Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Didn't Get The Memo (Or Didn't Want To) | Main | Continued Embarrasment At The AP »

October 20, 2005

Comments

Sue

You need to put a warning on your links to Ms. Hamsher's site. Her language skills leave a lot to be desired.

Al

The media's role in obstructing our knowledge of the investigation is so frustrating. The media's role is to tell us what they know, not to obfuscate and cover up.

I don't understand why every media person who was called before the Grand Jury hasn't come out afterwards and said on national TV: "The prosecutors asked me [X] questions. Here is each of them, along with my answers."

As far as I know, it is not illegal for a grand jury witness to tell what happened to him/her, right? So why hasn't Russert and the rest gone through all the details of all the questions and their complete answers?

(And don't tell me it's because Fitzgerald has asked them to - the media isn't in the business of helping prosecutors, it's in the business of telling what they know.)

Seixon

If Russert first learned the information from Novak's column, then Libby cannot have told Russert anything about it during their conversation. In other words, then Libby cannot have leaked anything to Russert. So then you have to ask, why in the hell was Libby calling Russert then?

So Libby initiated the call. And then he didn't tell Russert anything. Wha?

Or did Russert call Libby, then Libby call him back?

The Orwellian phrasing is astounding. How come Russert is even involved here if he didn't know anything until after Novak's column???

Florence Schmieg

I have noticed that in the last 2 years there has been a major change of tone coming out of NBC and their affiliates regarding anything having to do with the Bush administration. Of course, all the MSM are down on them but previous to this time period it seemed to me that NBC was the most fair of the three majors. That changed. Now, they are the most unfair and negative to them. The involvement discussed here of Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell makes me wonder if that explains the shift in tone. It could be a defense mechanism to protect their own reporters and pundits by shifting as much blame and attention to the administrtion as possible. Just a thought.

BurbankErnie

Please. Russert is now being transformed into the Next Liberal Media Hero.

Blogswarms from the Right are the new Badges of Honor, especially for Journalists. I expect Timmy to chatter it up on Sunday, showing his wounds and accepting the accolades of his Guests for being "Rathered" by the meanies on the Blogs.

And all of this linking to Arianna is making me ill. If she has a source, I am a Monkey's (Chimp?) Uncle.

politicaobscura

seixon.... you have to learn how to read between the lines of "official statements".

"Mr. Russert, however, according to the NBC statement, said "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby." Indeed, the statement said, Mr. Russert first learned the information from Mr. Novak's column."

Russert first learned "THE INFORMATION" after Novak. What INFORMATION might this be? This information is Plame's name and CIA status.... however, it doesn't mean that Russert didn't say to Libby, "Gee, did you kno that Wilson's wife works at the CIA?" In such a statement he doesn't use Plames name, nor does he mention Plame's status at the CIA.

Hence, Russert can allow NBC to provide a misleading statement even though he DID mention to Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

cathyf

Maybe Russert told Libby that "Wilson's wife works for the FBI." That would explain Judy's note about the "Bureau."

(And yes, I'm joking. At least half joking, anyway...)

cathy :-)

Geek, Esq.

The implication for why they wanted to know what Russert told Libby was pretty clear:

Russert didn't want to squeal on Libby. So, they told Pumpkinhead, just tell us what you told him. That ain't privileged.

Pumpkinhead testifies that he didn't tell Libby about Plame. This contradicts Libby's testimony, and a perjury count gets strenghthened.

Cheez-Wiz

"You need to put a warning on your links to Ms. Hamsher's site."

Definitely-because titling the hyperlink "Jane Hamsher" is too tricky to handle.

pollyusa

Please. Russert is now being transformed into the Next Liberal Media Hero.

My observation is that Russert is taking a large hit from the left. I would have to say that the left and the right are pretty much in agreement on Mr. Russert's behavior in all this.

Sue

Cheez-Wiz,

What do you mean "titling" the link?

Sue

Cheez-Wiz,

What do you mean "titling" the link?

Cheez-Wiz

Well, e.g. "This" is the title of This link.

Sue

Cute.

Sue

If you don't understand why I said a warning was needed, then you won't understand why I said it. Next time, don't involve yourself and you won't look like the idiot.

