Powered by TypePad

« Enough With The "Magic Hat" | Main | My Constructive Suggestion »

May 29, 2006



Judity...I like it...maybe we should rename her...


I'll say it again, you have racism issues flowing from your keyboard.


Now that is an interesting typo.

Carol Herman

No, Sue. You just don't get epiphanies. The issues aren't mine when they describe reality.

NEXT: Clarice,

What if you've got the e-mail address of "AN Alan Foley, but not the man you were thinking of? There's gotta be more than 1 Alan Foley in DC. Let alone in government.

Interesting, though, that you did get an answer that included a denial. PLUS a request from the email sender to you, not to write to him, again. (And, you fell into his email box. He didn't solicit you.)

Did anger get the best of this guy?

And, why can't he lie to you when he asks you to leave him, alone?

Is it any different for anyone who solicits information? In other words, does it matter if you "do funny stuff" with telemarketers? (Because there's a comedian out there who does a whole routine on this stuff.)

Ah, yes, BILL Bennett is the more famous brother. Got it. Doesn't change the fact that not only did Judith Miller decide she wanted THIS lawyer; her lawyer got the option, at first, to decide if he "wanted to take the case." I'll even venture to guess that in the small, small world of DC, Bennett KNOWS Theodore WELLS. Clients don't blind-side these guys.


The opinions, though colored, are thought provoking.

JM Hanes


"The" Alan Foley in this instance did, in fact, move over to the Argonne Natl Lab, which is where Clarice has said she found his email address. That sort of question/challenge, however, is why I suggested that she keep a hard copy which includes the internet headers on file.


Lurker and Cecil:
I think you have both hit on the correct explanation for Russert's behavior. It was very hush hush initially when he gave his statement to Fitz. Then word got out and they with Andrea Mitchell had to invent a cover story-non denial denial. So far it is working however if they want to claim the Fifth they can. Remember the Marc Rich pardon investigation? You had Denise Rich and all her Aspen buddies pleading the Fifth all over the place. Hence no action taken Interestingly enough,Libby was one of the lawyers at that hearing.



"Wife #1? Hardly mentioned at all. A young thing. Married Joe very early. But what IF she was part of the circle from college that also incudes Marc Grossman? Why assume she's not in the mix? HER NAME, I THINK, IS JENNIFER. And, now "Jennifer" shows up, too."


Is this the wife that married Akitu AND indicted?


I don't think that Rove, Ashcroft or Bush are evil.

Ashcroft should have recused himself FAR before he did. If the reports of Ashcroft being personally briefed on the investigation are correct, I think it is a huge conflict of interest.

It is interesting that the only time the Bush administration felt free to publicly claim that Rove and Libby had no involvement in the leak, is when the investigation was under Ashcroft and when the reporter's testimony would not have been sought.


Let's see, Pete, if the referral letter has a conflict of interest, before you crow about the one Ashcroft removed himself from.


Deputy Attorney General Comey said was that Ashcroft withdrew because, in an "abundance of caution," the attorney general "believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation." Comey added later in the press conference that the "recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest that arises normally when someone has a financial interest or something. The issue that he was concerned about was one of appearance."

My point is that this should have happened much before it did, and that Ashcroft should not have been receiving the personal briefings since they related to individual(s) whom he worked very closely with.


We obviously haven't learned a lesson from history if the resolution to Ashcroft's conundrum is the Fitz Star Chamber. Let's see the referral letter.

Remember, this was an illegitimate disinformation campaign aginst the administration. Why SHOULD one of the team be nobbled?

Carol Herman

JM Hanes: Even under the best of conditions, UNSOLICITED email "could" end up elsewhere. For instance, someone moves their desk. And, the old email address pops up on a computer now used by someone else.

Just like when you move from your home; and old mail arrives. Nobody stops the next guy from opening it up.

And, Alan Foley might not have a clue that Clarice Feldman publishes stuff at the American Thinker. Then add he might not know about this site. He could have responded to an unwelcome solicitation. PLUS, CYA covering, as well. It doesn't give you clout in court. And, I'm not so sure you'd get "clout" if you repeated this stuff elsewhere. As someone above points out. Copyright laws. And, all.

It's good she wrote. Nice that it produced a response. But it might not pass muster in the real world, just the same.

As I said, Charles Johnson, at Little Green Footballs has had over 500 postings from a computer that originally sent him a death threat. And, is OWNED by REUTER's. Doesn't seem Reuter's is taking this very seriously.

