From the Goat Gazette -- Edible Editorial Section .........
I'm almost ready to write my report.
You know, a summation of the 2-year investigation on PlameGate by that brilliantly aggressive young Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald's report will be out in a couple of weeks (or less) -- unless he extends (or someone persuades him to extend) our boredom (and keep the political grapevine buzzing or to torment the Bush Administration) another year or so.
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what is going on OR what the options are .....
1. Fitzgerald's role is to find out if laws were broken by WH staffers (or anyone) who allegedly leaked the name of a CIA operative -- in retaliation for her hubby's politicizing (for John Kerry et al) a report (he had complied for the CIA) discrediting the President's "claim" that [British sources had learned that] Iraq had tried to buy nuke material in Africa.
Got it?
Want a little inside info on what went on?
a. VP Chaney's office (and other State Dept. officials) wanted to verify the British claim about Iraq trying to buy nuke material in Africa. They contacted the CIA. A CIA employee named Valerie Plame heard about the request and suggested her former-ambassador husband for writing the report. End of one search; beginning of another.
But not so fast.
b. [side note and possibly significant to Fitzgerald's investigation] Valerie Plame does not appear to meet the standards of CIA "covert field operative" (assigned out of country within 5-years) under existing laws. She may be something akin to a "storefront" secretary, but not a field operative, according to insiders [borrowing CIA lingo].
c. Another insider note: Her hubby, Joe Wilson, is a former ambassador whom she "introduced" to her bosses as a possible person to send to Niger to talk with folks he knew there, to gather info on whether any of his old friends were aware of Iraq trying to buy nuke material .... Old friends not in power when the nuke talks allegedly took place. Why is this relevant? Who knows. Maybe he needed a job. Maybe he wanted to get back into government work; maybe he didn't like the way the Bush administration was doing things -- he and wifey had donated to Kerry's campaign.
Plame's testimony: "My husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister of Niger] 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." Mrs. Wilson would later say she asked her husband, on behalf of the CIA, if he would investigate "this crazy report" on a uranium deal between Iraq and Niger.
More observations: On February 18, 2002, the U.S. embassy in Niger sent a cable describing a new account of the alleged deal. The account, it said, "provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales." The cable further warned against dismissing the allegations prematurely. The following day, back at Langley, representatives of several U.S. intelligence agencies met with Ambassador Wilson to discuss the trip. Contemporaneous notes from an analyst at the State Department's INR suggest that Mrs. Wilson "apparently convened" the meeting. She introduced her husband to the group and left a short time later. Several of the attendees would later recall questioning the value of the proposed trip, noting that the Nigeriens were unlikely to admit dealing with the Iraqis. Still, the CIA approved the trip.
d. Wilson took the trip and filed his report (indications are that it was a verbal report), stating that none of his associates were aware of any nuke deals in Niger. Concurrently, there were also additional intelligence reports (other than the British report) coming from covert sources that dug a little deeper than Wilson's "sweet tea sipping" party with old acquaintances. French Intelligence sources, however, called documents alleging Niger's sale of nuke materials to Iraq bogus ....
e. The rub: Wilson appears to have taken offense that his report was notdeemed sufficient in discrediting British intelligence or in stopping the President from speaking those famous "sixteen words" in his State of the Union address.
f. Meanwhile, back on the political front: Other "unnamed sources," aspiring to discredit the President's reelection bid and State of the Union address, were slowly but deliberately leaking to the press
Proof of the lie was a report filed by an "independent" CIA investigator (Wilson -- who first hawked his story to MSM outlets as a 3rd party story -- before aligning himself with a French Intelligence report that documents alleging Iraq's nuke buying efforts in Africa were forged) which he/they alleged that the government had chosen to hide ....
In fairness to the CIA, there actually were SEVERAL reports buzzing through offices in the CIA .... Top of the buzz list was the still-under-investigation report from (questionable) French intelligence leaks that documents evidencing an Iraqi-Niger connection were forgeries .... [French + Intelligence??? Uh, never mind.]
