Monday, October 31, 2005


Plame Game - What Happened Joe? - Part II

From the previous post about Joe Wilson's appearence on Bill Moyer's show on February 28th, 2003, when Joe made no mention of the Niger story, or even blasted the "16 words" spoken one month earlier in the President's SOTU speech.

Yet there is more. As this interview with Wilson from Global Security, six days into the war, as well as this one two days earlier from the same source, there is none of the outrage, none of the rhetoric that you hear from his "talking point's" spun by Kristof, Pincus and Corn in the months to come.

Then there is this curious exchange from an online chat hosted by the Washington Post dated April 3rd, 2003 nearly a month before he talked to Kristof:

"Boston, Mass.: Mr. Wilson

Thank you for taking our questions. What happens if we do not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Joseph C. Wilson: Whether we find them or not is now immaterial. The liberation is now the rationale. If we don't find them, discussion about them will cease and we will focus on the other reasons the administration has articulated. If we do find them, world public opinion will only change on the margins."

Curious, no?

Filed under:

Pure Genius - Misunderestimated again!

I haven't weighed in on the SCOTUS nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

However, I think most people missed the big picture.

My take is that Harriet Miers was never the pick, but only the "decoy" until after Fitzmas.

Note that after she withdrew her 'nomination' last week, and after Fitz's findings, she went to work this weekend with the President on the Alito pick.

The "Pick Play".

Bush Misunderestimated again?

Pure Genius!


Plame Game - The Golden Goose

According to the SSCI report page 39, Wilson made a trip to Niger after his wife recommended him, mainly because he was going there on business anyway and his "contacts in the region".

The only indication we had of what this trip was about was from Wilson’s own book, The Politics of Truth, which is cited in the SSCI, in which it said he went reference to “Uranium Related matters”.

Now 1999 was two years before 9/11. It was nearly a year and a half before George Bush took office. What interest then would the CIA have in “uranium related matters” in the Summer of 1999 that Joe Wilson would have to “check out”?

Wilson had been a career diplomat, but left service in 1998 to open a consulting firm that specialized in “Assisting International Investment” in Africa. What a guy to help out with "Expanding commerical relations", eh?

Remember, and most ignored in the press that at this time there was under supposed lock and key and verification of IAEA, 500 tons of Yellow Cake in a nuclear facility in Al Tuwaitha in Iraq, that had been there since at least after the first Gulf War.

As in my previous post I asserted, through a source, that the purpose of Joe Wilson’s trip in 1999 was to in fact broker a deal between Ibrahim Myaki and the Iraq delegation. The rest of Wilson’s statement, that Ibrahim didn’t discuss the deal because he was following sanctions I believe to be patently false (note the irony). Note again, that on page 39 of the SSCI it also states that Wilson did not uncover any information about (redacted) during his visit, ..the CPD didn’t distribute a report. Seems that whenever Mr. Wilson was “helping out” the CIA, there was a decided lack of a paper trail. Interesting wouldn't you say?

The big question at this point is why was there this interest in in Uranium Matters in 1999?

Remember, there hasn’t been a 9/11 yet, although we know with the ’93 attacks on the WTC, the Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole, Al-Qaeda is alive and active in the world and although good and able ops are truly trying to keep tabs on them and stop them, there were simply some “bad cops”. Just like the ones you can find on some police departments. In many cases ignoring the bad guys, and in some cases covering for them. Again, in both examples the motive is simple – a ton of money, 500 tons to be exact.

Note worthy that moving up to the 2002 trip, that page 40 notes a 1000 pound descrepancy between GON reports and what minining companies reported for 2001. Again, coincidence? Bad math?

The fact is that despite the MSM and other information to the contrary, Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. All he needed was a little more time for sanctions to be lifted. Any other explaination for the IAEA to hanging on to the YC in Al Tuwaithal begs a co-existing belief in Santa Claus.

As we are finding out in the Oil for Food Scandal, Saddam had tons of money to burn. Money might not buy happiness, but it can buy a boatload of officials and influence. It can buy inspectors, foreign leaders and cash-poor countries. It can also buy “cover”. Speaking of "cover".

When you do just a little 'googling" on Valerie Plame's company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, you can find that it was named after Brewster Jennings, who served as president of a predecessor company to Exxon Mobil Corporation. Noteworthy, Exxon was one of the first companies and one of 2200 who are implicated in some measure in the OFF scandal.

Also note that Brewster Jennings was intended to infiltrate ties between groups involved in smuggling nuclear weapons and the materiel to create them, to countries such as Israel and Pakistan. Which when you do a little "data mining" on Isreal and nukes and current events you make even more curious connections.

Now are all these connections coincidence or design? I wish that many of the cases I worked on had these many connections, would have made life easier. Tom Clancy anyone?