Though Charles Johnson has the technical knowledge to SPOT the IP Address. How many ordinary (non computer scientist folks, for instance), can do that?

The judge now has the REFERRAL letter.

And, Libby seems well lawyered up.

Maybee: Typo's are just typo's. CHIRAC LIED TO BUSH'S FACE TO TEMPT HIM WITH THE NIGER DOCUMENTS. (And, ya know what? Even through the typo, I bet'cha knew I meant the french guy.) (Is the Argonne Lab also out of the country?) Is Alan Foley BEYOND THE REACH OF SUBPEONAS NOW?

Libby's very small potatoes in this BIG mix.

And, Fitzgerald DOES HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THIS CASE, because, for starters it's very, very weak. Even if he were to "get" Libby, so what? And what's his likelihood of getting a conviction, anyway? About as good as Nifong's?

I don't know about you guys, but I remember when Monica Lewinsky was QUESTIONED by a roomful of HOUSE lawyers. And, she whupped 'em. They didn't lay a glove on her.

By the way, ARAFAT once lied to the President of the USA, when he denied knowing anything about KATRINA A. Maybe, we're just in a whole new universe where the truth doesn't count for points at all?

And, the courts still haven't said emails are "truthful" documents. Not only can they be "created" ... you don't even get experts to testify about ink samples. Who comes in to swear on a stack of Bibles that the sender is correctly identified? Or stuff like that.

We're just on the outskirts, however, with the real stuff tucked neatly INSIDE the offices of a few of the players. I'd imagine that a CONSPIRACY TO TEAR DOWN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE will have an even more powerful set of legs to it, eventually, than those of Monica Lewinsky. While nobody will remember what we write, here.

One question about FOLEY, though.


"Deputy Attorney General Comey said was that Ashcroft withdrew because, in an "abundance of caution," the attorney general "believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation." Comey added later in the press conference that the "recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest that arises normally when someone has a financial interest or something. The issue that he was concerned about was one of appearance."

Exactly, one of appearance. Ashcroft knew that the facts would point in favor of the WH adm and by the same token, he knew what kind of a treatment he would get from the MSM moonbats, he has no choice but to recuse himself. He knew exactly what the MSM moonbats will do when he says that WH adm says that Rove and Libby were NOT involved in the leaks in spite of the 3 month investigation. To date based on the public information available to us, Rove and Libby are NOT the leakers.

I am not so concerned about the 3 months that he put into the investigation. He probably needed that 3 months to do the investigation and make his decision.


They are complaining about Ashcroft waiting 3 months before recusing himself? Wasn't it just the other day someone was on here arguing that Ashcroft wasn't pressured to recuse himself?


OT, but does anyone have a link on Wilson's marriages? Who his wives were and how many times he married?


I doubt if anyone but the hard core loyalist believe that Libby and Rove did not leak. Even their attorneys are not saying that. And nobody is buying that line.

Anyone who has taken Ethics 101 can tell that it was wrong for Ashcroft to be receiving briefings of the investigation, when the investigators were telling him that they suspected that Rove (a close associate of Ashcroft) was not telling them the truth.

My head is hurting from the spin.


Pete-I see no serious evidence of leaking by Rove or Libby. In fact, when the details of the phone calls were released I was surprised at how benign the calls were.

The reporters called the officials, the calls were short, they focused on other issues...

I expected Rove to be calling from some back alley, hey Coop, you alone. I got some scoop for you, pass it around, Plame sent Wilson.

As for leaking, who in DC doesn't leak, If you're talking about criminal leaking, even Fitz isn't claiming that.

Tom Maguire

If Foley headed WINPAC, wouldn't his denial make sense if Plame was at CPD (which, IIRC, was what Cheney told Libby?)


Fitzmas in July????? Great reporting, knowledgeable sources, and a leak about the leak story. So tell me something I don't know.



That it happens all the time in DC is a different matter altogether. It may look benign to you, but still Rove and Libby leaked.

If there was no criminality involved, why didn't Rove and Libby step up at that time and admit then that they leaked but broke no laws?


I think it was leaking Plame's name and they did not think they did that. Why should they start confessing to things they didn't do...to make you feel good.


Carol- I promise I wasn't making fun of you. There is something wrong with me, I find amusement in the meaning some typos take on. Something about the mispelling and liking Bush's face just tickled me, that's all. Sorry for the offense.


kate - "I think it was leaking Plame's name and they did not think they did that. Why should they start confessing to things they didn't do...to make you feel good."

For starters there was a press conference where Scott McClennan flatly declared that Rove and Libby had no involvement at all.

Sometimes I think that you all are so suspicious of Russert's statements because you all are so conditioned to hearing the 100%-correct-yet-totally-misleading statements from the Bush administration officials.

And more importantly, they made false statements to the FBI.


Pete-I think the statement was that Rove/Libby didn't leak the name. I think that the White House could have been more straightforward, however, every time the White House is honest the Democrats and their allies in the media beat them up with it.

I think this is a triffling case that should never have gotten past Fitzgerald's initial review. Too ambitious, I guess.


Fitz even said that Libby did NOT leak. Fitz never indicted Libby for leaking. Just the perjury and obstruction of justice. Fitz now knows that Libby is NOT the leaker now that Woodward came forward and said that Libby was NOT the source of the leak. Woodward also said that Rove was NOT the source of the leak.

Due to the latest Walton rulings, the Cooper counts have virtually weakened to the point of disappearance.


"If Foley headed WINPAC, wouldn't his denial make sense if Plame was at CPD (which, IIRC, was what Cheney told Libby?)"

HHHmmmm...worth a thought.


Libby and Rove DID NOT LEAK period and are not charged with it. Scott MCClelland was right YOU ARE WRONG PETE!
I have to put that in caps because you seem to be hard of hearing. You want it to be true so bad that you think by endlessly repeating the same mantra you will convince We remain unpersuaded by your repetitious albeit BORING PROPAGANDA. Please start singing a new song.



Well, Tom and Lurker, you may be right--on the other hand, there are some oddities about the issue..Here is my draft blog, and I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts:

In the Vanity Fair article which was obviously sourced by Wilson and Plame, Alan Foley is described as Plame's boss:



Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, visited the C.I.A. several times at Langley and told the staff to make more of an effort to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to uncover Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear capabilities. One of the people who objected most fervently to what he saw as "intimidation," according to one former C.I.A. case officer, was Alan Foley, then the head of the Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center. He was Valerie Plame's boss. (Foley could not be reached for comment.) [/quote]

Ray McGovern,a prominent member of the misnamed anti-administration group,Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity(VIPS) who was active in the effort to get intelligence officers to leak secret information against the war, claimed to know Foley and suggested early on that upon his resignation in May 2003, Foley might join the VIPs in attacking the Administration. http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10032003.html>Ray McGovern

A few weeks ago, I wrote to Mr. Foley and asked him the following questions:


1. How long have you known Ray McGovern?
2. Did you approve sending Wilson to Niger?
3. Were you the person who determined he needn't sign a non-disclosure statement?Were you the person who determined he needn't file a written report?
4. When did you inform Pavitt and/or Tenet and/or any other person above you in the agency hierarchy about the Mission?
5. Did you play any role in the preparation of the referral letter?
6. If so, did you state therein that Plame was a NOC? That the agency had done everything possible to protect her identity from disclosure?
7. Were you ever questioned by DoJ investigators (including FBI and CIA agents acting on their behalf) about the Mission? When?
8. Did you ever discuss the Mission to Niger with Ray McGovern? If so, when and what did you discuss?[quote]

On the 29th of May he responded:
I didn't know that Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson existed until after the Novak article. I have never met nor communicated with either of them. Nor did I have any responsibility or authority relating to them, the reported trip to Niger, or the subsequent leak investigation. As for Ray McGovern, I don't believe that I have either seen or talked to him since before his retirement from the Agency. That was many years ago; probably sometime in the late 1990's. Please do not contact me again. [/quote]

Why did Wilson indicate to Vanity Fair that Foley was his wife's boss when she apparently wasn't? Why did McGovern suggest that Foley was going to become a more forceful critic of the Administration and the war after his retirement when he barely knew him and had had no recent contact with him at the time he made that suggestion?

Finally, if Foley was the head of WINPAC and he had no responsibility or authority for her, where did Judith Miller get this bit of information which she seems to suggest she got from Lobby at their July 8 meeting?
At that breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: "Wife works at Winpac." Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons.

I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative[/quote]>Where did Miller get this?


Hmmm....Winpac reference is perhaps not from Libby after all? You've hit on something, miss clarice. I do believe you have.

The "please do not contact me again" is interesting as well. This is a guy that doesn't seem to want to be involved in this controversy at all (not available to VF). I do wonder who McGovern was talking to, to believe Foley did want to be a part of this...thing.


This Winpac info could be gossip that JUdy Miller heard around the press room like Andrea and Matt Cooper


" Please don't contact me again"sounds like he has something of importance to hide.


Exactly..If Cheney told Libby Plame was in CPD, why would he make up a song and dance about WINPAC? Either he wasn't going to tell her anything of he'd tell her the truth.


maryrose.Do not contact me again, sounds to me like someone wants to clear the record but no more..He really wants to stay out of this.


Again--It should be MAY 2004


Will he be able to stay out or will he have to spill the beans or have someone else issue a clarification? think this new theory of clarice's is a breakthrough!


This case continues to be a he said/she said case


clarice:Do not contact me again, sounds to me like someone wants to clear the record but no more..He really wants to stay out of this.
My reading of it as well.

I don't think the man has any beans to spill. He just doesn't want to play this game he's been dragged into.


I just double checked the SSIC report..and there's not a word about WINPAC in it..the report says Plame worked with the CPD of the DO at the CIA.


"I have to put that in caps because you seem to be hard of hearing."

How about..."hard of reading"???? :)


This may or may not make sense or help, but just a day or two before Libby's indictment was announced there was an evening report that Rove may be in the clear because Plame really worked in the DO not WINPAC and anyways --

windansea and I dubbed the sources for that report the "three sneakies" (windansea will remember this -- he thought they were Rove friendlies -- I thought they were panicky you know who's (Scary, JW and VP)


"Information attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff in New York Times reporter Judith Miller's interview notes is incorrect, offering prosecutors a potential lead to tracking the bad information to its original source.

Miller disclosed this weekend that her notes of a conversation she had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on July 8, 2003 stated Cheney's top aide told her that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) unit.

Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, never worked for WINPAC, an analysis unit in the overt side of the CIA, and instead worked in a position in the CIA's secret side, known as the directorate of operations, according to three people familiar with her work for the spy agency.

"Accurate information presumably can come from any number of sources. If he got it from a particular document or in a meeting and that document or notes of that meeting are the only place that the inaccuracy is present, then that establishes the source," Cole said.

Danny Coulson, a former top FBI official who conducted several investigations of leaks, said the possibility that Libby passed on wrong information to a reporter may indicate he didn't get his information from a credible, official source.

"What it tells me is he probably got his information from dinner talk," Coulson said. Presidential aides "had access to the official information and if they had used that, you would think they would have had the right stuff." "


and instead worked in a position in the CIA's secret side, known as the directorate of operations,

funny, didn't they have their hands closer to the "forgeries"---or more definite info on such?

Posted by: WINPAC | October 17, 2005 at 06:42 PM

If I were Flame, I would have stuck with the WINPAC unit gig

Posted by: WINPAC | October 17, 2005 at 06:45 PM

links doesn't work anymore but it was Reuters and AP Oct. 16th 2005


TS--thanks for digging that up---


TS--here's a current link to that article.


Iy has been clearly shown that Libby was leaking to Miller, and Rove was leaking to Cooper. I don't know why some people are getting so worked up over these simple facts.


kate - "I think the statement was that Rove/Libby didn't leak the name."

That is not what the statement was.

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Q So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. I've spoken with them.



Apparently, they weren't or they'd be charged with that. And maybe her position wasn't classified, because UGO did leak and still hasn't been charged.

Carol Herman


Foley's name came from Ambassador Munchausen?

Wouldn't that mean Wilson was doing something to HARM Foley? Joe Wilson LIES. And, there's always a reason he lies. Foley might have been on his enemy's list?

Is Argonne Labs in the USA? Or is Foley now stationed abroad?

This story is like walking through fun house mirrors. And, I wouldn't put it past Wilson to say something INTO Vanity Fair; knowing they'd print it. And, what could Foley do?

You got a piece of information off to the side. How much does Foley know about your "secret life" where people on the Internet look forward to your analysis?

A long time ago, when I used to read the NY Times, the only by-line I knew was Apple's! (I think his first name was Tom.) But it was an amazing thing to read the whole paper and be able to ignore bylines.

So catching your name and now knowing I'll read what you write has something to do with your skills. But Foley may not be following this story? He doesn't need anyone jumping on his government computer, ya know? "Searching for Evidence." I still can't wrap my mind around the idea that e-mails are considered "evidence."



There is one more report, similar I think.


Perhaps Marc Grossman ---with his "managerial" memo secured---said she was WINPAC (to Libby)


Carol, I have no idea why he responded. Your comments are flattering and I thank you, but I think he responded because he wanted the record cleared . I think he didn't say anything earlier because he didn't want to become entangled in the case.

TS, as far as know Argonne labs doesn't have an overseas operation.

Remember that the VF piece came out in January 2004. The SSCI report wasn't issued until July of that year. Foley was at the agency when the VF piece came out and didn't resign until March of 2004. Perhaps he felt he couldn't do so while he was still at the agency and while the SSCI was investigating.

But since Wilson is the obvious source for VF, why would he give the magazine the idea that Foley was his wife's boss?

I have no idea what Libby knew on July 8 2003 or what Miller knew on that date, but my hunch is that Libby did not tell Miller this. We know she had Wilson's name and phone number in her notebook (I believe the notebook where she recorded the June 23 meeting.) Is it so odd to believe that after her first meeting with Libby in June, she chatted up Wilson? It seems that whenever Wilson was interviewed by VF for the Jan 2004 article he still believed or was telling people that Foley was his wife's boss.


---It seems that whenever Wilson was interviewed by VF for the Jan 2004 article he still believed or was telling people that Foley was his wife's boss.--

He didn't "believe" anything, he knew or is pretending he didn't and she is lied or let him lie.


But why?

I just reread Wilson's letter to the SSCI dated July 15, 2004, in which he objects to the finding that Plame recommended him for the Mission to Niger. In it he talked about the CPD and not WINPAC at all.http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05233.html

He says his wife worked as an undercover agent alongside DO CPD agents.
" It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. "

And yet, apparently months afterwards, he told VF that Foley was her boss.


The Next Hurrah had an interesting note on this issue.(Cannistraro says she worked at WINPAC..another VIPS who says so.)

"Vincent Cannistraro, Plame's former boss in Counter-terrorism, says she works in WINPAC
Contrary to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s reporting, former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro said that Plame worked undercover for the Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control, or WINPAC. (Wilson xl)

This Carnegie Endowment piece appears to imply that the CIA officer currently suing for wrongful discpline was kicked out of WINPAC; we know this guy ran assets (making him DO). If it's true the way they retaliated was by reassiging him, it means at least one DO person was associated WINPAC (this is a little associative--I'm not 100% confident in this).
This all-important September 2003 WaPo article sourced to the SAO who is likely Fitz' best witness implies she wears two hats, analysis and operations.
She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction.

Now like I said, I think the Carnegie Endowment connection is sketchy. And the CIA site doesn't really help--it clearly shows WINPAC is on the Directorate of Intelligence (analysis) side of the agency. But it doesn't say how it's organized. Alan Foley (head of WINPAC) made an offhand reference in his Bolton testimony to its formation, which makes it sound like it's one big umbrella organization that includes everyone having to do with non-proliferation.

But, you remember, WINPAC was put together early in the Administration, and I think Fred was with the Nonproliferation Center, one of the -- John Lauder's old organization -- and we were all, sort of, reorganized into one group then. That's what I remember. (7)

Basically, though, there's not much on WINPAC's organization. No big surprise there.

The other two bits of evidence I find more compelling. Vincent Cannistraro is a damn good source on CIA. He used to work with Plame when he was the head of counter-terrorism. Compare that to the quality of the sources in the AP story: anonymous and not even identified as having any affiliation with CIA (and even if they're in the CIA, the Porter Goss CIA has been stripped of many, if not most, of its independent thinkers). Hell, AP's sources could include the omnipresent Luskin! It strikes me that Cannistraro is a more credible source, at least until we learn more about the AP sources.

And I find the formulation in the WaPo piece quite intriguing. Plame was working in both clandestine services and working as an analyst, it says. If I had to guess, I'd say this is accurate. Plame has been back from overseas assignment for a few years (although still within the time limit stipulated by IIPA). But the Brewster-Jennings front company was clearly still active. Which suggests Plame likely still played a role in it, an operative role. But she may have been used in an analytical role, as well, since she was located at Langley.

In any case, I doubt this is the big news either the right or the left blogosphere thinks it is. Fitz clearly already knows where Plame worked. Sure, Libby may claim to be ignorant of her specific role. But it seems like Fitz has a good idea of the chain of the leak. Which means he is likely to be able to refute this defense, if that's what Libby is planning on using."

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/is_plame_winpac.html>shell game

Curious and curiouser..


This all-important September 2003 WaPo article sourced to the SAO who is likely Fitz' best witness implies she wears two hats, analysis and operations


THAT is why Libby's lawyers keep naming him and educating Fitz that Grossman snowed him...that is why Libby's lawyers are telling Fitz Grossman not only snowed your investigation but on a personal level knew and vacationed with the Wilson's and KNEW independently from the INR memo...so Grossman not only SAND THREW to Admin. in spring of 03 but has been SAND THROWING for quite some time


That INR memo Grossman called for, but didn't share for so long, was sure a CYA wasn't it?



Jeralyn Merritt poopoohed the AP report, relying on the VIPS all of whom said Plame was with WINPAC http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012775.html

Niters.. another night, another mystery..but whatever the VIPS or Wilson say, I'm going with the other side..in this case, Foley and the SSCI. She was not working for WINPAC. Whoever told Miller that, did not get it from official documents.


----and even if they're in the CIA, the Porter Goss CIA has been stripped of many, if not most, of its independent thinkers---

Well gee, those independent thinkers didn't get any bit of info right so? Keep them cuz they are independent thinkers that do no good?


Niters.. another night, another mystery..but whatever the VIPS or Wilson say, I'm going with the other side..in this case, Foley and the SSCI. She was not working for WINPAC. Whoever told Miller that, did not get it from official documents.

It's interesting looking back at those articles, because the focus was on how Libby got that bad bit of information (did he get it from gossip?). It seems the question actually should be, as you say, how did Judy get that bit of information? If Vanity Fair has it from the Wilsons, we know Judy has Wilson's number, we know Wilson is a yakker (I mean, he even gave an interview to Jeff Gannon), AND we know Judy has other sources she wanted to protect.
Judy maybe has some 'splaining to do.




great article!hopefully some answers will arrive soon to the questions raised.


Just in: Val's book deal rejected: She is now talking to Simon'Shuster. I wonder if that means a title change?


She's stupid enough to think that's a good title.

The tide is turning. If she's not complicit in Joe's mess, I'm willing to feel sorry for her.

Under the bus, out to sea; it can get lonely.


How great!! Remember all that flak when the deal was announced? About how astonishingly good her draft was, etc? Wish I knew the backstory.


Maybe she needs this book deal to fail. It will be harder to dump Joe with money pouring in.


Maybe Foley emailed the publisher.

Rick Ballard

Perhaps someone from the CIA sent a memo to Val with a copy of her NDA attached. Somehow I don't think that the person who approved Scheur's hit piece is still working at Langley.


Just an interesting factoid...if the Wilson's google their name every day, as I suspect they do, narcisism seems to be a family trait, guess what the first article a search of Plame brings up? http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=plame&btnG=Search+News>Clarice



Rick..I don't think so either..Can you imagine what they'll clear? Not much. These big payouts to untested writers for crap is a certain payoff for anti-Administration polls and critics.. As in so many things, Hillary! set the pace.

Very funny, Sue. I didn't know that. Personally, I should figure out how to bump TM higher..The VIPS live or hang out nearer to my house than to his..*EEK*


The publisher's probably figured out that Val as well as other ex CIA types recently received letters stating that they still have to get what they publish OK'd by the Agency. That might warp the business plan if they are duly diligent.


Check out 'Paging Ms Plame' by the New York Sun. They beat me to it. It's the second spot, after Clarice, on google.

Where's Mario when we need him? I'd like his opinion of the piece.


The last paragraph MAY explain a lot.


The CIA has always had a rule that agents and ex-agents had to clear thru the agency anything they write about it and their work. That is why the decsion to clear Sheuer's attack on Bush (but not other book attacking the agency) is one of the things that people like me who think this Plame business was a rump CIA coup attempt point to.

Then there were the travels around the country by officials like Pillar attacking the Administration, and of course the entire Plame fandango..

The whistleblower ruling has little affect on the book deal, but I do wish Fitz would read it and get his head straight about Wilson .


C, maybe the publisher got it's head straight about Val.



Not to worry...I doubt these nincompoops could find you if I led them to your front door. ::grin::

Carol Herman

Clarice ! Lucianne is headlining your American Article piece. Here's the link:


For the Christmas market, you should think of selling a BINGO set. Instead of numbers, everyone's card gets different clues. And, the "dots" are pulled. So that one card comes in first. BINGO.

Carol Herman

Refresh my memory if I'm wrong, but doesn't Judith Miller's journalistic credentials include her specialty "WMDs?"

Then, add that she had Wilson's number. And, had been in touch with him.

How "big" is the umbrella for WINPAC? (Are umbrella's big at the CIA? Wasn't one opened at Dealey Plaza, in the sunlight? Just prior to JFK getting shot in the head?) Too much symbolism for me, here.

The comments to this entry are closed.