Cheez-Wiz

I've come to terms with my own idiocy.

Paddy Fitz

Is Russert conducting a Denial of Service attack on this site?

BurbankErnie

Pollyusa,

The Left thinks all MSM is bought and paid for by Corporate America, including Timmy.

They only believe Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart on TV, Raw Story, TPM, KOS, DU, and other swamps in that vain on the Internet, and whatever newspaper and Mag that writes with a Lib Bias. I will let you sort that one out.

leah

I still believe Victoria Toensing (atty who wrote the Identities Law) got it right. The CIA via Plame and Wilson launched a covert operation against the President. And the media helped them.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Maybe Russert told Libby that "Wilson's wife works for the FBI." That would explain Judy's note about the "Bureau."'

Yes, because if Libby had told her CIA she would have written 'the agency' or 'the company'.

Beto Ochoa

Bingo! There is a winner!
Yes, Leah is the one who figured this out.
I had posted so long ago no one remembers;
"This entire affair was initiated, orchestrated and executed by the Wilsons. They had help from CIA elements that specialize in dirty tricks. Elements that found themselves out of favor in a Republican Administration. Elements that would do anything to discredit said administration. It was done for a single minded purpose with the added reward of great celebrity in the cottage industry left wing republican bashing that sells so well to it's captive audience. Write a book or tell a tale that bashes this President or the people around him and you are guaranteed major news segments, scads of greenbacks and the eternal praise of the "progressives". Then add the bonus of spin, smoke and cover fire from your MSM promoters and it becomes a "Slam Dunk"."
Please to tell me anything not a fact in my statement.

DavidY

The way Russert hedges his answers is very telling. He says that he didn't provide Libby with Plame's name or the info that she was a CIA operative. He doesn't deny that he provided information about her at all, however, which seems a tacit admission that he brought up things Libby may not have known about Joe Wilson's wife AND her place of employment.

Geek, Esq.

Folks:

Fitzgerald isn't interested in anyone else Russert has talked to.

And the fact that Scooter, Rove, et al have been caught lying their asses off on numerous occasions should tell you that their versions are simply not credible.

And Murray Waas has just exposed why Judy Miller finally stopped lying.

"New York Times reporter Judith Miller told the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case that she might have met with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on June 23, 2003 only after prosecutors showed her Secret Service logs that indicated she and Libby had indeed met that day in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, according to attorneys familiar with her testimony.


Miller testified in her second grand jury appearance that it was during this June 23 meeting that she and Libby first discussed Plame's CIA employment.

When a prosecutor first questioned Miller during her initial grand jury appearance on September 30, 2005 sources said, she did not bring up the June 23 meeting in recounting her various contacts with Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Pressed by prosecutors who then brought up the specific date of the meeting, Miller testified that she still could not recall the June meeting with Libby, in which they discussed a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, or the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.

Shortly after her September 30 testimony, Miller discovered her notes from the June 23 meeting, and returned on October 12 for a second round of grand jury testimony. In this second appearance, Miller recounted details from her June 23 meeting with Libby, with the assistance of her notes."

Let's see how this works:

1. Judy lies to protect Scooter;

2. Judy gets busted for lying to protect Scooter.

3. Judy incriminates Scooter.

Not hard to see what happened--Judy ratted out Scooter to avoid perjury and obstruction charges.

Lesley

Plame Indictments via Powerline

"If what I'm hearing is reliable, expect some soon." - Paul Mirengoff -

Paul Mirengoff, one of the Powerline writers, is an attorney in Washington, D.C.

Beto Ochoa

Dear Geek,
Thou dost protest too much. You will be surprised by the validity of what I posted and the "DeLay" tack of what you've professed since you found this blog. Kay Hutchinson should ring a bell.

SteveMG

Geek:
TM has this story about five years ago (it seems).

No, if you check around, you'll see he mentioned it about a week ago (?).

Question: Why does the left loathe Miller so much?

There were a number of reporters for various news organizations who were disseminating the WMD issue. Not only leading up to the war but all through the 1990s. After all, most of Miller's reporting on Iraq WMD took place during the Clinton years. The intelligence agencies under Clinton were saying the same things that the evil neocons were saying (for the most part).

Still, this hatred of Miller is puzzling.

SMG

cathyf
Fitzgerald isn't interested in anyone else Russert has talked to.
Perhaps because Russert has testified that his words to Libby went something like, "Of course I don't believe Cheney sent a flake like Wilson to Africa. Wilson's wife is a WMD analyst, and I bet she's the one who got him picked for the job."

Does that fit between the two halves of the split hair in Russert's non-denying denial? Yep, sure does. Didn't mention her name, didn't even mention the CIA at all, let alone any secret agent stuff. And if Fitzgerald asked him how he knew Mrs. Wilson was a WMD analyst, he may have testified that he did not know, or he may have testified that he learned it from someone that Fitzgerald already knows about. Either way, that would explain Fitzgerald's non-interest in who he talked to.

cathy :-)

Jim E.

Beto Ocho,
In response to your 6:24pm post, I would point out that you didn't offer a single factual statement. For example, your first sentence ("This entire affair was initiated, orchestrated and executed by the Wilsons") as an assertion, not a fact. Same with everything else you wrote.

cathyf
Judy ratted out Scooter to avoid perjury and obstruction charges.
I think you vastly overestimate Fitzgerald's desire to be a laughingstock. Judy has already publicly explained that she doesn't remember what happened at the meeting and her notes make no sense, and she told the GJ that she guessed maybe Scooter could have told her about how Victoria Flame worked for the FBI or something. Either she is playing dumb out of sheer cunning, or Little Ms Run Amok has made even Jayson Blair ashamed to have ever worked for the same paper...

cathy :-)

Geek, Esq.

"Perhaps because Russert has testified that his words to Libby went something like, "Of course I don't believe Cheney sent a flake like Wilson to Africa. Wilson's wife is a WMD analyst, and I bet she's the one who got him picked for the job."

It's possible. But highly, highly unlikely.

Libby had the agenda of discrediting Wilson, not Russert.

Seixon

politicobscura,

As I said, Orwellian phrasing. ;)

Seixon

Oh, I forgot, what in the hell does Powerline know about indictments?? Why so coy? Hmmm. Damn, I have to get some sleep now too. I'm guessing there won't be any indictments until tomorrow anyways if even then.

Beto Ochoa

Jim E..
The facts will catch up with my assertions soon enough.
"The sky has no memory and we are below it."

SteveMG

Let me try to bring the left and right together (since the next several months will be quite a bloodbath if, as we suspect, indictments will soon be handed down):

Is Alaska Senator Ted Stevens an ass or is he an ass?

We all agree, I hope?

Let's all sing Kumbaya and "We are the World."

Man, what a drama queen.

Okay, back to carving each other up.

SMG

Beto Ochoa

PS
What part of..."the added reward of great celebrity in the cottage industry left wing republican bashing that sells so well to it's captive audience. Write a book or tell a tale that bashes this President or the people around him and you are guaranteed major news segments, scads of greenbacks and the eternal praise of the "progressives". Then add the bonus of spin, smoke and cover fire from your MSM promoters and it becomes a "Slam Dunk"." "
Please to tell me anything not a fact in my statement.

cathyf
It's possible. But highly, highly unlikely.

Libby had the agenda of discrediting Wilson, not Russert.

So Russert does or doesn't say this or that because of Libby's agenda?!? Those must be some mind-control rays that Libby puts out. You'd think if Libby had superpowers like that he'd have a higher position than chief of staff to a vice president.

cathy :-)

Beto Ochoa

Russert= sellout
Cobain sought punishment for this sin. Et tu Timmy?

SamAm

Russert enters the picture too late, does he not? And why all the lies, were there an innocent explanation?

Jim E.

Even when you cut and paste what you already wrote, it's still fact-free.

("Captive audience"?? What the hell is that? That doesn't even make sense, even in a fact-free post.)

TallDave

It's possible. But highly, highly unlikely.

Libby had the agenda of discrediting Wilson, not Russert.

Wilson did a fine job of discrediting himself. The Senate report makes it clear he intentionally lied about his trip, the results, and whose idea it was to send him there in an attempt to smear the admin. Lying about matters of national security aside, claiming Cheney sent him when actually his wife did was just a mistake that happened to turn out well when someone, probably Russert, happened to mention the fact she worked on WMD and probably recommended him, and he could scream "AHA! THEY ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT ME!" and then get the whole thing investigated.

Jim E.

SteveMG,
So I take it you're resigned to arguing on behalf of Rove, Libby, and others, if they're indicted (emphasis on "if"), even without seeing the strength of the evidence against them? Seems to me if the evidence is overwhelming, instead of the "bloodbath" you predict, maybe people would be able to agree on something. But apparently you've made up your mind already?

PaulS

Seems that the NYT (via Drudge) is saying tomorrow that Rove and Libby have gotten target letters but Fitzgerald hasn't decided on charges.

Exactly the problem with these kind of open-ended investigations--I think you're guilty of something, but I can't decide what.

Jim E.

"Wilson did a fine job of discrediting himself."

If so, that makes the shenanigans of Rove, Libby and Miller all the more incomprehensible. Why would they risk the loss of liberty to discredit someone who'd already discredited himself? What a shame.

windansea

beto ochoa

eres el manolo?

the windansea he returns to the conclusion that the wilson and the wilson's cohorts are the most proven the liars in the plamegate the manolo is aware of...

Beto Ochoa

Jim you are obtuse.

windansea

Why would they risk the loss of liberty to discredit someone who'd already discredited himself? What a shame.

well gee sherlock....maybe cuz virtually 99% of the media was trucking Joe's BS and lies direct to the public??

how's it feel to be a misleading parseholic? and he wasn't discredited until months later

you are an agenda driven sophist and even worse...you know it

kim

Naw, just in legal jeopardy. Once again nothing new presented as leaks. Were they not in jeopardy last week?

Fitz works by putting everyone in legal jeopardy. Then they wriggle out if they can. I'm still betting on perjury for Wilson, Cooper, Russert, and I'm replacing Miller with Pincus. What the hell, bet the pile, Kristof too. If wishes were horses, beggars would indict.
==================================================

SteveMG

Jim E:
"So I take it you're resigned to arguing on behalf of Rove, Libby, and others, if they're indicted (emphasis on "if"), even without seeing the strength of the evidence against them?"

Boy, that's not a good supposition, Jim. Don't play the lottery this week. Skip the football pool too.

If you check here elsewhere I've said that I thought Libby, Rove and Fleischer would be indicted for obstruction of justice, perhaps perjury, perhaps mishandling of classified information: all of the reports, if reasonably accurate, seemed to point that way.

My observation, not much of novel one to be sure, is that no matter what happens - either indictments are handed down or they're not - there will be a firestorm.

Even if the evidence is overwhelming of Libby/Rove's guilt/innocence, the other party will complain. Tribalism of politics being what it is.

SMG

clarice

I'm understandably chary of these unorthodox prosecutors. I remember how one fucked over Cap Weinberg, not for perjury or for any wrongdoing but for failing to produce a diary which it turns out was absolutely ireelevant to the proccedings.

And I know I'm not alone.

I look at the DeLay fiasco in Texas and feel the same way.(Barone points out that while the Reps hold the majority in Congress and the White House, the Dems hold the majority in big city prosecutors and this mixing of politics and criminal law gives me the heebie jeebies.)

Beto Ochoa

Windansea
este es un hecho
Plame at heart of Niger trip
Report inconclusive via Tenant
Wilson lies in Op-Ed
Reporters ask staffers for statements
BOOM BOOM BOOM
British stand by their assertions to this day.

Sabe?

Jim E.

SteveMG,
Sorry. From your post, it seemed you'd already picked your tribe in this case. I stand corrected.

windansea

Sabe?

si hombre

TM

Geek, I am impressed by your ability to copy words and still not read them.

You told us this:

1. Judy lies to protect Scooter;

2. Judy gets busted for lying to protect Scooter.

3. Judy incriminates Scooter.

Not hard to see what happened--Judy ratted out Scooter to avoid perjury and obstruction charges.

Based on this:

When a prosecutor first questioned Miller during her initial grand jury appearance on September 30, 2005 sources said, she did not bring up the June 23 meeting in recounting her various contacts with Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Pressed by prosecutors who then brought up the specific date of the meeting, Miller testified that she still could not recall the June meeting with Libby, in which they discussed a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, or the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.

Shortly after her September 30 testimony, Miller discovered her notes from the June 23 meeting, and returned on October 12 for a second round of grand jury testimony. In this second appearance, Miller recounted details from her June 23 meeting with Libby, with the assistance of her notes."

If you think she was caught in a lie, your future as a lawyer looks pretty gloomy.

As per her coaching, she could not recall anything other than her meetings of July 8 and 12, for which she had prepped in response to her very specific subpoena.

My guess at the time requires a slight bit of modification because of the sign-in log, but basically she said, as her lawyer coached her, that she did not remember anything but would have to check her notes. Which she did. No perjury.

Props to Patrick Sullivan for pointing out that she must have signed in.

Big puzzle - when you sign in, surely you include who you are visiting? So did Fitzgerald ask Libby about that meeting, and what did he say?

And if Libby testified about that meeting, why did Fitzgerald leave it out of the subpoena? That does not square with DoJ rules.

Or did she sign in with no name? But wouldn't Fitzgerald ask people anyway? What did Libby say, "I don't remember meeting her that day"? Her first visit after being in Iraq?

This look dark for Libby.

GregM

What about the basics of Plame being undercover within the law's timeframe? What about the rumors that friends and neighbors knew about her CIA employment? Could it be much ado about nothing?

Syl

TM

Big puzzle - when you sign in, surely you include who you are visiting? So did Fitzgerald ask Libby about that meeting, and what did he say?

We're assuming the logs Fitz had early on included the June 23rd date.

His initial request for the logs was probably for the period in July.

If so, then what prompted Fitz to obtain the logs for the earlier period?


Jim E.

TM,
Perhaps I should let Geek speak for himself (herself?), but I don't think you're being totally fair. You, via Waas' account, have given the official legal narrative. You're right: Miller did not commit perjury, she merely had her memory "refreshed" by the sign-in logs. She's in the clear.

But aside from the official legal narrative, I think we have enough circumstantial evidence to show that Miller's been trying to protect Libby. She's been uncooperative every step of the way, and it's getting ridiculous to think that all of the principles (Miller, Libby, and Rove) just happen to "forget" the most controversial/incriminating/juicy (take your pick) conversations until confronted with documentation. Legally, they may all be in the clear. But in the real-world, there's more than enough reason to be suspicious of Miller. Do you think Fitzy believes Miller's forgetfulness? By itself, Miller's forgetfulness might be understandable. In context (taking into account her ideological sympathies with the administration, the significance of the meeting, her forgetfulness of the Flame name, etc.) it's less understandable.

Pretend you had the exact same scenerio, but with different actors. Let's say the reporter's name was Sid Blumenthal (rather than Miller) and he was testing about a conversation he had with Hillary (rather than Libby). Would you mock Geek's "real world" summary so quickly? (I should point out that my Blumenthal-Hillary scenario is not just meant to reveal the partisanship of onlookers like us. Rather, it is meant to show that Blumenthal-Hillary, like Miller-Libby, would bend over backwards to protect the other and resort to vague "I don't know" answers if possible.)

kim

Not bad, Jim E, but was the intent to out or to refute?
=================================================

SteveMG

Jim E:
Not a gotcha question:

Re Miller's "ideological sympathies with the administration".

Is there documentation of this affinity? Again, not trying to play games; I'm not aware of any expressions of sympathy ideologically by Miller with Bush?

She favored his tax cuts? Against partial birth abortion? In favor of faith based initiative?

SMG

kim

Fitz probably has 22 evidences of obstruction; still out to sea as to intent.
==================================================

kim

SMG: It is her neoconnaissance that is the burr.
==================================================

Cecil Turner

Pretend you had the exact same scenerio, but with different actors.

Jim, you're assuming your conclusion. If they were involved in a deep, dark conspiracy, it's likely they'd remember their cloak-and-dagger meetings in some detail. If not, and it was one brief meeting at Libby's office, and then, two weeks later, a couple longer interviews, almost two-and-a-half years ago, then no, I don't find it inconceivable that they both forgot about the earlier meeting. Especially if they were both engrossed in other things at the time, and this was a pretty busy period.

The contention that they're great buddies doesn't wash. Her little rodeo story suggests she didn't even recognize him when last they met. Her recounting that his lawyer told her lawyer he didn't really mean his waiver was damaging, and absolutely privileged. She didn't do him any favors there. (She's also hardly my idea of a conservative, unless you mean by the Times's standards.)

Further, the contention that the June 23 meeting was juicier doesn't make any sense. The most damning date possible is 8 July (one day after the INR memo was known to've been bandied about, two days before Novak's article would have to be written). Miller's testimony (and apparently her notes) suggest it was the briefest, and the least focused on Wilson. Unless there are significant unreported aspects, seeing this as the critical indicator of a conspiracy makes little sense, nor does hiding it. I think both Geek and you are speculating well out in front of the known facts.

TexasToast

Why does the left hate Miller?

To use a circus metaphor - she was the beguiling Mata Hari who led the over-muscled neocons into Chulabi's tent. Chulabi left with both the girl and the money - and the neocons were left with their (our) arm stuck in the giant Chinese finger-trap that is Iraq. Unfortunately, escaping a finger trap requires one to push in instead of pull out - but pushing further in makes the trap even harder to escape unless one first recognizes and admits being caught in the trap - something this country is just beginning to do.

SteveMG

TexasToast:
But there were a lot of Mata Haris in the press reporting on Iraq's WMD programs. Not only during the reign of that evil neocon cabal but during those glory days of the Clinton Administration.

Miller's was not a lone voice.

My guess is, as Kaus noted, she worked for a organization that the left thinks is one of theirs.

Why no animus by the left against Howell Raines? He signed off for her pieces.

SMG

TexasToast

SMG

But the other Mata Hari's didn't have the "inside" position with the decisionmakers revealed by Miller's "security clearance" and her access. Further, these guys seem to have had grand ideas for reshaping the middle east - the WMD's were just the marketing program to the Americam people enabled by Chilabi's forgeries channeled through Miller's pieces and her access.

They "rolled it out" allright - right into the trap. Its only when we quit struggling so darned hard and admit that we are trapped that a way out will begin to appear.

fasteddy

The contention that Miller is a shill for the Bush administration is nonsense. Apparently, she was Les Aspin's mistress, and he was Clinton's Secretary of Defense at the time. She obviously had plenty of sources in both administrations, but she was writing about WMD's in Iraq long before Bush ran for president [back when the left was warning that an invasion of Iraq would be a "bloodbath" because Sadaam would use his WMDs and Clinton signed the Iraqi Freedom Act, stating that regime change in Iraq was American policy].

TM

Syl - when did Fitz get the June 2003 logs?

Good question, but...

This WaPo from Oct 2003 says this:

WTF is it now?

NO, it does not say that - my system wants to be rebooted before the mouse will work, so I can't copy the link or text.

Anyway, it says that, as of Oct 2003, the FBI was asking about events going back to early June.

clarice

Ah, Chalabi--I am still persuaded that the same people who fought the Administration from inside Langley are the people who smeared Chalabi, in part because he opposed their ill-fated earlier inner coup attempt and warned them they were being taken in.

Their smear that he was working with Iran was risible. (Remember? They claimed they found out he'd disclosed the secret code to the Iranis because the Iranis USING THAT VERY CODE said so?) Heh and double Heh.

In any event, no prosecution ever occurred as a result of that charge.
The CIA's attacks on Chalabi just strengthened him and he will, I am persuaded end up running the country in his own name or in the name of someone else, and all the CIA succeeded at doing was smearing him in the press and creating a leading figure in the new Iraq who is understandably suspicious of the IS intelligence.

TexasToast

Wheels within wheels, Clarice? I thought even the neocons were through with Chalabi. Yet you are saying he was smeared?

Wow.

You obviously work at langley - How is Mr. Goss doing with the Tue/Thurs meetings? Morale up?

SteveMG

"You obviously work at langley - How is Mr. Goss doing with the Tue/Thurs meetings? Morale up?"

This newfound concern on the left for the CIA is getting a bit out of hand, Toast.

What next? Nation magazine bake sales for ex-CIA officers?

Wonder if Katrina vanden Heuvel even knows how to turn on an oven? Probably not. Socialist millionaires like her probably has a dozen or more maids.

SMG

The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame