Powered by TypePad

« Is Andrea Mitchell The Next Bob Woodward? | Main | Immigration Reform »

November 28, 2005


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Keeping An Eye On Russert:

» SLIME TIME NEWS from The Heretik
NEWS WITH OOZE tm featuring RETRO REVENGE AND LONELY FANTASIES EDITION Nixon Bush is lonely in the bunker. Also New Vietnam Iraqi War Will Come from Air Plus Leaks continue to splash. Plus Just in Time Slime: Dukes Out [Read More]

» washing machines from washing machines review
[Read More]


Geek, Esq.

Regarding Woodward, it's perfectly acceptable for the man to become a friendly biographer.

But he shouldn't call himself a journalist then.

creepy dude

If the real choices are (a) a Plame-obsessed blog delivered by a faithful scribe that makes the opportunity for rebuttal available to others, or (b) no Plame-obsessed blog at all, well, give me (a) too.


According to Half-Baked, uh, I mean Raw Story today:

"The attorneys say that Rove’s former personal assistant, Susan B. Ralston ... testified in August about why Cooper’s call to Rove was not logged. Ralston said it occurred because Cooper had phoned in through the White House switchboard and was then transferred to Rove’s office as opposed to calling Rove’s office directly. As Rove’s assistant, Ralston screened Rove’s calls.

But those close to the probe tell RAW STORY that Fitzgerald obtained documentary evidence showing that other unrelated calls transferred to Rove’s office by the switchboard were logged. He then called Ralston back to testify.

Earlier this month, attorneys say Fitzgerald received additional testimony from Ralston -- who said that Rove instructed her not to log a phone call Rove had with Cooper about Plame in July 2003.

Ralston also provided Fitzgerald with more information and 'clarification' about several telephone calls Rove allegedly made to a few reporters, including syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the lawyers said.

If true, this is perhaps the most significant evidence Fitzgerald has obtained suggesting Rove deliberately sought to mislead investigators."

I say: If true, this is significant evidence that Fitzgerald hasn't learned a durned thing from the Woodward embarrassment.

If true, this is perhaps the first accurate scoop Raw Story has posted in ... ummm ... I'm thinking here ... can't remember ... never mind!

I apologize if I have exceeded fair use.

Gary Maxwell

Well that proves it conclusive false. Raw Story is batting 1000% to date.


"(and keeping an ear out for Andrea Mitchell, who is probably duct-taped in a broom closet somewhere at NBC)."

Ya think?



I think Arianna has a lot of nerve criticizing Woodward. She was a comedian for years (having people write her jokes for her), did a horrible job running for governor, and now displays tremendously average writing and critical thinking skills on her blog. (and yes, I have a lot of nerve criticizing someone's writing skills). Sure, she can heap on the stinging rebuttals and rebukes. But that isn't how Woodward has chosen to build his career or write his books, and we are better informed for it.

Lew Clark

Maybe my age is showing, but I remember when biographers were friendly with their subjects. There were always second-rate "tell all" scandal sheets, but they were looked on as second rate writing. Now it seems that you aren't authentic unless the biography you write is a poorly documented smear.


Raw Story uses Larry Johnson as their major source. Larry knows everyone and everything about Plamegate. He knows people who have lunch with Stephen Hadley and then run to Larry to let him know about the conversation.

Larry knew that Fitzgerald had 22 files that he was reviewing for indictment.

Now Larry or someone) knows that Fitzgerald has found a new grand jury that no one else knows about and will charge Rove this week.

We will see.


Woodward should now describe himself as Bush biographer and cut the crap about being an investigative journalist. He is clearly trying to ride his watergate/deep throat coattails for the rest of his career but with his latest books which are basically stenography and his unethical antics in the Plame case, the gig is up.

sorry bob. Nothing lasts forever.

But those close to the probe tell RAW STORY that Fitzgerald obtained documentary evidence showing that other unrelated calls transferred to Rove’s office by the switchboard were logged. He then called Ralston back to testify.

Earlier this month, attorneys say Fitzgerald received additional testimony from Ralston -- who said that Rove instructed her not to log a phone call Rove had with Cooper about Plame in July 2003.