If coincidence it is just one of hundreds of convienent links and dots. Yet looking at them there is little wonder that so many people, from the members of our own Democratic party, to countries like France, Germany, Russia, (all implicated in the OFF scandal), all the way to rogue ops both active and retired, opposed the Iraq War and the removal of Saddam. The links and 'dots' are such that it would seem that threading the eye of a needle would be an everyday affair in this universe. Just too neat and complete. As I said, "much more than a leak".

As I look at this whole thing, it becomes apparent that George Bush’s sin is simply that he killed the Golden Goose, and for that, according them, he has to pay. But how?

That’s where the Election of 2004 would become the battleground that it was, and where we would first meet Mr. Wilson and his accomplice, Valerie Plame.

By the way, did I mention Tim Russert's wife, Maureen Orth, is a writer for Vanity Fair?


Filed under:

Sunday, October 30, 2005


Plame Game - Ole Joe, wither goest thou?

So where are we in the Plame Game?

The investigation has come and gone, so far one casualty, but again, not a victory for those who attempted the coup. Yet we still have so many questions don’t we?

For instance. One of the questions is:

While everyone concentrated on Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger in 2002, the real question is just what did Joe Wilson go to Niger in 1999 for?

The Sentate Report report mentions this trip. Why did Ms. Plame recommend him for this particular trip? More importantly, what was the CIA’s interest in Niger in 1999.

To answer he question we have to see what took place “under the palms” in 1999 and even before.

First, let’s go forward to 2002. Let’s be clear, Mr. Wilson’s most incredible adventure was on it’s face as reported a farce. There is no way he gained any credible intelligence just sipping tea and talking with has been Nigerian cronies. Secondly, Amb. Barbro-owens Kirkpatrick had already supposedly nixed the idea. Thirdly, so soon after 9/11 there is no way in hell that anyone on that end would admit to selling yellowcake to anyone much less Iraq. Or in the words of one of the best articles written on this by James Lewis of American Thinker:

“Nobody sends a has-been diplomat to Africa to drink mint tea with corrupt old President Tandja Mamadou, expecting to discover whether Mamadou has secretly been selling nuke materials to Saddam.

That’s pure Inspector Clousseau.” Or as Wilson was nicknamed by those he met on his trip, "Bill Clinton".

This is the most incredible part of this story, is the fact that anyone with an ounce of knowledge of intelligence would have laughed their ass off with this Thumbelina tale, is beyond me.

Unless that is, Wilson’s 2002 trip was to run interference on his earlier trip in 1999.

In 1981, Seyni Kountche, president of Niger, said that his country would "sell uranium even to the devil." For a country with nothing more substantial to sell, I don't believe this stance has ever changed.

According to the July 11, 2003 statement of DCI George Tenet: "He [Wilson] reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."

So in a game of what if – “What if Joe Wilson’s second trip to Niger wasn’t as much to “check out a crazy report”, as it was to discredit such a report. Wilson had mentioned, that former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki of Niger told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss "commercial relations" with a country whose major export was uranium.

But let's say that the deal actually did take place. Moreover, that it was Wilson himself who was in Niger in 1999 brokering the deal himself AT THE BEQUEST OF THE CIA.

The fact of the matter was that when other intelligence agencies - most likely because of being 'cut out' of the 'benefits' began to ‘leak” the sale in October of 2001, the CIA had to move quick and fast to discredit the report. - throw the dogs off the trail so to speak.

Far fetched? No, in fact is that our ‘rogues” had secured many such ‘deals’ throughout the 90’s, and for years before that.

But how? And more important “Why?"

I could qive you the “Clinton excuse” which is to say, “Because they could”, but the simple answer is the easiest. As any law enforcement person will tell you the modus operandi for just about any crime is MONEY and LOTS of it. Money truly does corrupt.

As I said yesterday the Scandal that is about to shake the world isn’t the Plame Game, it’s the Oil for Food Scandal, and the trails that are being uncovered in the investigation - not only of countries like France, Germany and Russian - but of US Business interests and people and places that will put all of this in perspective.

Which is why the story is so underreported.

You see, just like Al Capone bought the Chicago Police Department and Judges and people at the highest levels, so Saddam too bought a lot of protection.

From Governments, Media, and even from Langley itself.

As it is said, "Money, the love of which is the root of all evil..."

Now do you understand what is really going on? Do you know why this is so intense and will become increasingly more intense in the coming weeks and months? Do you think that all these “powers” are going down without a fight?

If you want to know why ex-ops like the VIPS are so adamant about Plame and keeping the Game alive, it’s not so much they want to see Bush hanged, it’s that they are trying to avoid the noose themselves. Again, as I said in an earlier post, “Watch for increased VIPS activity to come”, as it already has.

As well you can watch some of the “payroll” MSM players such as Russert, Pincus, Corn and others continue their disinformation campaigns. As some people are asking even today, “How can Tim Russert report this case after being so involved?” Because he cannot do otherwise.

The Game has only begun.

More at Captain Ed's.

Filed under:

Corruption? Not even close

The Washington Post begins their version of the coming Bush legacy by quoting an ABC News Poll:

"A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.

The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics."

No doubt, the Bush Administration has seen better days. But considering the relentless onslaught (more than any I witnessed in 40 years of following politics), I'm surprised that Bush is still clicking along. This is not to minimize Mr. Libby's issues, but then if we were real, this will most likely go to a trial that will last several years and then the President will most likely pardon him as he leaves office. Nuff said on Scooter.

But if the WAPO want's to talk about corruption, what has taken place so far with (1) indictment in the Bush administration, pales in comparison to that of the Clinton Administration. In fact, Clinton is the current record setter of scandals, Bush would have likely stay in office 100 years to catch up. Yet you wouldn't know it from the MSM, so I'll help you understand. I've posted these before they come this website which is a good record of the Clinton 'legacy'.


- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court


- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3


- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122


- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million


Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

Perhaps Mr. Libby would have done better to say, "I can't remember":


Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

Not to mention Mr. Clinton himself, who although a Rhodes Scholar, seemed to aquire "brainleaky" when it was "convenient".

In the portions of President Clinton's deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

Now you'll note statistics on the quoted website for the Regan, Nixon years as well as other administrations. Yet President Bush's administration at this point is THE most unindicted, un-cited, and least investigated adminstration in recent history. Yet again, you are simply not going to hear this in the MSM. Which is why for news - they are complete irrevelant and useless.

Just keeping it real.

UPDATE: Almost forgot. Ht to commenter Robert,

let's not forget Sandy "Docks in his Socks" Berger!

Filed under:

Saturday, October 29, 2005


The Plame Game - I guess you know this means war?

As I get my bearings together now that I've had time to absorb the Libby indictment and read what some on the Right had to say. Note that despite the hallelulia chorus from some on the left, the results for them who breathless predicted 22 indictmens and a White House on fire in the night, are a ball-buster. I've got news for you. The war has only begun.

But at this point let's makes some clarifications.

A "person" cannot be classified. A document can be. A position/mission/job can be. Therefore although Fitzgerald didn't clarify Plame's status, which at this point considering what she and her co-horts in CPD were trying to cook up is really not the point. Evidently Fitzgerald thought that her "job was classified". At that I can grudging agree to a point.

I'm not going to attack Fitzgerald, he's just doing what Proscutors do. The fact is whether he lied or got "crossed up" by a ridculously long investigation (which was technically over in Oct 2004), the fact is that he got snagged.

The fact is that this happens all the time in long investigations. You bring a guy in and he testifies, then others testify, then (OPPS!) there is a descrepancy, so you have more testimony and then others and the brothers testify and......

When all is said and somebody get's a perj/obst/lying charge thrown on them. It's not a guilty verdict mind you and people are forgetting that point.

The War between the CIA (at least what is left of the rogue units) and the White House is in full fury. People outside of the beltway have know idea of this battle and would be outraged if they knew that while Atta, and his co-horts were planning to take out 3000 souls, some of these people were too busy playing "Washington" and their tired game of "Get the Man". Pathetic when you think about it, but for them, business as usual.

Think of the 'joke" of the CPD of the CIA having to send an out of work former Ambassador to find out if the country we were considering to attack was or had been trying to find some 'yellowcake". A CIA that had to 'outsource' to the lowest bidder.

The CIA took the shot at the Adminstrtation and hit Libby (not the target, but he got the intended effect). However, knowing Mr. Libby, he took the bullet willingly.

The most amazing thing is all the renewed talk about the Niger controversy, as if people are only now coming to understand it. We bloggers and some in the media know exactly what happened. As I said before I hope Libby has a trial because all the rules of discovery apply. We and the public will finally see what the Plame Game is all about.

We are going to find out, as indeed I am now preparing the links to several news items that link to the Plame Game. Even now more and more of the Oil for Food Scandal are coming out. Notice that only Fox is covering it, the rest of the MSM doesn't want to touch this (for monetary reasons) and quite frankly wishes the story would go away. But there are links to not only Governments that opposed the war, but to some of the familar players we come to know in the Plame Game itself, even to some of the businesses that fuel the media.

No wonder there was and is so much negativity to our war in Iraq.

Remember that at the crux of most crimes is "Greed".

To those who stumble along this site, know that I know what business takes place among the "Palms" - I know how "Moonlighting" works. After all it's hard to buy Porshes on Agent Pay.

