Powered by TypePad

« Rendition Myths | Main | Rudy Redcoat, Turncoat »

October 22, 2007



Don't miss this --Michael Scheuer: Innocent Until Proven Guilty

The Danish daily Politiken ran a story on Sunday reporting that “CIA renditions in Europe date back as far as the mid-1990’s.”...

Politiken went on, according to an AP summary, to provide specifics, including...

Along with other unidentified CIA officials, Politiken cites Michael Scheuer as a source for this information, which is now stirring up anti-Americanism in Denmark....

CIA officers sign an oath not to disclose classified information when they take employment in the agency. The oath holds for life. If they want to talk about things they learned in the course of their work, they need to obtain CIA clearance first.

The Politiken story thus raises a number of questions: ..

Other Tom

I'm lost. Who is the Jeff who apparently took Plame's whole account apart, and where can I find what he wrote?

Someone who's allowed to post at Larry's place (I can only do so from remote locations) ask him to take a poll on when the Rove indictment is going to be unsealed.


Hopefully this link works better (the other being to full blog, not actual post)

Scheuer’s retired status would not seem to alter the basic elements of the crime. Title 18, Section 793 (d) of the United States Code makes liable for punishment


Other Tom-

I'm lost. Who is the Jeff who apparently took Plame's whole account apart, and where can I find what he wrote?

Over at fdl, Plame [with special guests John Dean, Joe Wilson, and Sid Vicious] slobbered all over her shoes [I think the thread was on the 22nd "Book Salon"]. "Jeff" was asking questions and VPW seemed to ignore them. The thread over there ran about 500 comments [she posted maybe 15-20 comments], and she really didn't add much more than the 60 Minutes interview.


The blouse story is a kindregarten version of an actual event.A female spy was getting top secret stuff from her agent in an office when they heard a security officer approaching, they started making love and were left alone. IIRC it was in Italy.


here is more from a Danish paper, Schuer's DNA on this one:

The paper, which refers to former CIA high official Michael Scheuer, writes that US agents arrested Abu Talal in Croatia in September 1995 and then sent him to Egypt where he was probably executed...

...Schuer said that Danish intelligence agencies knew the operation against Talal was in store in Croatia, as well as his transfer to Egypt. However, Foreign Affairs Minister Per Stig Moeller told Plolitiken there was no indication about any illegal CIA activity in Denmark.

Also - Dubya was not president in 1995.


And if it's Tuesday, it must be time for pained Abu Ghraib/Blackwater analogies; at Law & Order CI. The firm is British; more like Aegis; the original site of the crime
is Mosul; but the insinuations have not been changed to implicate who we think are guilty. Elizabeth McGovern, serves as the
evil doctor.(with a commendation from Rumsfeld I guess).

This is in line with Robert Harris's new novel; the Ghost. Not content with peddling
bad America as a New Rome, in Imperium and making broad Patriot Act allusions with the
Gabinus Act. He's gone all moonbat with the
tale of a ghostwriter (get it?)for a long serving British Prime Minister, who
discovers in the course of writing the memoirs of Prime Minister Lang, that AQ terrorists were tranferred to the CIA; and according to the NY Times ad copy; faces war crimes charges.


I thought Plame made it clear she wasn't gay with the jump in bed with the spy thing. FDL and the others really think she should be and just keep on helping.........

Denmark, Sweden; they're Russians.


FYI Another article in the London Times about Plame:


Having endured today's edition of "Fresh Air", I have observations.

The talking point supreme remains, "Hayden said I was covert, Fitzgerald said I had engaged in undercover work overseas in the past five years. Covert, covert, covert. QED." As Clarice noted again today, CIA counsel has so far been unwilling to state that Plame was covered by the IIPA.

In Plame's telling, the trial's "Perry Mason moment" occurred when Patrick Fitzgerald sought John Hannah's agreement with the contention that a matter on which Libby spent two hours, in this case meeting with Judith Miller, must have been vitally important to him. To go by the juror Collins' account, as Plame likely is, the jury bought Fitzgerald's view.