Does anybody else find this story totally goofy? So we are supposed to believe that being the antichrist doesn't keep Karl busy enough, and he has an obsessive-compulsive hobby of doing the job of the White House clerical people whenever something gets past them? Puh-lease... Half-Baked's story would only be slightly off if Ralston testified that Rove sometimes told her about unlogged calls so she could log them, but usually was too busy. "Rove instructed her not to log a phone call" and "Rove did not instruct her to log a phone call" are almost the same, right?

cathy :-)


Yeah almost exactly nearly identical.


The first time I read your choices, I agreed with you. Some information is better than nothing at all. At least there is something to refute -- makes sense and all right?

However, this is the fallacy of more is more. More information (incorrect, or uncritical) is often worse than no information at all. To repeat MISINFORMATION is worse than NO INFORMATION at all. This might be counter-intuitivie, but its cut and dry stattistics. c.f. Fooled by Randomness for the same problem of too much information (often incorrect, useless) when making investment decisions.

This is even clear in the Iraq war, where the press's stenography allowed many war supporters to cite other sources, and gave them a false sense of confidence (i.e. everyone was citing the same 3 lying informants, etc.).

So Woodward or no Woodward? I'll take no Woodward.


Even without getting statistical -- a faithful scribe is going to have access to a lot more information (inside access) than his refuters will have. Making the job of the refuters 100 times harder.

So yet again, No woodward is better than scribe.


Stacy - I agree we should properly label Woodward. How about some others:

Cooper, husband of democrat operative.
Russert, Democratic propagandist
V. Novak, Clinton apologist
Chrissy Matthews, Democratic spinner
Pincus, Wilson friend
Andrea Mitchell ?

Patrick R. Sullivan

' But he shouldn't call himself a journalist then.'

After this debacle no self respecting writer would want to admit to being a journalist, if Andrea Mitchell, Nick Kristof, Walter Pincus, and Tim Russert are that.

Assistant Village Idiot

Jor, it was great that none of the war's critics got to cite bad sources in the run-up to the war and the evaluation afterwards -- like the Johns Hopkins study and the recent secret poll in Iraq, for example. It made it so much easier for all of us to get railroaded when none of us had even heard there were war opponents. They were never in the papers, you know?

There are several reasonable philosophic justifications for Woodward's approach noted above. I don't read anything by him and don't care, particularly, but I do note that no one is answering those comments. It would almost seem that people are hyping the case against Woodward by ignoring contrary intelligence, er, opinions. Imagine that.


Is it possible that Fitz is ignoring contrary intelligence ???

Heavens forfend !!!


AVI, the difference with the war supporters is that the the administration would pass some bullshit to the times via an anonymous source -- then they would cite the times as supporting their bullshit. I.e. bullshit seemed to be supported by multiple people -- when in fact it was all coming from one place.

Each argument by opponents was easily linked to its sources.

This is only tangential related anyway -- Woodward like reporters (or stenographers) are BAD for the philosophical reasons I mentioned above.

Jim E.

Kate wrote: "V. Novak, Clinton apologist"

Basis for this? Relevance?

Turns out that V. Novak is personal friends with Luskin and that Luskin/Rove want V. Novak to testify.

But I'm sure you can tell us how this means Fitz is a bad person for calling V. Novak to testify.


Arianna should ask the only real question worthy of deep thought. "Why does anybody take Arianna Huffington seriously?"

We don't have to go far to find the answer -- because she and the Democratic Party wags are so shallow that even the sand crabs can't live in her environment.

This whole Plame game is nothing more than McCarthyism with a liberal face!

JM Hanes

"Consternation" at the Post, eh? It's OK to protect your sources from the public, and OK to fight a prosecutor all the way to the Supreme Court, but keeping secrets from your colleagues in the newsroom? Shocking! Unethical!

The Didions & the Huffingtons can keep their "cognitive energy" to themselves as far as I'm concerned. I'm far more interested in knowing what the President was thinking than what Bob Woodward thinks about what the Prez was thinking. I'll do the digesting myself, thanks. We're already suffering from way too much journalism and not nearly enough reporting.


WaPo has an interesting article for tomorrow>Time Reporter Called a Key to Rove's Defense In Leak Probe


Jim E. I confess to buying into the AP/Reuters/Hardball spin on the revelation on V. Novak. I notice the media spins the story in the most negative way for Rove. The WAPO story certainly casts a new light on the revelation. I should have just kept with the very basic Time story and ignored the other media. Scary about the media, though... If they do what they did with the short Time story, wonder what they do with everything else.