In any case, it's time to return fire. If you're not so inclined, in the next weeks and months, please duck.

UPDATE: Just ran across this article by AP, which really amplifies this often quoted article from American Thinker. Truth is when you go back in history, whether Watergate or Iran Contra (basically came to light through an op's anonymous tip), this war has raged since the days of JFK. This week you can be assured to see the re-emergence of the VIPS - attempting to turn up the heat. Remember, most of what you see from the triangle is PSYOPS - and therefore an illusion maskerading as the truth. Yet, this isn't 1972, and they don't hold sway over all the media.

So to them I say..

Bring it on.

In addition, the real conservative Republican base turned and ran in 1973-74. Not so today. Many of us are tired of being on the defensive by those of whom morality and right is never resident. We need not turn with our tails between our legs and run from swine. The Right never has to.

Filed under:

Friday, October 28, 2005


Plame Game - Libby Takes the Bullet - Mac is Back!

For all those detractors, I back....!

I will now be blogging from an undislosed location under a 10k generator from the ravaged Florida landscape.

Reading the 22 page (what a change from 22 indictments eh?), so-called indictment of Scooter Libby. Take so far:

1. It will never see a court date. First, these are the flimsiest charges of perj/obstr/ I have ever seen. As Michael Leeden said over at the Corner:

"that's why lawyers tell clients not to say anything unless they have a very clear recollection of something. They can't prosecute you for having Halfheimer's disease...

In anycase, I believe Libby will probably plead out. Now for the detractors/critics you do NOT want this to see the light of day. A trial brings EVERYTHING out into the open - EVERYTHING,....Mr. Russert.


My source tells me of a VERY strong possibility that DOJ is looking into the Nepotism (Federal Offense) reference Valerie Plame 'selection/suggestion' of her hubby Joseph Wilson for the Niger tea Party.

As I said before Wilma came to town...

" In any event, we need some answers to the underlying issues that were used to launch this investigation."

and that's what I'm going to do.

Yet there is more to come.....

Good to be back.

UPDATE: Thanks to AJ Strata for keep close dibs on things so I could catch up fast and Michelle Malkin, and Tom Mcguire's too!

Filed under:

Sunday, October 23, 2005


Plame Game - In the Beginning

Light on the posting today, getting ready for a Hurricane.

So for now, just a thought.

Mark Levin of National Review comments on the Plame Game:

"Since everyone on TV this Sunday is predicting what Fitzgerald will do, let me predict that he is unlikely to indict Karl Rove. Admittedly, I base this on the same unreliable leaks and reporting used by those predicting his indictment.

All this talk of perjury and obstruction aside, the purpose of this investigation was to determine who "outted" Valerie Plame. As best I can tell, Joe Wilson first revealed her on his own website, and the first journalist to tie her to some kind of covert status was David Corn (as our colleage Cliff May has well explained). After nearly two years, you have to assume that Fitzgerald also has pinned down Plame's actual status. Fitzgerald cannot issue a report, as he would violate grand jury secrecy. But it would seem that this information can be made known to the public. The CIA can give Fitzgerald approval to speak to Plame's status. And if the revelation of Plame's identity was made outside the grand jury room, i.e., it was already public, there's nothing to stop Fitzgerald from saying so. In any event, we need some answers to the underlying issues that were used to launch this investigation."

Mr. Kistof, Mr. Pincus, Mr. Corn.

Sounds, ....poetic.

More updates on this post to come as the wind howls, and hopefully the lights stay on!

Filed under:

Saturday, October 22, 2005


Plame Game - End Game II

"Ok, we're down to the wire Mr. Fitzgerald? What is you're verdict?"

That seems to be the edict from the MSM this last week. Chris Matthews holding preliminary Plamegate hearings on his show Hardball last week on, when on Wednesday's show NBC News's Andrea Mitchell threw this out:

"And except that this really is a crisis for journalism. Maybe it‘s inside baseball, but journalism has been laid bare and what people have seen is not very pleasant. And the situation at the “New York Times,” all of the controversy over Judith Miller—there is going to be testimony tomorrow. She is supposed to testify about whether or not there should be a shield for journalists. These are not good times for journalists."

Andrea's third-degree of separation.

According to this story in the Washington Post, and not mentioned in any timelines I've come across, it tells us, that the initial investigation into the leak was finished in October 2004 - just prior to the election.

Actually I was surprised today when a commentor on the this blog mentioned this article, and there it was the above article in the side bar.

You see, most of my "theory" of a CIA/MSM plot has been based on what I knew back last year what this article told us. I thought everyone knew this. Well, if you didn't know it, you know it now.

"The special prosecutor investigating whether Bush administration officials illegally revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative says he finished his investigation months ago, except for questioning two reporters who have refused to testify.

The information in a March 22 court filing by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald suggests that syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published the name of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, has already spoken to investigators about his sources for that report, according to legal experts. Novak, whose July 2003 column sparked the investigation, and his attorney have refused to comment on whether he was questioned.

Legal experts and sources close to the case also speculated yesterday that Fitzgerald is not likely to seek an indictment for the crime he originally set out to investigate: whether a government official knowingly exposed a covert officer. The sources, who asked not to be named because the matter is the subject of a grand jury investigation, said Fitzgerald may instead seek to charge a government official with committing perjury by giving conflicting information to prosecutors.

Fitzgerald's filing was part of his effort to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that he needs the testimony of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper to wrap up his investigation.

The two reporters and their news organizations have refused to discuss their confidential sources with prosecutors. They appealed to the full court after a three-judge panel ruled last month that Miller and Cooper should be held in contempt and face possible jail unless they agree to be questioned before a grand jury.

In the court documents, Fitzgerald said that by October 2004, "the factual investigation -- other than the testimony of Miller and Cooper . . . was for all practical purposes complete."

In fact, it would have been complete had Time Inc (Cooper) and the NY Times (Miller) not fought the prosecutor. So the natural question to ask is, "Why all this extra time?" Fitzgerald filed the document saying, "Look, I'm done, I just need these two to testify and we all go home!"

So to the answer of what has taken so long, the obvious answer is that simply he obviously found descrepancies in the what he knew from other witnesses before Cooper and Miller testified, and what he knew so far when he filed that paper. Yet you'll notice he never recinded it, therefore the initial leak investigation was still not the question. In reality, since July when Cooper started to cooperate and recently with Miller, Fitz now can finish up.

Now of course the MSM is all a gaga about Libby and Rove and perjury and obstruction, but that a lot of nonsense. I've never seen someone get a perjury rap who had so many chances to testify. In my experience with Grand Juries ( and they can be hard to figure out), those who end up in trouble aren't the one's who repeatedly testify, but those who don't.

No doubt what we have at this point is a bunch of "he said, she said, and then he said that she said". Judy then puts a nail in it by saying, "Hell I don't know who told me" and leaves to write her book.

However, over the last week I've noticed something. First, I know for a solid fact that there are some people who don't work in the White House who are sweating bullets right now. For all the media recreation of the events taking place, I know that one of the first things the FBI and Fitz's office did was tear Langley apart.

Already you see that some in the media know what is really going to happen. Almost to a pen the MSM has turned on Judy Miller - even her editor casting her to the side. Yet as AJ Strata tells us, Judy by her testimony implicated Kristofand from him I can tell you the ball rolls downhill.

Time Magazine managing editor stepping down (said it was planned - yeah, Ok). It's going to be something to see this week as it becomes apparent that what they though, isn't what it's going to be.

So where are we? Like Andrea said, the "Beginning of a crisis for Journalism". The MSM has been looking to relieve their perceived "glory" of Watergate. Yet when it's said and done, it's going to be more like "Media-gate".

Filed under:

Plame Game - What Happened Joe?

On February 28th, 2003, one month after President Bush's "state of the Union speech, Bill Moyer's interviewed Joseph Wilson. This interview is interesting not for what it says, but for what Joe Wilson doesn't say.

Note that no where in the transcript does he refute the Africa claim, or even mention of his trip. In fact in the interview you see a completely different Joseph Wilson than you see later on when he was talking with writers Nicolas Kristof, David Corn, Walter Pincus, and even penning his own OPED, "What I Didn't Find in Africa". Most of what Wilson and Moyer's talk about is a "Post Saddam" Iraq. He even sounds a bit like an administration supporter at times:

"MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I…

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He's coming to kill me. He doesn't care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm."

Read the rest of the transcript, but you won't find any of the arguments that Wilson would later talk about.

A month after Joe's appearance, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker pens, "Who Lied to Whom" and is the first to throw up the "Stovepipe" theory of a CIA plot to thwart the White House. After this though the 'change' of Wilson's demeanor began with apparently with Nicolas Kristof, and his May 6th, 2003 article, "Missing in Action: Truth". Now the question is "What happened between the Moyer's interview and Wilson's talk with Nicolas?"

Who got to Joe? Better yet, "Who was assigned to handle Joe"? Or even a greater question, "Who shopped him and his 'story' around?"

By the way, no one has ever answered the quesiton I had in a previous post about how the WAPO article by Walter Pincus, "Ex-Envoy": Nuclear Report Ignored" , compete with quotes from Joe, and Wilson's " "What I didn't Find in Africa", would just 'happen' to get published on the same day. I would say that's very curious.

More curious notice the beginning, after the Novak article appeared, of the crafting of the Script that would be used throughout the Plame Game. The Nation's David Corn was the first to step forward, with almost Clairvoyant knowledge of Amb. Wilson and his wife asked, "Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?"

So prepared.....

Who's directing?

Filed under:

Hurricane Wilman - Is the Media Ready?

AP hounds ask, "Is the Governnment Ready for Wilma?"

The question they should be asking is: Are they ready to cover a storm accurately this time?

For all the concentration on the FEMA boondoggles, and the ingnoring of the greater sin's of the the officials in Louisianna, if not downright incompetance, I wonder if the MSM has fixed it's problems of misreporting the news.

As detailed in this Carolina Journal Online article from September 6th, by Jon Ham:

"RALEIGH — There is a fetid stink in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and it’s not coming just from the fouled waters flooding New Orleans. It also wafts from the putrid reporting of the disaster by the mainstream media.

From the moment Katrina made landfall the media focused on anything that could redound to the detriment of President Bush or inflame race and class tensions. Reporters and commentators ignored the dismal performance of New Orleans’ Democratic mayor and Louisiana’s Democratic governor, blaming every problem that arose on the Bush administration.

Racial demagogues accused Bush and his administration of reacting slowly because most of the victims were black. Environmental activists said Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty caused Katrina’s severity. Democratic operatives said the administration’s decision to cut funding for a long-term study of flood control caused the levees to breach.

All of this is stuff and nonsense. The tragedy is that the media know it too, but they still printed it.

The media know that the first response to natural disasters is always from the local and state governments. They’ve covered enough hurricanes to understand that. They know, or should know, that the response from the federal government, especially the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is always in the second phase of recovery, not the first. They know, or should know, that a state’s National Guard is commanded by the governor, not the president. They know, or should know, that active-duty U.S. military personnel cannot act as law enforcement. But none of this was reported."

Remember the acts of 'cannibalism' and of 'rapes and murder' in the Superdome. The hyping of the MSM for really no other purpose than for political reasons. Not because of what was happening, but because of who was in Office when it was happening.

For instance, aside from the lame excuses of Mayor Ray Nagin, people died because he failed to evacuate them - period. Whether it was inexperience, or he was overwhelmed, the mistakes - the buck - stopped with him. After all as he is fond of saying, it's his city.

Governor Blanco didn't call in appropriate help, and in fact stopped them from coming in.

The MSM didn't report that though. In fact the famous "Bus Picture" might not have seen the light of day except for bloggers. Mr. Broussard's lying on live TV would have went unchecked, except for bloggers exposing it.

So the question is not whether the Federal Government is ready - here in Florida we are. Our local leadership whether democrat or republican acts in a very professional and knowleable way with hurricanes - we'll do alright. Sure, there are problems with people cheating to get FEMA funds, and even some beaucratic boondoggles that continue. But the real quesiton is when is the MSM going to start owning up to it's own boondoggling?

Are THEY ready to get it right this time?

Filed under

Kelly Throws Judy Overboard

NY Times Editor back peddle leaving Judy Miller to the ‘wolves”

“WASHINGTON - The New York Times’ Judith Miller belatedly gave prosecutors her notes of a key meeting in the CIA leak probe only after being shown White House records of it, and her boss declared Friday she appeared to have misled the newspaper about her role.

In a dramatic e-mail, Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote Times’ employees he wished he’d more carefully interviewed Miller and had “missed what should have been significant alarm bells” that she had been the recipient of leaked information about the CIA officer at the heart of the case.

“Judy seems to have misled (Times Washington bureau chief) Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement,” Keller wrote in what he described as a lessons-learned e-mail. “This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper.”

What a weasel. "Probe deeper?".....ah never mind.

Bill Keller is back peddling big time here. Keller knew all along who Judy’s source was. See Tom Mcguire’s post from a few months back here.

This isn't the first. Rumor is that Plame Game setup man, Matt Cooper is shopping for a job, even though he now feels "vindicated and free" since the media has been chomping on Judy. (Don't you and Mandy take off for the Cayman's yet, I'm not done with you and neither are these people).

Yet his boss Time Magazine EC Norman Pearlstine, isstepping down.


If Tim Russert takes the MTP set hostage this Sunday, don't be surprised.

(Just kidding.....)

In any case it's going to be fun seeing the MSM implode over the coming weeks.

UPDATE: AJ again ahead of the game, "Miller implicates Kristof". Check it out.

UPDATE II The Times wants to tie an anchor to Judy. Careful! Hell hath no fury?

Filed under:

Friday, October 21, 2005


Plame Game - In the Light

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media nails the Plame Game in his article today, "Was the Joe Wilson Valerie Plame Affair a CIA Plot?".

"The media version of the CIA leak case is that the White House illegally revealed a CIA employee’s identity because her husband, Joseph Wilson, was an administration critic.

But former prosecutor Joseph E. diGenova says the real story is that the CIA “launched a covert operation” against the President when it sent Wilson on the mission to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium link. DiGenova, a former Independent Counsel who prosecuted several high-profile cases and has extensive experience on Capitol Hill, including as counsel to several Senate committees, is optimistic that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will figure it all out.

DiGenova tells this columnist, “It seems to me somewhat strange, in terms of CIA tradecraft, that if you were really attempting to protect the identity of a covert officer, why would you send her husband overseas on a mission, without a confidentiality agreement, and then allow him when he came back to the United States to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times about it.”

That mission, he explained, leads naturally to the questions: Who is this guy? And how did he get this assignment? “That’s not the way you protect the identity of a covert officer,” he said. “If it is, then [CIA director] Porter Goss is doing the right thing in cleaning house” at the agency.

Now if you have read the screeds of VIPS member Larry C. Johnson, you know he foams at the mouth everytime diGenova or Victoria Toensing get mentioned, and for good reason - they are the good guys.

Unlike the rogues like LCJ, McGovern and the the other dead weights like them that Goss is chasing out of the office.

Actually though, I've been on this story since it broke, although I have only been able to blog it since this last Summer. Yet over the last two years I have aquired rheams of documentation on this case, and even spent a little time during the 2004 election in South Florida "under cover" working with the DNC and MoveOn, where I essentially got to the truth of the Plame Game (you wouldn't believe how many talked openly of the Game at the time - almost bragging). More of that forthcoming.

Yet I, lke giGenova think Fitzgerald has figured it out, thus if indictments are coming, they may not be going to whom the MSM thinks they are.

Kinkaid recounts this key from Judith Miller's testamony which was glossed over in the MSM media:

"DiGenova’s comments might be dismissed as just the view of an administration defender. But his comments reflect the facts about the case that emerged when the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted an independent investigation. Wilson, who became an adviser to the Kerry for President campaign, had claimed his CIA wife had no role in recommending him for the trip, but the committee determined that was not true. Why would Wilson misrepresent the truth about her if the purpose were not to conceal the curious nature of the CIA role and its hidden agenda in his controversial mission? And who in the CIA besides his wife was behind it?

In this regard, Miller’s account of her testimony to the grand jury disclosed that Fitzgerald had asked whether Libby had complained about nepotism behind the Wilson trip, a reference to the role played by Plame. This is the line of inquiry that could lead, if Fitzgerald pursues it, to unraveling the CIA “covert operation” behind the Wilson affair. There may be rogue elements at the agency who are conducting their own foreign policy, in contravention of the official foreign policy of the U.S. Government elected by the American people. Like it or not, Bush is the President and he is supposed to run the CIA, not the other way around. "

These are questions that simply cannot be skirted around. As I've said from the get go, I believe Fitzgerald is about to blow the cover off the Plame Game. Those who did the cooking - and their not the one's you've been hearing about - ought to be worried. It's always been about "why Joe"? Why did Plame recommend her husband for THIS trip? Why when Amb. Owens Fitzgerald supposedly through Gen. Fulford debunked it? Why? So many whys....

I think Mr. Fitzgerald has found the answers.

In fact, Robert Novak - the journalist that started it all said this is what his reason for writing his July 14th, article was all about - Nepotism:

"This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

You know, one of the 'secrets' of this game is just who Novak was referring to as "no partisan gunslinger". It wasn't anyone in the administration. People are going to be very surprised - it's the 'ace", a little payback for a set up on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Word in Washington is President Bush is one hell of a poker player, so while the MSM tries to paint him as "disheveled" "out of step", they said that last year too, and they were wrong by 4 1/2 million votes. Their wrong now.

Filed under:

The LA Times "Opines" Wilson

If you've noticed the MSM coverage of the Plame Game in the last few weeks it's been as if they feel the need to "explain" things for Mr. Fitzgerald.

It's like, ...

"Ah Mr. Fitzgerald, just in case you're not looking in the right area....let us help you."

The LA Times today gives that little "push", by telling us that - get this, "Scooter Libby was doing his job!" Gasp!

"WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against him, former aides say.

Those efforts by the chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, began shortly after Wilson went public with his criticisms in 2003. But they continued into last year — well after the Justice Department began an investigation in September 2003, into whether administration officials had illegally disclosed the CIA operative's identity, say former White House aides.

While other administration officials were maintaining a careful distance from Wilson in 2004, Libby ordered up a compendium of information that could be used to rebut Wilson's claims that the administration had "twisted" intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq before the U.S. invasion.