Plame's discussion of this testimony reminded me of a good point (which I think Cecil Turner made) that touches on the any weapon to hand nature of a Fitzgerald prosecution. Having focused his energy during Libby's grand jury appearance on his disclosures to Miller of information from a national intelligence estimate—likely with the goal of establishing that either Libby or Cheney were responsible for unauthorized disclosures—the Special Counsel spent the trial downplaying the centrality of the NIE to Libby's meeting with Miller and insinuating that Wilson and Plame were Libby's primary focus at this confab.

Lastly, isn't a damage assessment routine when information about CIA agents, officers, or operations falls into the hands of enemies or is made public? While Plame claims ignorance as to the contents of the damage report in her case (I believe Bob Woodward has stated the CIA concluded damage was minimal), it seems to me that in these appearances she is attempting to mislead people into believing that the existence of a such a report is, ipso facto, evidence of damage.


I believe the blouse story is a scrambled version of what really occurred:

Some years ago, during an interview for basic training as an undercover operative for the Central Intelligence Agency, Valerie Plame was asked an unexpected question: What would you do if you were in bed with a married ambassador in a hotel room when there was a knock at the door and you heard someone shout, “What are you doing with my husband?” Quick as a flash, the young Miss Plame responded: she would put her blouse, open the door and say (somewhat truthfully) she was "debriefing" him.


You are all being somewhat unfair to "Paunchy Larry",he may be fat,but his hair is thin.


Early this morning. it looks like it's down to:
Jessica Maxwell (University of North Carolina) 26%
Ella Masar (Illinois) 24%

Rick Ballard


Bravo - Ambassador Munchausen's own account of his initial "debriefing" contains all that is needed to be known about him and the "other" woman. It's weasels and trollops all the way down.


Time to ask for a small favor from everyone on our email list - or should that powder be kept dry for future use?


OT-please see new article titled Media Myths about Jena 6 by Craig Franklin in the Christian Science Monitor. It has just been posted at Sorry I do not know how to provide a link. But I found it very interesting.



A good article but some of his facts are wrong. For instance, he claims Bush has pardoned Libby, which is not the case. But otherwise, I like his tone.


Don't forget your morning vote!


Hilarious, MJW.


Ok:>Here's Val answering some of TM's qustions.

Have fun!


I came to post a link and find it already done. Guess I am relegated to coffee drinking this am. Thanks Sue.

Late intelligence I just got says, if you shut down your browser and relaunch that the site assumes you are a new voter. Would explain the Illini going up around 8% in one day, best we did yesterday was 3% to the good. anyone want to test and report ?, I have a project to attend to for a bit but shall return.


So Kristoff's wife sat at the table and listened to Joe and Kristoff discuss classified material?


I don't know, Sue. At the Congressional hearing, Valerie said she was at the breakfast with Kristof for a short time, but she didn't listen.
However, now notice how specific she was about which breakfast she didn't attend.


So where did VF get the information for their article on the Wilsons?

] Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.


When is Kristof going to say enough is enough? The Wilsons have made him look the total fool. And Pincus too. Are both so anti-Bush they would allow these two buffoons to make them look like buffoons?


She is using the Hillary method to deal with facts.

"Oh ha ha it's only an insignificant fact and your interpretation is way off. It's just all those nasty mean people who hate the truth and those of us who speak it trying to make a fuss."



Her answer 1?

Not I was not at the breakfast which took place at a Democratic Senate weekend retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore.


REP. DAVIS: Let me just ask, try to put some -- some of the press speculation to rest and give you an opportunity to answer. In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article -- not always known for great accuracy -- touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said -- this was what they said -- "In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee at which Wilson spoke about Iraq . One of the other panelists was New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it but not name him." Is that account accurate?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I think it is. I had nothing -- I was not speaking to Mr. Kristof. And I think my husband did say that he had undertaken this trip, but not to be named as a source.


Just to be clear, when your -- the article says that -- says your husband "met for breakfast with Kristof and his wife." Just to be clear, were you at the breakfast?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Briefly, yes, Congressman.


On June 13th, Kristof wrote a column about the Niger uranium matter. He wrote that he was piecing the story toge the r from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it. Do you know if you were one of those people he was referring to?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I can't imagine that I would be. I did not speak to him about it.