As for V. Novak's background, I read somewhere that she was a Wall Street Journal reporter and a strong Clinton supporter. I'll try and find the link.


I really don't think it can have escaped Fitz's notice that every little development is immediately spun, no misrepresented, by the media. I'll bet he's more than a little amused. The guilty reveal themselves to such as he.


"So Woodward or no Woodward? I'll take no Woodward."

You know, I think this provides a fascinating insight on the left/liberal mind.

I've found it a bit surprising recently to learn that Woodward is hated on the left. For that matter I was surprised to learn in the last week or 2 via TM's links that Mitchell is an "administration shill". I mean, who knew?

I have a couple of Woodward's books on this administration. I bought them because I was interested in the thought process that drew us into a major foreign war. I found them quite interesting, and although it becomes apparent as you read them that Woodward either didn't have a source in DoD or doesn't like Rumsfeld, I thought they were just about politically neutral. They didn't seem to me to be pro or anti Bush, just factual reporting on what people said in the historical context of the times.

Now, I haven't parsed them, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But whatever the case I think its remarkable that anyone would say they would rather have no information at all than the relatively straightforward reporting Woodward has done on this administration in such a critical time in our country's history.

Check out this from Arianna in TM's link: "In a brilliant indictment of Woodward in the New York Review of Books in 1996, Joan Didion describes his "disinclination" to "exert cognitive energy on what he is told."" It isn't that Woodward didn't report the facts, in other words, but that he didn't report his opinion about the facts that seems to be troublesome to them (obviously they think any intelligent analysis of the facts he reports would favor their point of view).

But isn't it telling that they don't even want straight reporting, a simple historical record?


It's all about the uber message.

Facts are for hacks.


Only little people pay taxes.


Cognitive is such a great word. See the wheels turning, the cogs knitting. Steam from the hot throats of oiled cylinders powers the wood fired fitzengine up the grade. Chuck it up, Chuck it up. I think I can, I think I can.


We're already suffering from way too much journalism and not nearly enough reporting.

JMH- that is brilliant and true. I wish it were posted in every newsroom.

Bob in Pacifica

Considering Woodward's ONI background in the Pentagon and his "perchance" meeting with Mark Felt recently revealed for public consumption, it now appears that Woodward was never much of an investigative reporter but rather a means to undermine Nixon by a faction in the power structure. If anything, it suggests a reevaluation of the senior Bush's activities during Watergate. No?


Halderman Ho.


Bob. I was having the exact thought this morning. There is a reason the Bush family trusts him.


Then, again, I am probably just showing my age. : ^ )


Isn't it funny how just a few short weeks ago, Woodward was the darling of the left for exposing the diabolical Nixon administration? Oh, how fickle the left is, in this vast war on terrorism.


Who ho? Oh, hah, hah. Ho, Ho, Ho.



Woof woaf. Whoa, whar, whaf. Woaf, Woaf, Woaf.




There's something odda just outside;
I wonder whatha walls hide.

Stop pullling on my collar; let me at 'em.
Let me smell; they won't know what had 'em.

Geek, Esq.

Didn't Felt tell Woodward to "follow the money?" What kind of investigative reporter needs to be told that?

Anyhow, when will TM apply his skills (and benevolent fanaticism) to all things Abramoff?



Jim E.

"Didn't Felt tell Woodward to 'follow the money'?"

ACtually, no. The line is in the movie, but not the book.


Woodward didn't have to do anything but prostrate himself, supine, for the private and delicious pleasure of Mark Felt.


Actually, Felt and Woodward were using each other. Isn't that the way it really is?


Mutual rape.

Cecil Turner

Actually, Felt and Woodward were using each other.

At least Woodward managed to keep his source a secret. Isn't it funny how protecting sources used to be a great moral imperative?


Cecil. I guess I never really bought in to the moral imperative part of it (and I suspect you don't either).

The great thing about the blogosphere is that it exposes both print and electronic media to the same kind of criticism that they have been able to heap on almost anybody or any industry without fear of being publicly contradicted. IMO the news industry has routinely been willing to trample on almost any part of the Constitution as long as those parts protecting it are expanded.

I take a little pleasure in watching the hero of modern yellow journalism being savaged by some of his disciples.

Jim E.

"modern yellow journalism"

Who are you referring to? Woodward? Not even Woodward's fiercest critics would accuse him of "yellow" journalism.


Where's Clarice?

JM Hanes


" becomes apparent as you read them that Woodward either didn't have a source in DoD or doesn't like Rumsfeld."

According to Rumsfeld on one of the Sun. morning talk shows recently, he told Woodward that he was only willing to be interviewed if a full, verbatim, transcript of their meeting would be released to the public.

According to sources who shall remain nameless because I can't remember who they are, Woodward gets a lot of his interviews by telling potential sources that everybody else is talking to him, and if they don't, they may not like how the other folks make them look.

mary rose

i i i totally agree with clarice's statements and i really enjoy reading all these posts. i remember the chris matthews show where andrea mitchell stated that reporters following the wilson trip knew about valerie's cia connection. she is backpedaling now and dancing as fast as she can away from her previous statements.


Thank you, Mary.
You called, Dorf?

JM Hanes


It really drives me crazy. After two years, a justice department investigation, a mountain of leaks & speculation, day-by-day articles above & below the fold, what we're left with is a major list of unanswered questions.

To hear Woodward's colleagues fault him for giving "investigative journalism" a bad name is the ultimate irony. Woodward and Miller are starting to look a whole lot better to me than the press corps that's using them as whipping boys.


I still think Woodward's source was Armitage. Contrary to the speculation in the WaPo article about V. Novak's testimony, I doubt that if he was the source, he'll be in legal peril. As far as I can see it was an offhand remark which he didn't expect to be published in the press(therefore not part of a conspiracy to "out" Plame) and one he (a) may never have been questioned about as Fitz' focus always seems to have been so myopic, and(b) it is unlikely he remembered it.

OTOH, if we credit Woodward's statements that he didn't report this to Fitz because since 2002 he had tried unsuccessfully to get a waiver of confidentiality from his source, he is unlikely to have cemented any friendship with Libby and Rove for refusing to let Woodward come forward sooner.


2002-SHOULD BE 2004.


Clarice: Army loved seeing them hang for all of that time.


Could be, Dorf, but I don't think that's criminal conduct--just not very nice.OTOH, given Fitz' failure to interview Mitchell and Sidey and Mays who said they all knew of Plame's employment, it seems that Armitage wasn't up to telling Fitz what he didn't want to hear, doesn't it?

The part of the WaPo article I am interested in--since so much in it appears to be speculation of no value--is that Libby plans to call lots of pressies and question them hard...Maybe that'll burn a fire under their rearends to come clean at last. Better to let a secret grand jury know you're a putz, than be exposed in an open courtroom.

Jim E.

clarice wrote: "it was an offhand remark which he didn't expect to be published in the press(therefore not part of a conspiracy to 'out' Plame)"

Whether he really said it in a gossipy way, or whether he said it in hushed tones, doesn't matter at all. Either it was legal for him to have told Woodward the info, or it wasn't. (Heck, according to you, the source could have put the information in a full-page ad since it was impossible to "out" the desk-jockey Plame.) Also, Fitz hasn't said anything about a conspiracy.

"it is unlikely he remembered it."

That's not how Woodward characterized it. Woodward, as you subsequently point out in your very next sentence (thus negating your short-lived "he forgot" assertion), tried to get the source to allow him (Woodward) to write about their conversation. Woodward's source did remember that part of the conversation. And if (if if if) he has testified, he could be facing legal problems.


JIM E. I actually meant it is a compliment to Woodward. : ^ ) What do his critics say?


C: not criminal I agree, but NONE of this was!!!


Yes, none of it was..Perhaps Vanderhei needs to be reminded of that.

Jim E.

So Vanderhei is part of the problem now, too? As best as I can figure it, he's merely guilty of having the Plame beat and writing about it.

His most recent story -- undoubtedly fed to him by leaks from the Rove camp -- emphasizes how Viveca's testimony will help to exonerate Rove. So why is he on clarice's enemy list? For being a reporter, I guess.

I'd like to hear what's wrong with him. From where I sit, he seems largely devoid of shrillness -- esp when he's on that cartoon known as the Chris Matthews show. He typically throws cold water on Matthew's idiodic assertions.

Gary Maxwell

He typically throws cold water on Matthew's idiodic assertions.

Well here is osme common ground. We both think Chris Mathews is an idiot. How did Tip O'Neill function with that guy as his chief of staff?


How do you feel about the legality of Plame outing herself to Kristof at breakfast Jim?


Wait, Joe lied and exposed his wife. That's criminal. Or at least grounds.

Rick Ballard

What legal problems could Armitage have for sharing information that apparently a great many others shared rather indiscriminately? The wheels have been off the "covert agent" wagon for some time. You can drag it around if you wish but I'd suggest calling it a sled.

I hope it was Armitage and I hope that when Fitz asks him who disclosed Valerie Plames supersecretagent status, his reply will be "why Judy Miller, of course, I heard her talking to Cooper about it several times - ask Bob Woodward, he was there at least one of the times. If he doesn't remember then ask Andrea Mitchell or Chris Matthews, they all got a kick out of Val's story about getting Joe out of town.

Jim E.

How could Plame out herself if she weren't out-able? That's what I've been reading on these comment threads for months. Desk-jockey. Mom. Glorified agent. Ostentasiously driving herself to and from Langley. Isn't that what you've all been telling me? Makes one wonder what Ashcroft investigated for all those months and why he appointed Fitz in the first place. Boggles the mind.

I've never read that Plame outed herself to Kristof over breakfast. Besides, according to many of you, it would be an impossibility in any case.

If true, though, it would clearly be illegal. (I don't think it's true. Mainly because zero evidence has been offered to substantiate the claim.) It still wouldn't let anyone else in the Bush administration off the hook if they also outed her, though. It would still be unethical, and possibly illegal.


Whether he really said it in a gossipy way, or whether he said it in hushed tones, doesn't matter at all.

I believe this to be true IF he KNEW what he was saying was classified or not for public consumption. IF it is Armitage he can likely say that he learned of it through State gossip like channels and therefore did not think this to be a big secret. He was the one that requested the official memo, so therefore he heard it BEFORE the memo.

This is where all the reporters statements are so wishy washy you can't tell what the heck any of them are saying. Was Woodward pushing his source prior to the indictments only to write a story that reflected Woodwards view of no smear campaign? And it was only after Fitz announced in his indictment Libby was the first official that Woodward realized his source was intrinsic? OR was Woodward on a moral crusade all this time and his source would not cooperate until now?

Can't tell. I suspect it is the first scenario.


Out, Damn Spyte.

Joe exposed her,
Who knows spied her,
Mystery A disclosed her,
Libby lied over her.




BTW I read today that she's leaving to become a "full time mom", that she reamined on this past year just to qualify for her 20 year pension.


Clarice: to Joe right? I bet the kids can handle themselves.


Dorf sez:

Not to mention she wasn't classified, either. Executive Order 12958:
Sec. 1.8. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.
The agency didn't want the world knowing that they were too stupid to put the report identifying her in a sealed diplomatic pouch, so they made her NOC.

cathy :-)

Cecil Turner

How could Plame out herself if she weren't out-able?

Actually, that's the only way she can. She can't "out" herself from covert status, per the IIPA exception:

It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.
However, if the charge is unlawful release of classified information (i.e., her role as CIA agent) she is no more allowed to leak that than anyone else.

Jim E.

Cecil wrote: "Actually, that's the only way she can."

Well, whaddya know? Interesting stuff, although not likely relevant to this case.

Jim F.

I agree with 'Jim E.' when he refers to Val as "Desk-jockey. Mom. Glorified agent. Ostentasiously driving herself to and from Langley."


"How could Plame out herself if she weren't out-able?"

Well, about all we have to go on as far as that is concerned is what Fitz said, which is that her status was "classified", right?

"I've never read that Plame outed herself to Kristof over breakfast."

So would you seriously argue that they met at the Wilson's house for breakfast, and Joe told his story to Kristof, and they never told Kristof what Val did for a living?

Why do you think they met at the Wilson house? For breakfast? With her there? So she could try out her maid outfit?

Isn't it fairly obvious why they did all that?

So would you seriously argue that they met at the Wilson's house for breakfast, and Joe told his story to Kristof, and they never told Kristof what Val did for a living?
Look at 5(b)(1) in Executive Order 12958:
"Violation" means: ... any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;
So even if Valerie said nothing at all, and neither mentioned her CIA employment, she stood by silently, negligently, allowing him to disclose classified information (the existence of his trip to Niger) to Kristof. He may never have signed a confidentiality agreement, but she was (and is) a government employee.

cathy :-)


Women get tired of mothering the eternal child. I suspect the twins are alright and Joe will eventually just hire being done for.

Done for has been.

mary rose

Rick you are absolutely correct in your observations re:richard armitage as woodward's source. Fitz is being undercut as all these reporters testify and reveal that there is no there there. no wonder val and wilson are heading for lala land. everyone out there will see them as heroes. ihave to admit i'm disappointed in chris matthews' absolute vendetta against karl rove. they are just so angry that they can't discredit him.

mary rose

Rick you are absolutely correct in your observations re:richard armitage as woodward's source. Fitz is being undercut as all these reporters testify and reveal that there is no there there. no wonder val and wilson are heading for lala land. everyone out there will see them as heroes. ihave to admit i'm disappointed in chris matthews' absolute vendetta against karl rove. they are just so angry that they can't discredit him.


mary rose....think of the positive though over at Matthews....he seems to have cleaned up his act about using 3 Jewish names in the same sentence as neo con cabal.


Somebody broke the code.


Watched Vandehei on Abrams Report. He said he thought we would all know about Rove in a couple of weeks. Wonder how he knows?


He didn't say which couple of weeks.

richard mcenroe

Kim -- And somebody else is moving his lips while he reads it...

mary rose

I have to admit vanderhei seems a pretty straight shooter to me. no real partisan agenda that i can detect



A precis, Claris, puhlis.


I go thru Wilson's war for Israel shtick, Russert et al's "dual loyalty" innuendos, and compare this with the way such charges were handled when Roosevelt and Clinton were President, suggesting that perhaps when it's a Republican President who is not widely supported by Jewish voters, the press and Wilson gets a pass from the ADL. And that is not a good thing..that this is the first time in my adult life that such charges have been made by someone(Wilson) who nevertheless was accepted into the camp of a Dem Presidential nominee and when the "moderate" media felt free to make such claims.


There's something rotten in Niamey and I can name it all the way over here.

Check the doors for marks, Clarice. The bravado is fearsome.


Something rotten , indeed, but our press is too busy with Cindy Sheehan book signings to look into it and it's left to Il Giornale.
Buate just knew before we got the forgeries, huh? Khan just happened to be visiting when the Iraqi trade delegation was there? From the first I believed these patent forgeries were decoys designed to discredit reports of illegal uranium deals.

And what did the CYA do? Sent a clown with fixed questions not designed to get to the bottom of it there.


Here's hoping, but doubting, that Fitz is privy to an FBI dissection of the forgeries provenance.

JM Hanes


Once again, where is real investigative journalism when we need it? The whole forgery saga has yet to be explained, and there are a lot of possibilities here. Some folks claim that it was a French effort aimed at embarassing/discrediting the Administration, but that scenario seems a little crude for our nuanced friends, doesn't it? The thread of French involvement throughout, however, is just begging for close examination, especially considering their controlling position with regard to unranium in Africa.


You won't get an argument from me on that..But then there is no reward for like-uh-actual journalism is there? Elsewise why didn't Claudia Rossett get the Pulitzer?And why do the blow dried airheads make all the money?

JM Hanes

"Elsewise why didn't Claudia Rossett get the Pulitzer?"
Because she makes the rest of the profession look so bad?

Kudos for your excellent article on Charging Dual Loyalty for American Jews. The historical context -- and contrast -- you lay out is a telling piece of the puzzle.


The whole forgery saga has yet to be explained

In my opinion the most interesting question is not where did the documents come from. I think there's reason to believe it was an Italian entrepreneur whose motivations were financial, not political; he figured, probably correctly, that there would be a market for such a thing. He managed to get various intelligence agencies to take an interest.

I think the most interesting question is why we seemed to be determined to act as if the documents were real, even though the signs of fakery were obvious (going as far back as 2/02, when we already had "verbatim text" of the documents), and various people in our IC clearly noticed those signs (and various other people could have and should have, but didn't), well before we handed the documents to the UN.


TJ, you are behind the times. Joe claimed he debunked thim in '02, and that fool Bush didn't listen. People died, haven't you heard?

Martino didn't start them, probably. I certainly hope the FBI knows more about them; they've been investigating for two and a half years.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes