Powered by TypePad

« The Duke Timeline | Main | Extraordinary Cardplay »

April 23, 2006



I'm in agreement with you on this one. Jim Miller in your post above you summarized a very thoughtful way of looking at this horrendous leak to the press by an employee who signed an oath and contract not to reveal information. My brother who served in Vietnam had to keep quiet for 5 years after his discharge from the service. He had a high security clearance and was in communications during the war and stationed in Saigon.What McCarthy did and all the connections vynaget made upthread is very disturbing to me. I'm feel positive now that this has started to unravel that the real story will come out and when it does there will be hell to pay and dire consequences for some. Mc Carthy is only the first to get her comeuppance.


FOX NEWS SUNDAY is on FNC now with
Juan Williams' meltdown.


Saw Fox News Sunday this morning after returning from a trip to Washington D,C, and Virginia. I got a kick out of watching Bill Kristol give Juan Williams the fish eye when he said it was OK for McCarthy to leak- You can't make this stuff up.
Squiggler and windansea: Your posts have been especially informative over the last couple of days as I've tried to catch up whenever I could find a computer.
Sunnyday: I hope I got that right


I see Dana never corrected Pulse on the use of the term GULAG...wonder if that's what MCarthy called them.......


Funny, Dana sure gives away the game==you don't see Cuba or Venezuela on the list of states that limit free speech, do you? Knowing that she's married to the man who preposterously defended Pol Pot and who covers for Castro, anything she now says is to me preposterous and will continue to be.


Fonda has at least apologized, I believe sincerely. Kerry, not.

I'm dismayed to note that 'Swift-boating' is entering the vernacular in its perverted sense, as an illegitimate political attack. It's an amazing and distressing irony. Future generations are going to be amazed at the warp on truth that is possible at the dawn of the information age.


Of course, that she includes Israel with China and Iran in her list of states that limit free speech, is the icing on the case. How many wooden stakes must we drive into Marx before he's finally dead?



My list (like anyone posting here on any topic) was only to give examples and wasn't meant to be exhaustive.

We can't sit here typing in every person throughout American history who committed treason. Right? I didn't include Benedict Arnold or Aaron Burr or John Wilkes Booth or dozens of others.

As to Kerry: Guilty.



Or steel picks into Trotsky?

The smaller the number of communants, the better community works.


I'm going with CathyF here.

I don't believe it was a sting. Europe was furious, and talk of it overshadowed everything during Rice's December visit to Europe. I was there, and there was nothing but furious Europeans on the BBC.

I do recall Powell saying many European leaders were being hypocritical on the issue, so I'm not surprised the prisons "weren't found". They weren't found because the Europeans (leaders, intel) don't have any interest in having them be found.

I've no doubt we have prisoners here and there across Europe, the ME, Africa. I mean, these guys are being tracked down and taken somewhere, right? The idea that they are illegal in those countries seems to me to be a big duh. Isn't it illegal for the CIA to even operate in most foreign countries? Anybody that says we have to win this through intel are pretty much asking our country to do what is illegal for us to do in other countries. Spy on it's citizens. Take them into custody somewhere.

Mary McCarthy, in the IG's office, would see the complaints and the horrors that came across her desk for investigation. Perhaps she saw the trees and thought she saw the whole forrest.

Her history sounds like she isn't up for violent actions or counter-actions. Larry Johnson says it. She didn't want the Sudan bombed. I think she's an ideologue that had a chance to make a change that she believed in. Doesn't make it right.



I'm glad to see you picked up on the Israel, China, Iran lumping together. To me that is so bizarre and smacks of an underlying anti-semitism. I think in my original post I likened it to Cindy Sheehan's stupid remarks.

I think it is also becoming obvious that Priest too her leak at face value and made no attempt to verify the information, which makes it even worse, in my eyes.

I get this odd feeling that all these people who are connected thru her husband or through the political connections documented here in the last 48 hours got together at some point and plotted out the "plan."

Gives Kerry's claim of having a "plan" new meaning, doncha' know?


Well. I just watched the replay of the Fox News Sunday show with Juan Williams defending McCarthy.

I dunno what to say. He was pretty rabid about it, and he's pretty well connected in the Dem party, or that's what I've gleaned over the years watching him. Appears to me to be a high level of desperation, they're running scared on this one.


I agree that they are running scared on this one. McCarthy is that step too far- Like Feingold--censure Dean -any remark on any given day or Conyers-impeachment. The American people look at this and say "Huh"?


Also I agree with Maybee and cathyf-not a sting operation-too Machiavellian.

Rick Ballard


Shouldn't there be a level of desperation? There is some very good unraveling going on and I think Vnjagvets suggestion of potential conspiracy charges is just lovely. What is needed to sweeten all dreams is some evidence of coordination with Dem staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee and McCarthy to move this from an ace trips hand to the royal flush that Clarice mentioned. It isn't hard to imagine that happening.

Question for legal types: Is there any reason that the DoJ could not get a warrant (not a subpoena) for Priest's records? And I would include all phone records as well as all documentary record of her contacts with McCarthy and other Dem conspirators? The idea of a warrant being served by the FBI and Priest's home and office subject to search is just so comforting.


"Sunnyday: I hope I got that right

thank you! Yes, that's right. I can't keep up enough to post, so I just keep reading.


Clarice- the Israel comment by Priest is telling to me as well.
I know we can't assume people have the same opinions as their spouse. However, it says something that she fell in love with a man that defends POL POT. Maybe it's a reverse Dharma and Greg relationship, but then putting Israel in with China and Iran is pretty non-Greg like.

Anyway, as dwilkers(?) pointed out, there are many options between just saying "oh well, there's that crazy democracy in action!" when secrets are released and a China-like media. Ms Priest at the very least lacks nuance.


Yesterday I was questioning what Mary McCarthy made as her salary. I had guessed quite low, but that was when I still thought she was an "analyst" and did not realize she was a "high level" type.

This is included in a Jonah Goldberg post at NRO ... it appears to have come to him by email, but no source attached:

The math is easy, it just depends on what pay scale Mary McCarthy was paid on.

If it was a GS employee rate, then allowing for the DC locality pay puts her at $120-$150K a year. If it's Senior Executive Service, that figure on about $140 - $180K. If the CIA has a special scale all their own (checks written with disapearing ink?), then maybe $160-200K. The upper limit is the President's salary.

Going from, perhaps, a maxium of $200K to a minimum of $140K, her policial contributions would work out to 3.5 to 5% of her GROSS salary. Taking out the top tax brack (Fed), MD tax extortion rates (PR of Mongomery County), school taxes, make a best guess that she would pay about 40% of her gross in taxes. Now we're down to about $120 - 84K. This is 5.9 to 8.4% of NET salary.

The percentage is an extraordinary for a single citizen in one of the highest cost-of-living regions in the nation. This implies a certain degree of party loyalty which borders on the fanatic. I find it highly disturbing for a Federal employee who is supposed to be bound to the precepts of the Civil Service oath and who should be paying much closer attention to the specifics of the Hatch Act. Her actions present a high degree of impropriety to the public.


Yes, I agree it seems they should be highly anxious about this. Thinking that and seeing it are different for me though.

But we have a news media with a political agenda, or at least an agenda other than informing. We have desperate politicians on the left saying the most outrageous things at times.

Figuring out what's true is fairly difficult in this information environment. Often I sit back and wonder if there is something they see that is real that I am missing. Surely I'm not the only one that does that.

We are mostly somewhat like minded here so its hard to say what is really going on sometimes. Watching Williams foam at the mouth was a big sign to me that there's something real here, something Dems are very worried about.


The Prince of Perjury,is pleased with his acolyte


Dwilkers, is there a way to watch FNS on the web?

M. Simon


Who ever put this sting together has to be whooping it up right now. A story so good it won the Pulitzer.

Right up there with Janet Cooke.

Woo hoo.

BTW the "damage in Europe" is countered by the fact that the next story that comes along is going to be given less credence and the folks who believed this one are going to get whipsawed.

A Pulitzer. This has got to be the #1 intel sting of all time.

Rick Ballard


It has seemed to me that a secret grand jury may have been empaneled some time ago and that certain individuals in the press and Democrat Party have target letters in their sweaty hands. Odd silences and the general direction of reporting since the the Times subversive printing of the story concerning the NSA terrorist communication intercept program are all I have to offer as evidence.

As one noose loosens another appears to be tightening.


Figuring out what's true is fairly difficult in this information environment. Often I sit back and wonder if there is something they see that is real that I am missing. Surely I'm not the only one that does that.


I understand what you mean. It gets hard sometimes to continue when we are constantly inundated with the leftist position through their cohorts in the media. Whether it is "leaks," Katrina recovery, or gas prices and who is responsible, or any number of other topics. I often wonder how some of these people see things so differently from me or from what I'm experiencing in real life. Check out my latest at The Squiggler for what to me is a perfect example and then think how many times gas prices are mentioned as what will bring the President and his party down come the next election.


No one has defended the administration like I have. Since the beginning of the whole Wilson/Plame/Libby affair, I have been right there arguing the facts with moonbats and others who would twist the story into “Bush lied” for their own reasons.

After watching “60 Minutes” tonight, I’m just about to say “fuck it, it’s not worth it”.

Not since Mapes and Rather has there been a more distorted, one-sided account of the 16 words in the SOTU. CBS conflated the Niger forged documents with the Iraqi meeting to “enhance trade relations” (read buy yellowcake) in an unmitigated hit piece featuring some CIA flunky and our friend Joe.

The gist of the entire segment was that Joe Wilson was a hero who wouldn’t dream of distorting the truth, while Bush was a madman bent on destroying the peaceful nation of Iraq.