What about your husband? Would he have been one of the sources, probably?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I think he was speaking to Mr. Kristof at that point.


Was any of that information classified, to your knowledge?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Not that I'm aware of.

REP. DAVIS: I yield back at this point.

Number 2?

At the time that Joe wrote his op-ed piece in July 2003, he was a volunteer member of John Kerry's Foreign Policy Committee, but he did not discuss his plans for his article with anyone at the campaign.

Boston Globe

Kerry's advisers acknowledged yesterday that Wilson, who has also donated $2,000 to Kerry this year, told them about his allegations against the White House involving his wife before going public with them this summer. But Rand Beers, Kerry's top adviser on foreign affairs, said the campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges...

...In the time between the State of the Union speech and Wilson's op-ed article, Wilson grew increasingly angry with Bush's leadership during the war and the uncontested assertions about nuclear material, Kerry advisers say. In mid-May, he began talking to Kerry's advisers about helping the campaign; he made his first donation May 23.

And I could swear that Owens-Kirkpatrick said initally said she had it covered and it was only after Val emailed the IC and lobbied support from the IC for a trip that Owens-Kirkpatrick changed her tune and said it warranted another hard look.


"Oh ha ha it's only an insignificant fact and your interpretation is way off. '

Yeah, I guess this would work if there weren't 34,874 insignificant facts that their constant reiteration interpretation's were so way off.

How many mulligans do these people get?


Does anyone else get the same impression I'm getting? Namely that Joe and Val have lied to each other all along, or at the very least, have not been entirely forthcoming with each other about what they've done or said. It just seems each has been blindsided by the other on more than one occasion.


have not been entirely forthcoming with each other about

Again that's just the Hillary & BJ dodge. Part of the act. Misdirection for the con.


Here's what the INR memo says about Wilson. Note that she didn't address TM's question, which was about the events surrounding the big scary phone call from Cheney.

However, her answer about the >INR memo saying Wilson didn't want to go:

From what we can find in our records, Joe Wilson played only a walk on part in the Niger/Iraq uranium story. In a February 19, 2002 meeting convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD manager and the wife of Joe Wilson, he previewed his plans and rationale for going to Niger but said he would only go if the Department though his trip made sense.

Tab 1
Two CIA WMD analysts seem to be leading the charge on the issue [redacted] the other guy's name not available.
They appear to believe that the Embassy will be unable to ferret out the truth on the Niger/Iraq matter. INR made it a point to, gently, tell them that the Embassy has ver good contacts and the Ambassador is a Tandja confidante.
Later when the WMD guys failed to get the hint they were informed, a little less gently, that the Embassy was a reliable interlocutor and could be trusted to protect US interests.

If Wilson goes [redacted]....

This only says that Wilson will not go if INR tells him not to. Of course they didn't tell him not to go, but they didn't pay him and they didn't get an after-action report from him.


Oh tops, you're right, Valerie did supposedly send another email out, didn't she?


Maybee --- Somewhere in the INR it says the meeting convened for Wilson to explain HIS rationale for making the trip.

and yes, she was working the Intellegence community to rally support for the trip.


4. Did I mention to Joe that I had written an email at the request of my boss to my Division Chief discussing Joe's credentials? No, I did not. I was writing probably hundreds of emails a day and that email was simply standard operating procedure

WOW, The Scooter Libby defense, love it.


Stephen Spruiell has here movie trailer up


Late intelligence I just got says, if you shut down your browser and relaunch that the site assumes you are a new voter.

Worked for me in Firefox! Good news - I'll be plugging away at this today.


This is getting tiresome. All of my posts to the lovely Val are being run through a moderator and disappearing. They have to make sure she only sees good things because some of us can be so mean spirited and actually ask real questions instead of telling her she is a goddess.

Huffington disappeared me now.


I've got that in the first paragraph, about HIS rationale for making the trip.

I hope TM sees her little post.


Here's my favorite line in her whole post:
This issue is not about Joe and Valerie Wilson -- it's about why those sixteen words appeared in the most important speech a President gives each year, especially on the eve of war.

It isn't about her, or about a book about her, or about the picture of her on the book, or about a book tour about her, or about how awful the CIA treated her.
It is about the 16 words!!!!


Val says-

I hate reading them because they can be terribly mean spirited.

How can you all be such big meanies?

And in other news, the book doesn't improve much. One problem seems to be copy editing-comma splices and missing periods. Seriously-maybe its my copy of the book, and I haven't gotten far [about 1/3 through the book], and there has been copy errors about every other page.

Ron Paul

I've voted fifteen times today and the percentage isn't shifting,is there some skulduggery afoot?


I can get my comment posted either. I didn't break any of their commenting rules, and I never have.
I just quoted the INR document, since she didn't provide a link to it or a quote from it.


The CIA wouldn't let her use punctuation.



Nothing has been let through since last night, so maybe I'm jumping the gun and they will allow my post. I am a poster in good standing at Huffington, though some would claim otherwise.


I told y'all to let her talk. She can't remember what she has said outside of sworn testimony, where I think she tried to stick to the truth without being too truthful.


For a refresher, here is the content of her email-

introduction from>Byron York---
In the memo, which was headlined "Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash," she referenced a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium that had been circulating in the previous week:

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM 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. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

Barney Frank

After observing the self serving vacuity that exists betwixt the ears of madam Plame, one of our indispensable foreign intelligence assets at the Company, and the duplicitous venality of her pompadoured popinjay of a fancy man, apparently another Company asset, is there much doubt the country would be better off were a B2 to make a detour to Langley the day Bush decides to do to Iran what Israel just did to Syria?


OK, I'm just going to dump this here, but here are three emails I exchanged/posted on Noquarter with Larry Johnson. This is during the time of the trial. in each, my question comes after his response. Note that his story (their story) is different prior to the evidence at trial coming out:

[Larry: ]No, according to page. 38 or the report the VP was reacting to a DIA report dated 12 Feb. Those are presented to the VP on the day they come out. Briefer goes back to HQ, raises question from Cheney, Val's boss is notified, he asks Val to write memo. Meeting occurs one week later.
Thanks though

-----Original Message-----
>From: TypePad
>Sent: Feb 18, 2007 10:15 PM
>Subject: [NO QUARTER] submitted a comment to 'Washington Post Enables Toensing's Delusions'

[me- question for which above is the answer]
>Larry, I believe you have this wrong:
>"Let's take up a collection and get Victoria some help with her obvious
>reading disability. The whole sordid affair got started in early
>February 2002. Vice President Cheney asked his briefer about the claim
>on 12 February 2002 and the CIA convened an interagency meeting with
>Ambassador Joseph Wilson one week later, February 19, 2002."
>According to court documents this week, VP Cheney asked his briefer on
>13 February 2002.
>Valerie Plame wrote her introductory memo on 12 February 2002,
>according to the SSCI.

[Larry's second answer, when I question him further]
The briefer comes in to HQs around 3am. He or she goes thru traffic and new intelligence. The DIA report was available on the 12th and was briefed on the 12th. Otherwise, CPD would not have been reacting on the 12th to a request from the VPs office. And they were reacting to Cheney's request. The memo on the 13th is further evidence that the VPs request was taken very seriously.
Hope this helps.

[Larry's 3rd answer]

Sent: Mon 2/19/07 5:53 AM
Reply-to: lcjohnso (

Let me give you an example. I would write a PDB piece on the 11th, for example, but it was published in the bood on the 12th. Depends on what is being written. This much is certain, CPD would not have started reacting to a VP request before it happened. They reacted to a request. I'm going by the SSCI report for the 12th date. I agree that the 13th memo suggests all of this happened on the 13th. I'll check with some friends.


>Oh- also. What time of day would a report have to be finished in order
>for it to be included it in a morning briefing on the same day?


I posted the above to show that as late as February 2007, before everything was released clearly at trial, it was still the contention that the briefer brought the question from Cheney to the CIA, the CIA asked Val's boss about it, Val's boss asked her to write up information about Joe.

The dates revealed at trial indicate this version is inaccurate, and you can see Larry saying "I'll ask some friends about it" as that becomes apparent.
Now, obviously there are only two friends he could ask about it. We didn't hear from Larry or his two friends until the Congressional hearings, where the afternooon-before-the-briefing call to the upset underling suddenly appeared.