Libby pressed the administration to publicly counter Wilson, sparking a debate with other White House officials who thought the tactic would call more attention to the former diplomat and his criticisms. That debate ended after an April 2004 meeting in the office of White House Communications Director Daniel Bartlett, when staffers were told "don't engage" Wilson, according to notes taken during the meeting by one person present.

"Scooter had a plan to counter Wilson and a passionate desire to do so," said a second person, a former White House official familiar with the internal deliberations. Like other former White House staff, this person spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing criminal investigation."

For those of us who have been asleep for th last year or so, let's review.

Ambassador Joe Wilson, John Kerry Supporter, got sent to Niger in 2002 to drink tea and 'investigate' the Niger/Iraq Yellowcake story. His wife, supporter of America Coming Together recommended him for the trip (as she did in 1999).

Joe comes back from Niger after talking with basically no body in command of nothing (because Amb. Owens-Fitzpatrick asked him not to speak with anyone in authority), and says, negative on the yellow cake story.

Ok, so back to the LA Times. Note the carefully crafted talking points:

"The case had its origins in early 2002, when Cheney asked the CIA for information on reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium yellowcake from the African nation of Niger.

In response to Cheney's queries, the CIA decided to send Wilson, who had served in the region and was familiar with the uranium trade, to investigate. Wilson's wife was working undercover for the CIA on weapons issues at the time.

On his trip to Niger, Wilson found little reason to believe the Iraqis had sought the uranium, and on his return reported his findings to CIA officials.

In January 2003, President Bush in his State of the Union address cited Iraq's interest in African uranium as a sign of President Saddam Hussein's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. In July, Wilson penned an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his findings and suggesting that the president had distorted intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq."

Notice the things missing? Well, there the same things always missing from the script. 1) Wife recommended trip. 2) That pesky SSCI report.

Don't you know they hate that one. Why? Well, he proves Mr. Wilson was sent by his wife, that he lied about that. He proves that overstated (Ok, lied about) his findings, and more importantly he knew things about those Niger documents "Dates and names wrong" that were impossible for him to know EXCEPT that his wife (or other ops) told him.

It also told us that Mr. Wilson's findings didn't discret the yellow cake story, but rather boltered it.

But that aside, this article is ridiculous. As if when attacked by an administration critic, in essense a political operative, the adminstration is supposed to sit idly by and let it happen. In whose universe?

All of what Libby did according to this article is vindicated by the well proven fact that Wilson is a liar, a political hack and opportunist.

Good job Mr. Libby.

Filed under:

Mr. Goss, Keep that Broom Swinging!

As I said before, the IC "establishment" is bucking the changes that the Goss/Negroponte juggernaut.

Today, The Washington Post's David Ignatius, writes:

"The most dangerous moment in any transition is halfway through, when the old structure is badly weakened but the new one isn't yet strong enough to carry the load. That's where the Bush administration stands in its incomplete effort to restructure the intelligence community.

The intelligence reshuffle was the product of two warring impulses that have been apparent in this administration's foreign policy from the start -- a "realist" support for strong, independent spy agencies and a "neoconservative" mistrust, bordering on outright hatred, of the CIA as a supposed obstacle to the president's goals.

The intelligence-reform impulse led President Bush, after some foot-dragging, to back the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission by creating a director of national intelligence to oversee the nation's 15 spy agencies and appointing veteran diplomat John Negroponte to fill the post. But before the new structure was in place, the president tapped Republican Rep. Porter Goss as director of the CIA. Goss was accompanied by a team of right-wing congressional staffers, quickly dubbed the "Gosslings" at Langley, who set out to cuff the CIA's headstrong Directorate of Operations into line."

I had to laugh at "The Gosslings" remark. But Ignatius tells us what I said here that Porter and Negroponte are shaking up the place,and many of the old dead weights are flocking to out the door. Evidently, they are also crying to the media about how Goss is screwing up the place and sending everyone's moral into the toilet.

"I'm told that Goss has now gotten warnings from the White House that he should clip the wings of the head Gossling, his chief of staff, Patrick Murray. Goss should heed that advice before even more officers quit in disgust at the political meddling. And Goss himself may be part of the problem. His laid-back style (liaison meetings with foreign intelligence services on Tuesdays and Thursdays only, please) is said to have led Negroponte to tell one colleague that Goss was still working a "congressional schedule."

As I was fond of saying during my military years, "That's a big Negatory!" Mr. Goss needs to continue sweeping that broom until all the 'dirt' is gone, and the old 'baggage' removed.

As he does you will see much more 'activity' by the MSM critcising Goss, Negroponte and their efforts, but remember, the MSM is every bit as much of the "old establishment" as the decrepted old spooks who are crying foul now.

Filed under:
Powered by Blogger.


Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Blog Archive



Pages - Menu

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


Go here.