at - let me know.
thumbnail

Media Blog - National Review - Takes a look at leaks

Media Blog -
Stephen Spruiell Reporting - Inman on the Culture of Leaks


Stephen over at National Review asked a question of Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret) about the Plame Game:

"I was utterly appalled during the 2004 election cycle at the number of clearly politically motivated leaks from intelligence organizations — mostly if not all from CIA — that appeared to me to be the most crass thing I had ever seen to influence the outcome of an election. I never saw it quite as harsh as it was. And clearing books to be published anonymously — there was no precedent for it. I started getting telephone calls from CIA retirees when Bush appointed Negroponte, talking about how vindictive the administration was in trying to punish CIA, and I was again sort of dismayed by the effort to play politics including with information that was classified. What is the impact on younger workers who see the higher-ups engaged in this kind of leaking?"

When asked more specifically about Plame the Admiral reponded:

"[The leaking of Plame's identity] is still one I would rather not see, but she was working in an analytical organization, and there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers. I watch all the hand-wringing over the ruining of careers… there are a lot of operatives whose covers are blown. It doesn’t mean the end of their careers. Many move to the analytical world, which is where she already was. It meant she couldn’t deploy back off to Africa, but nothing I’ve seen indicated that was possible in the first place.

On the first part we know that the CIA WAS leaking information to the media during the 2004 Presidential Election. In fact the leaks were coming so fast and furious the only thing they didn't do was construct a Media Drive Through at Langley, "Would you like some fries with that memo?"

Now you don't have to be as smart as ...me, to figure out why that was happening - but the question remains WHO was leaking the information. I hope to have that in the next few days - me buds down at the office are working on it.

The second part of the Admiral's answer confirms my affirmation that Plame was not in a covert/protected status on the day, before the day, and for some time before Novaks article. She worked a desk. Again, working at Langly no more makes you covert than working as a 911 Dispatcher let's you carry a gun and arrest people. To me, her status is a dead issue.

This lame argument that Larry Johnson makes that if she wasn't covert there wouldn't have been an investigation, is flawed. Who is he jiving with that kosmik debri? The CIA didn't even cover the Protected Identities law when they asked for the investigation.

While I'm at it, several things need to be cleared up. First, the MSM and even some bloggers are dead set on the idea that the Administration purposely outed Valerie just to get back at Joe. They have repeated this assertion so many times that people are quoting it as if were already a fact of Fitzgerald's investigation. Again, we don't have a clue of what he is looking at.

The left's nutty logic that since Rove and Libby's testimony is contradicted by Novak and Cooper that somehow means that Rove and Libby are lying - is in a word - crap. Who knows, given the toss up and consequences and the record of media honesty of late (Jason Blair; Dan Rather..), I'll take the word of Rove and Libby over any of the media types at this point.

thumbnail

Plame Game Update - 4

Blog and MSM coverage surrounding the Plame Game so far has I feel has made two critical mistakes:

1. That they are "guessing" what Fitzgerald is looking at, ie; perjury, etc. The fact is no one really has a clue what he's looking at.

2. That we are still talking about primarily a leak. It's gone WAY beyond that.

Right now there is this pretzel logic going around that Fitzgerald is looking at perjury, with the only 'evidence' being that reporters said something different that Rove and Libby said, Ms. Plame's status was questionable, that could be the only reason he's taking so long. So of course, according to the MSM and other pundits, Rove and Libby are lying and the good old boys of journalism are not. Right!

Again, we don't know. But I do think Tim Russert may have reason to sweat and stammer every bit as much as he was on last Sunday's Meet the Press. In fact, I though he was going to break down at any minute. Maybe that's just my old "law enforcement" antenna going crazy, but I would have 'Little Russ' back for more than a few chats.

As I said here, I welcome some kind of Senate Hearings. You can bet the MSM will be critical of Senate Hearings and that will be predictable as they would take us away from their "focus"; i.e. Rove is the leaker NOT our reporters, "He's guilty dammit! Can't you see!".

They will say, "What would hearings from a Republican controlled Senate produce, if not just a stall or coverup?"

Now the key to this is the advent of the NEW CIA with Porter Gross and his house cleaning. With Senate Hearings, for the first time in this case, the CIA will be ON the carpet instead of the Administration. When it is finished, the CIA will no longer be "Pissing outside the Tent, or on inside the Tent", as the pissing on the White House will be over for good.

It's been a long time coming.

Hearings will also bring to light what the MSM refuses to. Their refusal to reference the Senate Intelligence Report is mind-boggling, if not outright laughable.

Pehaps with hearings we'll finally see what certain elements of the CIA were cooking up in the months leading up to the War in Iraq. To this end we could very well see Ms. Plame, Joesph Wilson, and some certain Senate Democrats - one which shows up everytime Wilson is in front of a camera - hauled before the committee to explain their involvement. Most of which was detailed in the Senate Intelligence Report whose findings the MSM continues to ignore.

In essence I agree with Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House:

"But there’s something else I’ve been calling for:

I WANT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE FORMER CIA AGENTS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO CURRENT INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL WHO ARE SELECTIVELY LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO DISCREDIT THE ADMINISTRATION AND DELIBERATELY HARM THE WAR EFFORT.

This is what the Rove-Plame-Wilson affair is all about; push back by the White House in their war with the CIA. They may have gone too far. They may have harmed national security. But that doesn’t change the fact that unelected bureacrats in the CIA have opposed the Administration from the start and sought to sway an election last year by leaking cherry picked intel reports that showed the CIA in the best possible light with regards to WMD.

Some of the signatories to that letter may be in the thick of this scandal. Some of them may be conduits for classified information that journalists like Walter Pincus, Bob Novak, and Judith Miller received prior to the election last year. And the whole sordid mess is being ignored by the press in their effort to get Rove.

Fine…get Rove. But when is the MSM going to turn their attention to this clandestine conflict that Mrs. Wilson and her cohorts have been fighting for more than 2 years? This, not the Rovian affair, is the real threat to our country."


The original case of leaks (who/where/what) which IS a tempest in a teapot; like a fly on a Nuclear Bomb - it really is insignificant, compared to the Greater Story of what Valerie and her co-horts were cooking up before the War. THATS THE STORY!

Yet, just for kicks and giggles, lets just take this to the end that gives the "Get Rove Crowd" their ultimate wet dream.

Let's say that Fitzgerald finds Rove and Libby guilty on perjury.

However in the wake of those charges, the Senate hearings ultimatly discover that there was in fact that certain elements of the CIA were involved in a act of treason to mislead the President of the United States during a time of war. Subsequently, instead of a crime, they find that Rove and Libby acted in the best interest of the Security of the United States. The result? Rove and Libby go from villains to hero's in seconds flat. Plame and Wilson and some others get a walk to D Cell.

In any case, a more balanced assessment of the case is covered by Tom McGuire of Just One Minute, which should be a daily read to keep up on the Plame Game from the leak/no-leak/who leaked perspective.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Powered by Blogger.

Followers

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

Pages

Pages

Pages - Menu

Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio

About

Go here.