Patrick R. Sullivan
I'm lost. Who is the Jeff who apparently took Plame's whole account apart, and where can I find what he wrote?

Well, he only inadvertently exposed her evasiveness by asking her questions he thought she would smack out of the ballpark. Such as the February He asked her twice.

But, she just ignored him. Unlike most of Plame's fans, Jeff can walk and chew gum at the same time, so he's got to be pretty uncomfortable with her performance. He must know she can't address specifics, because her story would fall apart.

I doubt he'll ever show here again.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Try parsing this logic:

1. Was I at that "fateful" breakfast in May 2003 when Joe discussed his trip to Niger with New York Times columnist Nick Kristof? Not I was not at the breakfast which took place at a Democratic Senate weekend retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Joe was invited to speak on a panel about our policy toward Iraq, and I attended simply as a "social spouse".


I figure Jeff is upset too. Not only did Val ignore him, The Sid Vicious lied outright about Armitage's role.


Try parsing this logic:

Victoria Secret Flame superspy did not attend the breakfast. Her cover Mrs Wilson Social Spouse did.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Dept. of Can't Keep Our Stories Straight:

At the time, Joe was using discreet backchannels to try and understand why the infamous "sixteen words" appeared in the President's 2003 State of the Union address. This issue is not about Joe and Valerie Wilson -- it's about why those sixteen words appeared in the most important speech a President gives each year, especially on the eve of war.

Now, let's hear from Joe (writing to the SSCI in 2004):

I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur.

Other Tom: Re: Jeff. He used to post here from time to time and argue every point to the nth degree. He is almost a troll, but not quite. He seemed friendly, but then others would discover him at some of the lefty sites badmouthing those here at JOM. He would nitpick points that had nothing to do with anything and assume he was making his case.



Not I was not at the breakfast which took place at a Democratic Senate weekend retreat on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Joe was invited to speak on a panel about our policy toward Iraq, and I attended simply as a "social spouse".

It depends on what the meaning of "at" is?

I got my decoder ring-The Signet of Dissembly©-from the good folks at GE, ask for the Mitchell-Russert model.


I figure Jeff is upset too

You probably underestimate his awesome powers of inference employed in the service of rationalization. Narrative weaving of details into an agenda tapestry is his forte, not consistency and logic.

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion.


Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

from the Email doesn't really track with:

The Division Chief had been in another position when Joe made an earlier trip on uranium related matters on behalf of the CIA and I was seeking to remind him why my boss thought that Joe should be consulted about this latest claim about Niger.


In addition, Mrs. Wilson drafted a cable that was sent overseas requesting concurrence with Ambassador Wilson's travel to Niger. While Ambassador Wilson suggested in his letter to the Committee and in his book that the question of him traveling to Niger was first broached during the February 19, 2002 meeting, the cable drafted by Mrs. Wilson was sent nearly a week earlier, on February 13, only one day after Mrs. Wilson's memo (email) suggesting that her husband might be willing to look in the Niger matter. Interestingly the cable states that "both State and DOD have requested additional clarification [of the Niger-Iraq report] and indeed the VP's office JUST asked for background information... The cable was dated and time stamped 132142 Feb 02, which is Feb. 13, 2002 at 3:42pm DC

Which is totally at odd with the INR written AFTER the Feb 19th meeting AND what she says now vs her email

Narrative weaving of details into an agenda tapestry is his forte, not consistency and logic.
Yep. Every Jeff argument had, at its core, the "fact" that Cheney had ordered Libby to disclose Plame's CIA employment. To be fair, other than that Leap Of Faith© he really was consistent and logical. Very much like one of those "proofs" that 1=2 -- there is one error, but everything before and after it is done quite correctly.

--Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2007 at 12:32 PM ---



It's a familiar Clinton like trick--big lies which can't be easily refuted at the beginning following by a lot of smoke to make it seem SOOOOO complicated when the original denials are proved to be lies.