When they asked the White House to comment, all they received was a lame few sentences from Dan Bartlett. Instead of taking the opportunity to come out with both guns blazing, exposing Wilson for the liar he is, the Bush communications people took a pass. Unfuckinbelievable.

If they aren’t going to stand up for what is right, why should we bother?


Too many Republicans are too afraid to confront 'liberals' gone wind in debate. They key is :

1) Don't debate them on facts, as they are not interested in facts. Debate them on principle, in a 'what would you do if....' method, which will leave them stunned.

2) Have 2-3 quick sentences ready for each of the major leftist talking points.

A really good guide is here :


j.west ... because it is your country too. And that's why media like CBS are not long for this world ... you would think they would have learned their lesson with Dan Rather, but thank goodness for the blogosphere and its rising power in the arena of public opinion and public information.

JM Hanes


The Rockefeller/Durbin polygraph thing has been floating around for quite awhile now. I believe there was only one, speculative, source on that originally (from someone on the right -- maybe at NRO?), but unfortunately I can't recall who. Are you sure it isn't more urban legend than probable?

Kevin B

Daffyd at Big Lizards has a good post on the "Canonisation of ST Mary of Langley."

He breaks the justification into the following parts.

She didn't do it
With quotes from the NYT from Simon and Johnson about her "great integrity"

She didn't actually confess to doing it...

With quotes from the Wapo about how that nasty Mr Goss focused on this poor senior nearing retirement.

And even if she did it, it was the right thing to do!

With curent and former 'sources' talking about "dissension withinin the agency", and "no alternative..."

Bush leaked... why shouldn't I?

"Well Scooter leaked the NIE so..."

The Washington Post already declassified it

With this LOL quote from Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor
"obviously I am opposed to criminalizing the dissemination of government information to the press."

And besides -- you tricked us!

With links to various bloggers who have proposed the "canary trap" scenario.

RTWT at http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/04/st_mary_of_lang.html
but I think he's got it nailed.

(I can never get embedded links to work)


I couldn't bring myself to watch it. I have a new big screen television and I was afraid I'd chunk something at it. ::grin::


Maryrose,Cathyf, & MayBee,

Don't forget to take fact of the leak of the CIA RENDITION FLIGHTS using Euro airports occured months before this one.

That's what got the EURO'S HOT AND BOTHERED to begin with.

Wouldn't that make their intelligence community very likely desirous of helping to catch the leakers.

The added bonus here is that it is also an embarassment to the Phony LEFTY HUMAN RIGHTers, the NGO's and all the EURO politico's that make life hard for their own services.

When you add that to Captain's Ed estimation of the number of people that would be involved in ACTUAL SECRET PRISONS - A STING
seems more likely.

Maryrose, just look at all those leakers at CTU %) - SOMEONE


Interesting exchange, Nov. 3, 2005

Here is the complete exchange from the Post on this point:

“Washington, D.C.: Cliff Kincaid writing in ‘Accuracy in Media’ says that your story on secret prisons yesterday ‘reflects the view of a faction in the agency (CIA) that opposes this policy and wants to use The Post to convey its view publicly. Once again, the secret war against the Bush administration is on display for all to see.’ While I don’t expect you to reveal your sources to us—although go ahead if you want to do so—you should at least be able to tell us if there is any truth to the notion that currently serving CIA officers are trying to undermine the Bushies. Are they?

“Dana Priest: I’ve always found this view amusing, and rather convenient for the White House, which likes to point to someone else when its own policy decisions don’t work out right or fail to achieve the stated goals (like other administrations, I would add). Most CIA people I’ve met probably voted for George Bush. And the CIA is responsible for executing the war on terror and capturing the vast majority of the terrorist suspects around the world. No one from the CIA and no one who used to be in the CIA proposed that I write the article I did. On the contrary.”

If McCarthy was a Priest source, as has been reported, then it is absolutely clear that Priest deliberately deceived the public about where she got the story. Talking about CIA officers voting for Bush was a diversion. She was covering up.

As to the charge that CIA officials “proposed” that she write a certain article, I never made that charge. It was clear, however, that CIA employees opposed to Bush were behind the story. To make matters worse, it appears that the leak was disinformation—an attempt to discredit U.S. policy through the use of false information.


&lta href="URL">LABEL</a>



Yikes! Is this new information regarding Valerie Plame?????????

Evidence Proves Plame's Identity wasn't Secret

If so, TM needs to start a new post.


It may well have been a sting, even if there were prisoners warehoused in Europe.The point is in the details. What she was told that few others were.

I don't see why the Post's and Priest's records cannot be subpoenaed in a criminal investigation, but the paper said they haven't been subpoenaed yet.

Someone asked earlier, the affect this may have on the Libby case. If McCarthy played a role in the referral and Fitz still intends to proceed with this nonsense, I do not see the judge continuing to allow the SP to keep the referral letter secret. Libby has a right to see if this was--as I am certain this was--a total setup based on a lie. Certainly anyone who participated in its preparation can be impeached by the obvious lies in that letter.

