Sunday, October 16, 2005

PlameGate with a French Twist ....


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 the possibility that "the President had indeed lied."
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.

Monday, October 10, 2005

There're No Secrets in Washington ....

Joe Wilson's Speech
June 14, 2003
Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC)


Credit: The American Thinker



A month before Robert Novak wrote his column supposedly outing Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson gave a speech in which he talks in the third person about a person who is obviously himself, allows Valerie Plame to be identified as his wife, and discloses his intense opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as his anti-Israel sentiments. He makes clear that he is the source of the Kristoff/Pincus leaks about his mission. He even says that “this thing has legs,” that it will take two or three months, but it has legs – implying, perhaps, that he had already been working with the Kerry campaign to make this issue big – attacking the President's credibility on the war.


From the EPIC web site: Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV served as a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 until 1998. From 1988 to 1991, Ambassador Wilson served in Baghdad as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy. As acting Ambassador during "Desert Shield," he was responsible for the negotiations that resulted in the release of several hundred American hostages. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before the launching of "Desert Storm." Ambassador Wilson graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1972. He has been decorated as a Commander in the Order of the Equatorial Star by the Government of Gabon and as an Admiral in the El Paso Navy by the El Paso County Commissioners. He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children.

Speech transcript/audio link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3345

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Deliver Freeh from Evil ...


CBS (Clinton's personal MSM outlet) gave Bill "i-feel-yo-painh" Clinton "rebuttal time" to counter a 60-Minute interview with Louis Freeh tonight.

Rebuttal time? To a former President? For whaaaat?

Rebuttal time to deny that he illegally hit foreign countries for money for his "double-wide in the sky" presidential library in lieu of chasing terrorists? And the rebuttal was supposedly done by WHO? Sandy Berger? Clinton's former Security Advisor who stole classified documents (coughcoughAble Dangercoughcough) from the National Archives? The SAME guy who violated his probation last week? Sandy "stuffmyshorts" Berger????

I was expecting Dan "Rathergate" Rather to introduce Sandy Berger in his ummm ... rebuttal.
We remember Dan. The guy who "retired" from CBS for his infamous "break" of those faked memos on Bush's military service.

I anticipated Michael Moore would be producing the segment. And one of those Cindy Sheehan commercials. Unless Howard Dean and the DNC bought up all the commercial time.

Louis Freeh doesn't stand a chance. Maybe his book will.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

The Goat Gazette

Our resident cyber-goat chews the news, views and spews from the world of politics .....

* The rumors are running faster than kudzu up a pine tree that Rudi is the person to defeat Hilliary in her rerun for the NY Senate seat .... but hold on to your hyperbole, Hilda! These speculations are being promoted on behalf of "other" Republicans who want to run for President in 2008 ....

* Condi Rice (denying she is interested) is gaining grassroots support as a possible candidate for the Presidency .... Never happen, Nannies -- not in 2008, at least.

* Cyber-goat has the chomp on the chill, Bill.

Rudi will be on the 2008 Republican Presidential ticket with Condi as his VP .... wait and see, cyber-munchkins -- wait and see ... (They will win, but he won't run for a second term ....)

McCain? Too old and ornery ....
Frist? Too southern ....

Nobody else has the national clout to carry the GOP....

* Dems will select Hilliary as their candidate. Which is why the GOP will retain the White House in 2008 ....

Her running mate will be some no-name (that whiz kid from Chicago will decline and play his cards later -- but watch for a MAJOR scandal to unfold for him ....) The Dems may regain control of the Senate, however -- by a few seats .... but the GOP will keep the House .... (I could have the chambers reversed --)

* 2006 Elections? Hummmmm .... None -- absolutely none of the current media feeding frenzies will affect the ballot box -- except in Louisiana and maybe Mississippi ..... Too much national attention has been given to corruption in these disaster impacted states ....

* And New Orlean's idiot un-mayor better plan on moving his family again (from Texas) .... Nagin will be leading a mardi gras OUT of Louisiana --- likely 3/4's of evacuees from his city won't return .... which will also impact the ballot box ....

* Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's legacy: "You can bus us to the ballot box, but you can't bus us out of Katrina's path."

* That Austin, TX District Attorney oughta have a good legal practice to fall back on (unless by some application of law he's disbarred after investigations into his wheelings and dealings) .... Win, lose or draw in his indictment against DeLay -- he's history.

* Betcha a tin hat that Jeanine Pirro will give Hilliary all she can handle in a run for the 2006 Senate seat in NY .... With full GOP backing, she might just win (operative word: full) ....

Hilliary's defeat in NY will be the only way to get the Clinton motif out of our headlines and government ...

* You kidlets stay tuned for more news, views and spews from the world of politics.

Questions? Predictions? Post them below and we'll chew on them, too! Sprinkle lightly with humor and focus on the topic, por favor -- our resident cyber-goat will butt ya if you're rude or crude!

um-um-um-mm-mah-mah-mah-mah
Translation: This goat can also eat his own words, when necessary.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

(Dis)Abling Danger?

Out there, somewhere, someone knows exactly what Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives.

What did he feel should be "hidden" from the Clinton presidency?

Doesn't the National Archives maintain a directory of documents/notes kept there?

So when we gonna learn what he REALLY stuffed into his undies?

Has anyone figured out his stuffings might be related to Able Danger?

Hummmm .... we already suspect that the snitched notes were related to the 911 Commission ..... Weren't those involved with Able Danger presenting "unsubstantiated" accounts of destroyed files to the Commission about the same time as Sandy's visit to the NA?

I think I'm on to something ....

The buzzards.