Still with me on this?
g. The reality: In testimony before a Senate Committee Hearing, Wilson back-tracked on his criticism of contents of the President's SoU address AND other statements he had subsequently made against the President:
SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT (page 45): The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the [British] documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection .... but admitted that he had NEVER seen the documents. Wilson had made another adjustment by telling CNN that he had been wrong in his frequently-voiced assumption about Cheney [and staff] and whether they even knew about his report on Niger ....
Now we come to the famous 16 words:
BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
WILSON: I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.
WILSON (page 334): The path to writing the op-ed piece [which he hawked to MSM outlets] had always been clear in my mind. My government had refused to address the fundamental question of how the lie regarding Saddam’s supposed attempt to purchase African uranium had found its way into the State of the Union address... I had to raise it, publicly and in my own words. I realized that my credibility would be called into question, and I was steeled for that. But whatever one might say about me—and there is a lot—the truth remained: There was never any evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger. [Wilson’s emphasis]
Actually, Mr. Wilson's credibility on Niger was revealed to be not so accurate either. So much for steeling.
2. A Special Investigation was requested by the CIA (a bastion of career-officers of moderately left-leaning political persuasions -- for those who didn't know that tidbit). Of course, career officers within the federal government never act on political persuasion. Also see point 1.f referencing in-house CIA disagreements .....
3. And here we are.
Did someone willfully leak the name of a CIA operative?
a. If so, can we distinguish among those who leaked what to whom and when, and, if we can't, who can we nab for behaviors that are as common as "unidentified sources" in "high government positions" in a city whose mode of communication is founded in unidentified sources?
b. What? Espionage laws may not have beeen broken?
Well, how are we going to justify spending millions of taxpayer's dollars????
Let's see .... hummmmm .... surely someone lied or obstructed justice .... Judy Miller? Joe Wilson? Scooter Libby? Kovack? Carl Rove? The CIA? The New York Times? French intelligence? Can we blame Bush for all of this?
hummmmm .... Writing for the New York Times (speaking of far left MSM), Miller is an "insider" journalist (not a good position to begin with when MSM is fundamentally anti-Bush); she wrote positive articles on the search for WMD's ..... maybe she got Plame's name from a "source" within the CIA (after all, she had top security clearance when working as an embedded reporter searching for WMD's in Iraq AND there WAS a riff between CIA offices .... Stranger things have happened. Was or or does she remain a CIA operative??? How many reporters are given top security clearance???? ) .... Strange scenario there.
Libby (admits communicating with Miller, though doesn't remember giving her Plame's name) is a likely target --
And everyone to the left of middle hates Rove. The mastermind of the 2004 Republican landslide victory needs to be taken down ..... He admists talking with someone -- He's always talking with reporters. Talk. Talk. Talk. Nail the buzzard.
The New York Times? (What did THEY know??? What was their editors hiding? Why were they protecting Judy Miller? Huh? )Others in the MSM? Tim Russert? CNN? Who was Kovack's snitch? Rove?
It's bound to be Rove .... Mastermind THIS, Mr. kick-our-butt!
And now Miller says she is not certain that Libby is the one who actually gave her Plame's name (it was written in "another" section of her notes -- and not with his interview notes) .... but Kovack is the one who associated Miller with Plame's name .... and that other reporter -- who did he say his source was? And then there was the speech that Wilson gave about the time of the leak -- where in his credits, his wife's name is listed .... anyone could have "googled" her to learn that she was associated with a business that was later revealed to be a CIA storefront ....
Of course, Rove has been called to testify again and again -- something must be up (or down) for him ....
c. So if we namesomeone -- anyone -- THEN someone else will have to take them to court? How long will that take? Another 2-3 years? Phew ....we're off the hook.
d. Huh? There's another option?
e. We can just file a report, turn it over to the politicians, pundits and MSM and let the chips fall where THEY want them to fall them?
f. Sounds plausible. Looks like we've got ourselves one of those ready-made win-win situations just for the choosing.
Now to choose which option will leave the least amount of egg on our faces and splash it on someone else's.
Lemme chew on this.
I'll get back with you.