I never realized that the cable on Feb 13th says the VP ***JUST*** asked about it.
That doesn't square at all with the VP asking about it on the 12th.

and Tops, now that you point it out this:
and I was seeking to remind him why my boss thought that Joe should be consulted about this latest claim about Niger.
is fascinating because she does not mention her boss in the email at all. She does not mention anyone else suggesting Joe for this matter.

Like an onion. Stinks like one, too...

TNR is toast..Drudge has internal investigation docs in which Beauchamp recants his TNR stories.


he really was consistent and logical

IIRC he was impervious to reason regarding Cheney behesting Wilson, Valerie playing any active role, and the key finding BS from Fitz wrt the NIE.

Perhaps he was "consistent" in his own blinkered "logic" but my only claim is just that it was not his "forte".

I do not recall Jeff ever backing off one of his narratives unless Fitz did it first.


Plame and Joe are married. Legally, they cover each other. Of course, the third person isn't and is suddenly aware Plame is a CIA Operations Officer, paramlitarily trained, and, yes, if you tell anybody, IIPA applies and, unless you are banned from intelligence, counter intelligence, she can't bother your file, unless, of course, she gets an Ames type waiver from CIA that is illegal to get,unless DoJ leaks, which they didn't, but only CIA knows she accessed the file,unless, of course, DoJ will not check to see what files she accessed at CIA; so, it's an old scam that worked for years and no one could legally stop them from doing this.

The speech was about PC and CIA and someone took exception. Plame is CIA and her dad was NSA, Air Force. Yes, NSA got in trouble with domestic survelliance and Plame was doing domestic intelligence on political groups. She was also doing some IIPA work on non CIA personnel and had access to files and information that was banned at CIA because of Ames. Joe's dad was a diplomat(spy) in Spain where he grew up. Plame's domestic intelligence work got her to Iraq. Spain got the Madrid bombing. Joe was PC. Ames was PC.

Plame can't use punctuation because that's what analysts do, or Directors at PC.

Congress has new NASA Langley legislation; like the Air Focre wasn't time travelling and going off planet before the CIA got some and Plame went back to Vanity Fair, England and came back and filed a law suit saying that men were discrimanatory back then.

Parsing again? That's Larry selling off.

Sue, you never disappeared someone while you ran JOM and Tom just kinda disappeared?

So, Tom. Dodd wants to have his DNA checked. I think he should upset Plame first, maybe they'll be nice and won't over drug and he'll remember all those nice nurses and have a funny drink and have just have accidents or something. 'It's part of my DNA.' Dodd was PC too. He was also in the army. He also waived alot of rules in the old days when they had no five year IIPA laws and Dean's brother worked out in the field, but wasn't supposed to be a spy and then there's Shays, but he worked at a desk...............

I do not recall Jeff ever backing off one of his narratives unless Fitz did it first.
Yeah, that was striking to me, too. So much so that I occasionally wondered if "jeff" was a pseudonym for Fitzgerald himself, or, more likely, some low-level staffer in Fitzgerald's office.

Sometimes the level of fitzFandom got downright creepy...


thanks Clarice - thought for sure Ace would have a burning skull - rats.


Can someone make the TNR doc's copy/pasteable? Ace is asking...


Also -- I could swear there was a paragraph in the final unredacted INR that made mention of Val cabling a bunch of agencies trying to drum up support -- does anyone recall - Rich?


Wow, thanks Clarice for the Drudge link. Bob Owens will have a field day with this. What Beauchamp did was bad, but the real villain here is Franklin Foer for continuing the charade and going dark on the story after learning from Beauchamp himself that it was all a bunch of hooey.


Seriously, if I were on the outside looking in, at this very minute, I would NEVER contemplate coming to America.

Code Pinko idiots attacking members of the Administration- no problem.

Fires ravaging California - Of course it's Global Warming, or Human Error and not an Act of God - just ask George Carlin or Jamie Lee Curtis.

A lying, Phony Soldier - and the leftwing Lying Liars that continue to support him - just our everyday Media hard at work.

On the other hand, the vilification of a Non-Liar, Million Dollar Charity donator, Troop Supporter - is just our everyday Media hard at work.

Congress Rating at an all-time, cesspool smelling low.

Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize - for lying.

A lying Former Ambassador, his lying "spy" wife and their continuous lies - no problem. Funny, if they had lied from Day One, no one would care about them to this day - oh wait - no one does! Bwaahahhahh.

Hillary Clinton perhaps the next US president - lying ad nauseum. Hey - if she picks Paris Hilton as her running mate - count me in.

Do I need more meds or less meds? I can't decide.


Franklin Foer to Scott Beauchamp: "Ellie sent me an email to tell you that it's the most important thing in the world for her that you say that you didn't recant."

Beauchamp: To say what?

Franklin Foer"...she sent me a note to tell you that it's the most important thing to her that you say that you didn't recant..."

Hmmm - nice try Franklin!


Maybee, I was struck by the convenient appearance of the previous afternoon, too. Very unusual of Larry to say something like "I'll check with friends", too. I think you have a key moment.

Appalled Moderate


That transcript was painful to read.


ery unusual of Larry to say something like "I'll check with friends", too. I think you have a key moment.

Posted by: kim | October 24, 2007 at 02:28 PM

I think so too Kim.


I'm looking for the cable you are discussing.
So far, I'm finding this from EW (in a discussion about>CIPA docs she picked up from the courthouse):

Interestingly, I don't think EW ever did link to that email.

Then another description of an email from Valerie:
One of the other two documents is an email from Valerie repeating what Joe said to Grossman.

So, there was obviously some communication between Val and others in the CIA after Joe started talking.
I'm sure they were among the hundreds she wrote per day. She didn't really know what Joe was saying. And this isn't about them anyway.


I think so, too!


Sara, you're welcome. Scobie doesn't look so grand either.


LA Times/Bloomberg poll wants to cheer us up:

"she did not score as well with independents, who loom as such a crucial bloc in so many states. Among these voters, 42% gave Clinton favorable marks, 46% unfavorable."

Now about Faux Franky Foer. I hope he has a resume put together.


Who on the TNR staff leaked this to Drudge and why?

That transcript was painful to read.
No kidding. Even more painful is that the conversation happened on Sep 7. They should have done exactly what they told Beauchamp they were going to do -- come out with a statement within a few days saying that they got taken in by a liar.

But here it is almost 7 weeks later, and they are still stonewalling. Look, they should have just come clean back then. There was lots of stuff going on in the news (Osama tape, thwarting of terrorist attacks) -- it would have all been over quickly.


In my 2:45, I'm missing the first description from EW:
Wilson is said to have called the CIA to get them to correct BushCo's use of the Niger intelligence (this information comes, in part, from a Valerie Wilson email that I should be able to link in a few days)

This is the email that, afaik, EW never did link.

Who on the TNR staff leaked this to Drudge and why?
It's apparently the army's transcript, not TNR's. CY says that these are the exact documents that he made a FOIA request for, and he thinks that somebody in the office that fulfilled his request emailed them to drudge first.

If true, it's not even a leak -- it's quite nasty for drudge to steal CY's scoop, but that doesn't have anything to do with the government. Any info that is being released publicly is public (and public property), and the FOIA people are under no obligation to protect CY's scoop.


Maybee - interesting


Also - I never really caught this, but on what apprears to be a report on Wilson's debrief (DX71.8 from Libby trial) -

Source: A contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record. (SENSITIVE SOURCE)


Two things:

A- I thought he DID have an established reporting record, for he had made other trips for the CIA - that in part is what made him bona fide?

B- Why is he listed as "Sensitive Contact"?


Right now I bet inside TNR they are petrified because they do not know who leaked the transcripts. My guess is they will try to keep the charade going by saying that since Scott cannot communicate with them without the presence of a military "minder", they needn't take his statements at face value...Hanging on by their fingertips, they are.


I guess its possible that Ellie passed them on, didn't she quietly get the boot from TNR? Perhaps as payback to her weasel bosses? In aprticular if she is having 2nd thoughts about her private of a husband.


OOps, Cathy didn't see your post above..That explanation makes sense.


Who on the TNR staff leaked this to Drudge and why?

Posted by: clarice | October 24, 2007 at 02:59 PM

The only way TNR could have gotten all of those docs is if Beauchamp gave them to TNR in the first place. If I had to guess I would say this is Beauchamp trying to get out ahead of this before his unit redeploys to Germany. I think he wants people to know that he was willing to talk and set things right with the media but it was TNR that asked him not to. He may think he can salvage something out of this and still have a career as a writer if he can blame the cover up on TNR.


See Cathy's post--the docs are from a FOIA request.
gmax, AFAIK, Ellie's still on the TNR staff.


See Cathy's post--the docs are from a FOIA request.
gmax, AFAIK, Ellie's still on the TNR staff.

Posted by: clarice | October 24, 2007 at 03:16 PM

Hmmm. Interesting. I was under the impression that Commander's Inquiry investigations weren't subject to FOIA requests because they could lead to non-judicial punishment or other personel actions.

I do recall hearing that Ellie was no longer employed at TNR though. No big announcement, but her name had fallen off the list of employees a month or two ago.


I forgot to mention this last night, but, on "Fresh Air" yesterday, Plame demolished the theory that Wilson was able to talk about his mission to Niger because the CIA neglected to have him execute a non-disclosure agreement. In truth, says Valerie, he never disclosed any classified information in his op-ed, which, after all, was titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Yes, this is really her argument.


If you read all of the transcript, Beauchamp was going to fax to the TNR attorney provided to him, his authorization for the release of documents/records.

The docs could have gotten to Drudge via almost anyone.


Good point, Ranger. Having read all of the docs all the way through, I think there is lots of stuff in there that never should have been released. Beauchamp comes off as a stupid kid getting punished in the principal's office. The army has a duty not to humiliate the kid in public, so I would think that if these documents had been released in any form, it would have been highly redacted. There were no redactions at all.

If this is what the army faxed to "Gene" -- Beauchamp's lawyer -- then that's the most likely source of the leak.


Okay--3d theory re disclosure of Beauchamp docs--Andmaybe it's the best one-Beauchamp authorized the disclosure and someone in the chain of distribution leaked them to Drudge.

Anything on TNR site yet?


"In truth, says Valerie, he never disclosed any classified information in his op-ed"

I said it a LONG time ago - I do not think Wilson wrote the Op Ed. Someone else wrote it for him.

Rick Ballard

"The army has a duty not to humiliate the kid in public"

I can't think of our Soldiers as 'kids'. Beauchamp was a Sad Sack and will perhaps remain so but he's no more a kid than is Feckless Franky Foer. Both of them are complete frauds and liars but their age is irrelevant. Beauchamp indicates an understanding of the level of betrayal which he perpetrated against his fellow Soldiers. Foer displays the cringing cowardice and unwillingness to face the consequences of his perfidy which one would expect from any leftist.

Maybe Ambassador Munchausen can give Franky some tips on the "right" way to practice sedition for profit?


We could go with the Seymour Hersch stovepipe theory, and say Franklin Foer released them. He needs this to end in *some* way, and these transcripts show he was in a difficult situation with the unwilling Beauchamp.

Appalled Moderate


I can't believe Beauchamp's lawyer would have leaked this. It shows his client in utter meltdown. Reading it -- you can hear the guy mumbling, and trying to avert his gaze from everyone.

I like your first theory better.


It could have gone frrom the TNR lawyer to TNR where someone released it.


Well, I do think the Beauchamp leak was from the TNR side, I just don't think STB has enough brains to go right to Drudge to get his story out.

Someone picked a mainstream, somewhat bi-partisan, tabloid blog for these docs. MAXIMUM exposure in an instant. Whoever did it knew it would destroy TNR and Franklin Foer, and this new guy Sliblocslimeboy. I'm not sure STB would have opted for that on his own. He sure didn't have enough savvy to write even passable lies.

So - could this be a blackmail move? Say someone told TNR give me money (STB attorney)or we go public, TNR said no - and they went public? Or did they get some $$$$ and go public anyway?

Appalled Moderate


Foer -- with that tacky "please don't recant" message from the wife -- isn't the source. He looks terrible in the transcript.


"Does anyone else get the same impression I'm getting? Namely that Joe and Val have lied to each other all along,"

"Darling,does my bum look big in this"?

"Oh course not Joe".

The comments to this entry are closed.