It is disheartening to see how the media is trying to spin this. It didn't work for Rather and it won't work now.

I don't know what motivated McCarthy--money, power, ideology, spite--but I am certain we will learn more and more.
Possibly, she feared that other leaks and treacherous acts she engaged in would be discovered and felt that only a Kerry win would protect her from criminal prosecution. Maybe she was even being blackmailed.

As to A. McCarthy's query as to why she was not yet under arrest. Possibly she has been cooperating for some time while under total surveillance. Possibly her arrest was not announced yet until search warrants and wiretaps were approved to round up her confederates who certainly have to be afraid and are, therefore, likely to make some stupid moves.



It’s getting to be just like Hurricane Katrina.

I was at the Hurricane Pam exercise and deal with Emergency Managers from every state and Homeland Security officials regularly. In doing so, I know what responsibilities belong to each organization, fed, state and local.

Brownie was under orders not to point fingers, even though the bulk of the problems stemmed from Kathleen Blanco’s inability to make decisions and the incompetence of Louisiana officials. Because the White House kept its mouth shut and refused to place blame where it was due, 99% of the screw-ups were placed squarely on the administration.

This reluctance to defend themselves has become a major problem that affects the ability of the administration to implement programs that I agree with and want in place.

My question is: Why do they just sit there and take it?



I I don't know if you can get that show on the net. I'm sure Expose the Left will have some video on it by tomorrow morning though, it was pretty rich.

The 60 Minutes thing was absolutely appalling. I left the room in disgust. Just pathetic.



Just saw the 60 min piece on wmd/yellow cake/Niger/forgery.

Smoke coming out my ears, eyes, nose etc.

Haven't these so called journalist heard that smokin' joe is a lying nutcase?

Buddy Larsen

Juan William's coda was to repeat several times (referring to McCarthy & her activities) "But SHE's bearing the cost, SHE's bearing the cost!"

I wish one of the panelists had reminded him that the info wasn't McCarthy's to give away, and that no one really knows who--besides the people of the free world in general--is "bearing the cost".


j.west ... a very valid question. Perhaps the new press secretary will have more cajones (figuratively speaking of course).


Who watched 60 minutes anyway? The same kind of nuts who read the NYT--people who are playing in a folie a deux--you lie to us and we'll keep watching and pretending it's knews.

Now, the story that broke her dismissal, reported that someone in the agency unhappy about her treachery, tipped off the investigators.

Who ? What else does he know?
Who else in the agency is involved? (We know about the outside chorus by now). Let me venture a guess:It is someone else in the IG's office. If that is the case, someone in the nerve ceneter was onto her, someone with the capacity to find out about everyone else in her operation.


Doubt 60 minutes was live - so what did they leave on the cutting room floor of Bartlett rebuttal.

Just watch Woooof - he has it down pat with live guests:

If solos - PUBS GO FIRST

His questions are formatted to create confusion - sorta like the stop beating your wife classic.

His demeanor and voice is incredulous at any good answers.

Then Dem comes on and refutes all to a smiling Wooooof.

If is a "head to head" - Woooof interrups the Pub - gives the Dem all the time in world and lets the Dem overtalk the Pub.

If on a really good point, Woooof breaks in with the we have to take
aaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkk aaaaannnnnnnddddd cccccooommmmmminnnnnnngggggg uppppppp nnexxxxx

When then come back he asks new question.

Only Pubs that get to talk there heads off are anti-war, anti-Bush or just pure RINOS!

I have some faith that parents who try to teach their children some manners cannot but be aware of the MO of the LEFT stream media.


*********NEWS, not knews and nerve CENTER

This reluctance to defend themselves has become a major problem that affects the ability of the administration to implement programs that I agree with and want in place.

My question is: Why do they just sit there and take it?

The degree to which the government is staffed by career democrats makes full scale frontal assault on the problem risky. They can only take steps that EVEN DEMOCRATS will go along with, provided they're unafflicted with the Seafoam Syndrome. (Cecil's new term, Certain Frame of Mind or CFOM)


The best thing to do about 60 minutes is don't watch, no matter how tempted, or how interesting the topic sounds.

I remember when there was the incident with the Communist propagandist from Italy who was shot in an incident at an American checkpoint. By the time 60 minutes interviewed her, many of her allegations were proven to be false, but the interviewer did not challenge her at all, it was a puff piece for the anti-American communist, I mean award winning journalist.

I won't watch them or increase their audience by one. I don't know why the Administration does not fight back, it is puzzling.


---If McCarthy played a role in the referral and Fitz still intends to proceed with this nonsense, I do not see the judge continuing to allow the SP to keep the referral letter secret. ---

Well, especially since the referral to the DOJ was leaked to Andrea Mitchell.

One more classified tidbit handed to our "proxy"


Interesting, TS. Clearly deceptive. Imagine that.

Larwyn- I don't know. I simply don't think the whole thing was a sting. I also have no problem with the idea of foreign nationals being held in foreign prisons, it isn't that I like the idea it's just that I think intelligence operations are by nature unsavory.
It makes perfect, logical sense to me that the prisons exist in some form.

I can't imagine how many people might be in such a 'prison' or how many people it might take to operate one, or if they are all manned by CIA operatives or if foreign intelligence personnel are involved (that would be my guess). As I said, Colin Powell indicated that foreign governments know all about it, approve of it, participate in it. They were being hypocrites, but they bashed us over the head with it.

If it was a sting, it was damaging to us. If they exist, it is helpful to us in the WoT. However, I don't think they are black-hole torture chambers, and I think McCarthy and Priest presented a skewed picture of what they are and what routinely goes on there and why. That's just what makes sense to me.


Happy to hear you agree on Kerry.
Just odd that with this jerk out there every day, this traitor undermining the President that you included Hanoi Jane and omitted the guy that helped to save all those Cambodians from US Bombs.



If she was cooperating, would they have 'marched' her out of the building? Wouldn't her clearance have been pulled immediately? I don't think she is cooperating. I think she is going to take the brave whistleblower walk and the MSM is going to roll out the red carpet for that walk.


Maybee, when I say "sting" I do not mean there were no such prisons or that we made up the entire thing to catch her. Again, I think there was a suspicion that she was already leaking and she was given some details that were not true which when they appeared in print were obviously sourced by her.

The IG's office knows a great deal about operations from the people who perform them. It would be a cakewalk to feed her lies.


eek. My last post was referring to TS's 5:04 post.


Who on earth is this brilliant Axey person? What wisdom. What insight. What moronic person blew her on cover? ::grin::


An answer to "what do they see?"
Right there at American Thinker:

Paul Shlichta includes Aquinas, Damien and Mark Twain to
explain the psychomyopic, psycholglaucoma and
psycholastereopsis views guiding the behaviors of many

The Psychomyopic Democrats

.......I have been waiting for someone to say the obvious, waiting in vain until I feel compelled to blurt it out myself.Here goes: “Many Democrats want the US to fail in Iraq!” I don’t mean that they think we’ll fail—they want us to. They want a big embarrassing collapse of US military and political policy in Iraq and will do whatever they can to make it happen. There, I’ve said it and I feel much better.

But the vast majority of Democrats think of themselves as loyal Americans and a polygraph would show that they honestly believe it.The neural pathways inside their heads run something like this:
• The best thing for the United States would be for the Democratic party to come back into power.• A really embarrassing failure in Iraq would tip next year’s election toward the Democrats.• Therefore, a failure in Iraq would be good for the USA.

Blurring the Mind’s EyeOne such aberration is psychomyopia, or mental nearsightedness. Like most politicians in most parties in most countries of the world, these Democrats cannot see beyond the next election. Issues such as the fate of our nation, the fate of the Iraqi people, and the success or failure of Islamic terrorism are vague blurry background features that they cannot discern.. The only thing their brains can focus on is the nearby goal of getting into power and staying there.
Bureaucrats and (if you’ll pardon the double misnomer) civil servants are often so preoccupied with career survival that they cannot see even the most urgent assigned tasks in any other light. Journalists can be so obsessed with publishing a scoop that they are oblivious to the harm they may cause by doing so. And let’s face it, dear reader, haven’t you and I occasionally been guilty of similar myopias?

The symptoms of psychomyopia are easily confused with those of psychoglaucoma, or tunnel vision—a preoccupation with one aspect of a situation, coupled with a willful refusal to consider certain other aspects. As in physical ophthalmology, the latter is much more serious and (along with psychoastereopsis – failure to perceive depth) one of the few aberrations of the mind’s eye that can twist a soul into something evil.

A psychomyopic cannot see some aspects but chooses as best he can. But a victim of psychoglaucoma chooses evil by seeing only what he wants to see and avoiding what he doesn’t want to see....
Unfortunately, detection of psychoglaucoma is not as easy as that little gadget in the optometrist’s office. It is insidious, often diabolically subtle. One telltale clue is reluctance to argue about certain aspects of a topic and impatience or anger when forced to do so. If you hear yourself saying something like “I don’t want to discuss it” or “let’s change the subject”, it’s probably a warning—perhaps the only one you’ll ever get.
your mind’s eye (and ear) open, and like poor Damien, be patient and try to comprehend what your opponent is trying to tell you. At the very least, you’ll set a good example. To misquote Mark Twain, you’ll “gratify some and astonish the rest”.

Worth a complete read and save - great terms!


Axey. I am not in on any of this. What I say is pure speculation. I do not think they'd announce her firing unless they had already received cooperation from her and felt there was little more to be gained by keeping this secret. What the announcement served to do it give them a shot at the reactions of her confederates who by know are certainly under surveillance and going mad with fear.


“Who watched 60 minutes anyway? The same kind of nuts who read the NYT--people who are playing in a folie a deux--you lie to us and we'll keep watching and pretending it's knews.”

Today was my first time in at least a year – maybe two. I had red on JOM that the segment was coming up. I had the dumb box (TV) on to see the replay of FNS Juan Williams melt down (also noted earlier on JOM) and flipped to CBS at the end of that just because I knew that this was coming.

It was all twisted up. There was (per CBS):

A report to Cheney that the African WMD/uranium info was probably bad and Cheney asked CIA to send someone to double check. Joe did and came back and confirmed that there was no evidence that Sadam had ever even known that Africa existed and what yellow cake was. This info was sent directly to Cheney and Bush for them to totally ignore in time to put 16 words in the State of the Union speech.


That "60 Minutes" piece was appalling. They repeat allegations that are weeks if not months old. Hell, years old. Allegations that have been shown to be false.

One small point:

Ed Bradley says near the end of the segment:

The Washington Post recently reported that in early January 2003, the National Intelligence Council, which oversees all U.S. intelligence agencies, did a final assessment of the uranium rumor and submitted a report to the White House. Their conclusion: The story was baseless. That might have been the end of the Niger uranium story.

What Bradley leaves out is the rest of the story (NIC Report) where the NIC says:

The intelligence community is concerned that Baghdad is attempting to acquire materials that could aid in reconstituting its nuclear program.

As nearly everyone who posts here knows, the Niger uranium issue involved more details than simply the issue of the forged documents. Rumors based on those documents were indeed that, just rumors. But there was lots of other evidence that supported the view that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger and the DRC (Congo).

All these details Bradley conveniently left out.

The press is just a joke.



red = read


--The press is just a joke.--

almost an understatement



Axey is me. I forgot to change back into my regular clothes after dumpster diving. ::grin::


No kidding? That was the report? My God. Did they learn nothing from Dan Rather?


This is MSM's new 'No Falsity Left Behind' campaign.

It's not even 'fake, but accurate' anymore, it's 'fake and false'. The Season of Deceivin'.


The blogs need to start a letter writing campaign. We need to make so much noise they can't ignore us.


Sue, it was like alternate universe stuff.

The Ace

Um, can one of the producers bother to read this to Ed Bradley:

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998

And this:

The Butler report said: “The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purposes of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.”

Oh and this little gem too:

A cable attached to the key memoranda indicates that on September 10, 2001, one day before the terrorist attacks on America, Prime Minister Amadou of Niger told embassy officials "that there were buyers like Iraq who would pay more for Niger's uranium than France.

Being a liberal means being ignorant in today's world...


Meanwhile, the article itself refers to an early believer in "fake, but accurate":
The exhibit cites a quote from Kim,
Tigerhawk today:

Joseph Goebbels, a decade before he became Adolf Hitler's propaganda minister:

"I believe that `The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion' are a forgery. (However) I believe in the intrinsic but not in the factual truth of the `Protocols.'"

They have learned from the masters of "deceivin"

"season of deceivin,
season of treason"

we got a beginning - now to just find an OLD ROCKER!


Their ignorance is precisely measured by the bias present in the MSM. It is cause and effect and cause; a mortal maelstrom.


Just to recap, the 60 Minutes piece was exactly what I expected them to do.

However, if the White House isn’t out there tomorrow morning demanding a retraction/correction on that story, blanketing every outlet with facts showing Wilson’s lies and screaming to high heaven that Dan Rather is back in black face, I just don’t know if the truth will ever get out.

A blogstorm ala Rather/Mapes would be ineffective if the administration confirms the CBS report with silence.


There is a time to a every season and to every reason a come on now everyone, sing it.


Goebbels quote for you.
Don't know how your name and
Tigerhawk today ended up inside 1st


Dan Rather's blackened Irish farce.
The many Mary's bare-faced arse.


Rock Chalk Hygher Talk.


They are torturing us. Kerry all over CSPAN & FONDA on Larry King rerun. After all the other mendacity of today.
Must be saving John Dean for tomorrow.

JM Hanes


"It seems to me that if we use it more liberally, if you will, that it loses some of its sting, its power, its ability to shock."

I'm not sure that it's the concept of "treason" that's in danger of dilution, as much as it's our capacity for shock. What's most disturbing is the clear partisan divide which has opened up over what is considered shocking and what is not.

I know I was utterly stunned to hear Jay Rockefeller casually admitting he had personally alerted the Syrians to putative US military plans, yet it was almost entirely ignored or dismissed on the left. I'm also shocked at the astronomical increase in National Security Letters which can be issued with virtually no oversight and have become all but routine. I'm amazed at how willingly many on the right seem to accept a Presidential designation of "illegal combattant" as sufficient for the suspension of a citizen's constitutional rights. Charges and counter charges of hypocrisy on basic issues are not difficult to make.

Rick Ballard


Why not consider the intelligence and leanings of the 60 Minute target audience, as well as most of the Demsm? They are pretty much unreachable by the WH except through talk radio and the blogs.

The WH does refute the garbage - the info can be found at the WH site and at the sites of various Republican pols. The Republican party regards the Demsm in the same way that they regard CA and NY - unnecessary for retention of power. I believe them to be correct in that assessment and I believe that we will see further evidence of that assertion come November.

It ain't about "being right" or "in the right" or anything like that. It's about gaining and retaining power - and the Reps can do it without the Democratic party organs. It's a no win proposition to come out to play on a tilted field. If you would like to consider vengeance then watch NYT, Trib and WaPo stock. It's happening.


j.west: I've already sent an email and I will follow up with a phone call Monday morning.

Mailing Address

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461


Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121


Please send your comments to comments@whitehouse.gov.

Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message. For further up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you, please continue to use the White House website.

Vice President Richard Cheney: vice_president@whitehouse.gov


Axey-- I see your friend is not happy with you again ::winking::


JM Haines:
Re National Security Letters.

I was under the impression that the recipient of an NSL could refuse to turn over the requested information?



JM Hanes


"It's a no win proposition to come out to play on a tilted field."

It's also a no win position if you refuse to play. If the Dems actually had any coherent message that could pass the giggle test, I doubt Republicans would end up keeping both Houses come the mid-terms. It's going to be a hell of lot harder for the Republicans to keep their majority, not to mention actual their numbers, than it should be. That so many Republicans feel compelled to put some distance between themselves and the President is not simply a matter of cosmetics, it will have continuing ramifications when it comes to the success of Republican initiatives.


Maybee, when I say "sting" I do not mean there were no such prisons or that we made up the entire thing to catch her. Again, I think there was a suspicion that she was already leaking and she was given some details that were not true which when they appeared in print were obviously sourced by her.

The IG's office knows a great deal about operations from the people who perform them. It would be a cakewalk to feed her lies.

Good point, and I can accept this. The IG's office, if it deals with the sensitive information I'm led to believe it does, would have to have some pretty strong measures in place to counteract the desire/ability to leak and to find the source when it happens. They can't be naive enough to believe nobody in the office would ever be interested in leaking.

As a related point, there's a quote in the WaPo today that most people see as excusing McCarthy, but I don't see it that way:

In his experience, Kerr said, "nearly all senior officers at some time want to take a complaint somewhere else."

I see this as saying, yeah, every last officer comes across something they'd like to complain to the press about. She wasn't special, her circumstances weren't unique, she simply chose to leak where others don't. That isn't praise.


I'm having a hard time accessing this KOS reference in google cache...doesn't show up on cache...is this the same Mary?

Daily Kos: Veterans for a Secure America
... Mary Matlin · Mary McCarthy · Mary Pallant · Mary Robinson · Mary Schindler ... Ray Kurzweil · Ray LaHood · Ray McGovern · Ray Nagin · Ray Reggie ...
wilbur.dailykos.com/tag/ Veterans%20for%20a%20Secure%20America - 864k - Cached - Similar pages

here is the google search page


Foo Bar

I know I was utterly stunned to hear Jay Rockefeller casually admitting he had personally alerted the Syrians to putative US military plans

I'm not sure I understand the anger at Rockefeller over this. Rockefeller says he told the Syrians in January '02 it was his view that Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq.

Bush assured us many times before the invasion that he had not made up his mind. For instance, at this press conference on March 6, 2003, he said:

I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully

And in November '02 McClellan told us:

But the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort.

So apparently Rockefeller was feeding the Syrians misinformation. What's wrong with that? Or was it true as of Jan '02 that Bush had made up his mind, but that later on he no longer had his mind made up?

Or is the objection that no one could possibly have guessed as of January '02 that we were even considering an invasion of Iraq? Note that as of late '01 Cheney was already touting the Atta-Iraq intelligence connection, and we'd already invaded Afghanistan. Is it your opinion that no one could have inferred from that that we were even considering an invasion of Iraq as an option?


Peach, I'm not certain what your link says, but there was an author named Mary McCarthy. She was pro-feminism, anti-vietnam.



When they asked the White House to comment, all they received was a lame few sentences from Dan Bartlett.

Shouldn't that read:

When they asked the White House to comment, all they claimed to have received was a lame few sentences from Dan Bartlett.

So, keep on keeping on with the good fight.

As for not fighting back. Egads that's been a problem forever. Some of it, though, is rope-a-dope. another reason is even if they do fight back, the MSM will tear apart everything they say anyway.

The next Republican administration can finish the job of ridding the rank and file of the rest of the treacherous bunch that isn't nabbed in this round.


re that claim that the memo itself proves that Plame was not covert because she was not redacted when other stuff was sounds good. Except. The declassification occurred March 31st of this year and surely she is was no longer covert (even if she never was) by that date so there was no need to redact her name.


My question is, was McCarthy working in the IG in the summer/fall of 2003 when the referral was sent to Justice? Has that been established?

As for her cooperating, I think that's wishful thinking. We'll see.


--My question is, was McCarthy working in the IG in the summer/fall of 2003 when the referral was sent to Justice? Has that been established?--

that is my wonder Syl. Also as it pertains to the "leak" Andrea Mitchell got about the referral.


To me:
I was under the impression that the recipient of an NSL could refuse to turn over the requested information?



Recipients are compelled to provide the information (in most cases).

Hmm, I can see the original need for such letters but the potential for abuse is pretty large. Technology is really challenging the laws.


Cecil Turner

I'm amazed at how willingly many on the right seem to accept a Presidential designation of "illegal combattant" as sufficient for the suspension of a citizen's constitutional rights.

The term is "unlwaful combatant," was coined by the Supreme Court (the final arbiter of this sort of thing), and AFAICT is the current law of the land:

An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of war. [. . .]

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. [. . .]

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war.


So someone blows the whistle on Bush's overseas Gulag and, as she is a democrat, you all want her burned at the stake?

Meanwhile Bush leaks the NIE and you all roll over like puppies?

Rick Ballard

j. west,

See, there's 60 Minutes audience. You could tattoo 'declassify' in mirror writing on their forehead and they wouldn't be able to read it in the mirror in the morning.

Willfully ignorant and not particularly bright - the MSM target market.


snore sonic.


Wow.....hard to keep up as usual.

Several questions and points:

1. 60 Minutes = National Enquirer of the airwaves - why bother?

2. Where are the J's on this?

3. Sonic - what gulag are you referring to? Got any proof of it at all? It ain't whistle blowing if you're not allowed to tell the press by law.

4. If you missed my post on the other thread I am disappointed that nobody liked my coined term for the demoNcrats - the Society of Subversion. It seems to fit better now.


Syl, It is not yet clear that she was there when the referral mletter was sent. The Wa Po article suggests she was there at that time. I know that the letter could not have met the test De Genova said it had to meet; I know it waited a bit at DoJ before that agency acted on it; I know Libby has sought discovery of the letter and the delay. I know Mitchell got a leak about the letter, and that Conyers, and other Dems on the Hill )IIRC Sxhumer) seem to have been intimately aware of its passage thru the federal maw.


No link yet -- But Drudge has this is RED



That's all they've got. Bush legally de-classifying the NIE. That's it.

The Democrats are doooomed.

JM Hanes


The re-autorization ultimately mitigated, in part, a few of the most egregious abuses, but don't thank Republicans. NSL recipients are actually permitted to contact a lawyer! I believe that you may -- now -- legally, challenge such an order, but that the penalties for non-compliance or for violating a gag are also stiffer. From Republican rhetoric when they were trying to railroad the re-authorization through, however, you'd have thought the folks holding out for extension or delay were demogoguing minutiae, and this dismissiveness was reflected in many a discussion forum.


I noticed Larry Johnson deleted one of my comments. The one in which I mentioned that the NIE did NOT have information on Wilson's wife and that Libby did not reveal Valery Plame, Novak's source did.

The truth will out. Yeah right.


Inspector General Rebecca R. Donegan (Acting)


Meanwhile Bush leaks the NIE and you all roll over like puppies?

Sorry, rub my tummy.

In a representative democracy the elected officials make policies and not bureaucrats in the government. If those in the government cannot carry out the wartime national defense policies made by those elected officials, they should resign.

George Bush's name was on the ballot box not Mary McCarthy's. The President of the United States can decide to declassify information. Intelligence officers may not declassify information.

Would it have been acceptable for OSS agents to release information on where the US was keeping Nazi agents or officers? Because they thought their "rights" were being violated?

How far do you think this is acceptable? When it's a president you don't like enacting policies you disagree with?

What about releasing classifed information from disgruntled officers who don't like the policies of a Democratic President?

It that okay?

One of these days we'll have a Democrat running things. The rules you make today to get Bush can be used tomorrow to get your guy.

And please, I won't even dignify the "gulag" characterization.



Frog-march Scooter Libby.

Defend McCarthy.

Good leak, bad leak.

My head spins along a Democratic demagogic axis.



Thanks for info. If it wasn't McCarthy there are still more to nab.


I heard she took a series of polygraphs--not just one. No link. Don't remember where I saw it.


The President cannot leak.


JM Haines:
I believe that you may -- now -- legally, challenge such an order, but that the penalties for non-compliance or for violating a gag are also stiffer.

Clearly this is potentially bad stuff. I can understand the need originally for such measures (agencies requiring documents in hearings); but the potential for abuse is quite high.

I'm still unclear as to whether in most cases one can refuse the request or not.

FBI says you can (Link)

ACLU is (hyperbolically) unclear.

I'd like a third party ruling, please.

The comments to this entry are closed.