Powered by TypePad

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

May 29, 2006

Comments

Sue

Clarice should send it to VF and ask for their response.

Sue
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.)

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/vanity_fairs_profile_on_joseph_wilson_and_valerie_plame.php>Vanity Fair article

topsecretk9

...The person at CIA who ”facilitated” that request was Alan Foley, then director of the CIA office of Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control (Winpac). Foley was Bolton’s main contact at CIA in the area of WMD, and he spoke regularly with both Fleitz and Bolton "at least once a week or three times a month," according to his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff during Bolton’s confirmation hearings for his United Nations appointment. What is so interesting about this is that Alan Foley, as the head of Winpac, would have almost certainly known and worked closely with one Valerie Plame Wilson who worked in Non-Proliferation Division of the CIA, the operational side that worked hand-in-hand with Alan Foley's Winpac in the area of WMD.

Link

Lurker

Thanks!

"(Foley could not be reached for comment.)"

Well, that explains it very well.

Wonder if his security clearance / classified status prevents him from confirming it?

Sue

I can't find a retraction. He had to know he was named in the VF article.

Tom Maguire

Why aren't any Fox News reporters on the list of leak recipients?

As to Ed Morrisey - Captain Ed? C'mon - in 2003, he had not yet brought down the Canadian government, and was a relative unknown.

I would think Safire, Will, and Hoagland (of the WaPo) should have received a brutal, punishing leak to discredit Wilson. Or Matt Cooper, who is nearly at their level in the Cpnservative Pantheon. Nearly.

topsecretk9

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.)

hmmm...did the VF authors get that from the Wilson's?


http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011530.html

Sue

They had to, if Foley could not be reached for comment. So who is lying? The Wilsons or Foley?

topsecretk9

--As to Ed Morrisey--

And here I thought maybe there was some weird DC coincidence in the name and there was some Ed I hadn't known...like Robert Novak and Vivica Novak, Richard Cohen and William Cohen.

topsecretk9

Sue
It's a bit weird he put on e-paper a denial that could printed and handed off to a perfect (I'm assuming) stranger rather than VF

and also, that he couldn't be reached for VF doesn't necessarily mean they were calling form him to confirm he was her boss, I guess. I mean it could be just any comments you want to make about the story in general

kate

I thought Rove/Libby's had an interesting leak strategy. Sit around and hope they bring it up--hard hitting, punishing, cruel, yet subtle. Don't call them, let them call you.

One thing I was always curious about, after Novak published Plame's name and Matthews was told by Rove that the nepotistic Plame was fair game, was there then evidence of a plot to release her name.

I always got the impression was she played a minor role as in: Plame sent the fool, not Cheney, Plame, the wife, not Cheney.

Sue

I'm assuming Clarice is sure the email is from Foley. If so, it is just plain weird that all over the internet there are stories about him being her boss but no denials.

topsecretk9

Sue

It's a bit weird he put on e-paper a denial that could printed and handed off to a perfect (I'm assuming) stranger rather than VF

I meant, it's weird that he send this to a perfect stranger who send it on...

Me thinks the VF people weren't looking for his **confirmation** he was her boss, but to get an interview and he declined. They weren't questioning who her boss was (and if scary larry provided back up confirmation who needs anything from the horses mouth)

topsecretk9

---I'm assuming Clarice is sure the email is from Foley. ---

She got ahold of his email just a little while ago and sent him an email (sounds like she sent him a few to finally get a response)

Sue

The whole response is weird.

Lurker

:) Regarding "Surely there are a lot of Bush administration friendly reporters. Yet none of them has stepped forward to prove that the reporters all knew (without being told by the administration) about Plame/Wilson."

Somebody provided Clifford May. Can anyone name these reporters?

highcotton

This is how I would phrase a question to Tim Russert: "With your dad (and your God) as a witness, tell me what you know about Valerie Plame/Mrs. Wilson/Joseph Wilson's wife/CIA agent and when you learned it.

topsecretk9

for arguments sake...if he wasn't her boss or even aware of her existence then does "managerial type" (from the INR memo) make more sense?

topsecretk9

Oh and for my own personal need:

for arguments sake, and he wasn't her boss and this just went under the radar, exactly how many lies do the Wilson's get to tell before it matters?

Just curious.

Sue

Top,

To be honest, I'm bumfuzzled. Why in the world would Foley not deny being her boss for almost 2 years? I can't find anywhere where he has publicly denied what he told Clarice. Too strange...

Javani

Sue: "The whole response is weird."

Russert flew past again. W's question was double negatived and confusing.

You know what's weirder? That Libby decided to pin his "a reporter told me reporters were saying" on a reporter he was having a hostile interaction with. Why not pick a friendly, or one not so but at least with whom the main topic was Iraq-related.

Why would Libby be so stupid to pin this on Russert?

Orrrrrr,

He's not making it up.

Carol Herman

Why wouldn't Russert take the 5th, when he's called to the stand? Just because he's said things to Blitzer?

All you know is that CNN is catering to it's own crew. This is NOT stuff that the world really watches.

All you know is that Fitzgerald would have been happy if the PRESSURE he put on Libby FORCED LIBBY into a PLEA.

Libby, instead, decided to fight. And, he's fighting in DC. With his team. If this were chess, we'd say he got the black pieces. While Fitzgerald, who did get to move first, is playing the white.

From there it's just a question of appraising what works in the courtroom.

Why think Judith Miller goes in as a happy camper? Why not think that Bill Bennett is working hard to protect her interests?

NOW, Clarice says that Judith Miller's LEGAL BILLS are being paid for by the NY TIMES! (Does that mean Bill Bennett has to share the information? Or is Judith Miller "well lawyered up?")

What sane lawyer lets his client take a seat in a criminal trial and then not think the 5th works just fine?

Russert, on TV, was moving the pieces on the board that belong to Fitzgerald. But the judge did say that Russert has a problem on paper. And, COOPER definitely has a problem on PAPER. And, from Judith Miller will get shredded, from her own paper trail.

EVERYTHING RUSSERT IS SAYING NOW IS "AFTER-THE-FACT." (Like dinner mints.) But the trial will deal with what happened PRIOR to Libby's being charged.

Yes, the media will work hard at trying to help Fitzgerald. Until the law, itself, hands one of those witnesses a gun. Or they all take the 5th?

Whatever happened to analyzing the tactic that happens when witness just sit their spouting the Constitution's Fifth?

Oh. And, when you speak of FOLEY. What if it's FOLEY's SIGNATURE on the REFERRAL LETTER? What if George Tenet had the brains to duck?

I'll guess that Judith Miller has some idea on how the SET-UP took off. In other words, she was part of the orginal "conspiracy" tactic to brink Libby out on the limb. What did sitting in jail for 85 days do to her? Then, what happened when Jill Abramson and Maureen Dowd ATTACKED? Is she now just a pawn that gets shoved off the board?

What is Bill Bennett telling her to do?

And, just what did Libby mean by "The roots of the ASPENS ... are so well connected ...that when one set of leaves "turn" in the fall ... they all quickly turn, thereafter?"

Why did Judith Miller even WANT a letter from Libby? Wasn't she just stalling for time? So that Fitzgerald would give her a "limitation" on his questioning? Wasn't it a nice present to receive? All she had to do was talk about Libby. And, then there's a void.

HAS THIS VOID BEEN SOLVED,YET? If questions about others weren't raised in the Grand Jury room, perhaps Fitzgerald's sure the judge won't give access to any questions about all the others, either? Hmm?

Is judge Tatel happy that on his signature he sent Judith Miller off to prison?

Will Judge Walton's court room ever be the place where the issues of CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PRESIDENCY EVER GET RESOLVED? ("Racism" is just a PC word. It's not a helpful, or useful, tool.) But chessboard pieces are either black and white, or black and red. And, the rules are set. Russert and Cooper baited Libby. Baited others, too.

And, Woodward doesn't want Pincus to take the WaPo down. Calibresi also was part of the conspiracy. Given his phone records, alone; you can practically smell the set up of the Vice President. Rove. And, Libby.

Of course, Judge Walton can end the fun and games just by tossing out some of Fitzgerald's charges. (Which may be one reason Russert's willing to make public statements, now.)

Are people taking bets that Fitzgerald's tent folds before January 007?

clarice

I read where he was working now. I checked the website's contact lists for his addy there, I sent him the email and got this back from that addy. (It is a government site.) I have no reason to believe this is a false response. When I return Wednesday night, I'll mtry to write up something on it. If he headed WINPAC and he never heard of her or Wilson, what does that mean?

Does it mean she wasn't working there? That she was working somewhere else? I wish I knew..I'll have to give this some thought, and ask you all to do so, too.

kate

Javani-I reread the indictment and the Cooper article on "What I told the Grand Jury".

I know it's been discussed here before but I was struck by how confusing Libby's answers were.

He did something I sometimes do when telling a story or quote myself. I'll add on something I thought to something I said. It makes the comment funnier or stronger. My friends, who know me, ask: did you say that. I said, well, I thought that last part.

He was so concerned with not sourcing this information back to government or classified sources that his

I heard that too; evolved into

I heard that too from reporters.

Libby either had a poor lawyer or did not listen to his lawyer.

Javani

Carol:

"But the judge did say that Russert has a problem on paper"

I know for Cooper but Russert? Please remind me.

"""I'll guess that Judith Miller has some idea on how the SET-UP took off. In other words, she was part of the orginal "conspiracy" tactic to brink Libby out on the limb."""

I doubt it. It was all going to be insider secret stuff except Novak blabbed even though his sources asked him not to.

""Why did Judith Miller even WANT a letter from Libby? Wasn't she just stalling for time? So that Fitzgerald would give her a "limitation" on his questioning?""

Yes. The idea that she needed a "stronger" waiver, thereby the letter from the horse's mouth, was a ruse. The real action was getting the limitation that she would be only asked about Libby. For example Fitz had to ask who told her about "Valerie Flame," which she wrote down in her notes. When she doubted it was Libby Fitz didn't press investigate her circumstances of that day to determine who that leaker was.

Sue

It wouldn't be that big of a deal if it hadn't been reported in a piece that Wilson and Valerie provided the information. Why would they lie about who her boss was? And if VF got it wrong, why haven't they retracted it?

clarice

< a href= http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=anl.gov+alan+foley&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-web-top&x=wrt&u=www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2004/news040316.htm&w=anl+.gov+alan+foley&d=bqXAKDmtMvu3&icp=1&.intl=us> March 2003 Foley goes to Argonne Natl Lab

Here is the article giving hie new employment and confirming he was head of WINPAC at the CIA.

I have to read his denial as saying she was not..for how could the director of that program never have heard of someone assigned to his division.
If she was not at WINPAC, how could Libby's atatement have revealed anything secret ..indeed, how could it have been based on anything he learned from official sources?

Javani

"I know it's been discussed here before but I was struck by how confusing Libby's answers were."

Because he was trying to promote a rumor. Skating thin ice, as was everyone.

And I suspect Russert was trying to verify a rumor. One person told him, how could he get Libby to confirm? Allege it's insider common knowledge.

BTW, you telephone me for 5 minutes complaining an underling of mine slandered you. At the end I ask you one question whether you can confirm Barry Bonds takes drugs, I say everyone knows. Can I not say our "conversation" was about the underling without lying?

I don't think "I heard that too" (Cooper) evolved into "all the reporters know"(allegedly Russert). It could have, but IIRC, and I may not, Libby was leaking the "all the reporters know" soon after Novak's article.

Sue

A better question, why is this just now being denied? And in an email. Do you know him?

clarice

Sorry==for the goof up this is an unfamiliar computer..It was March 2004 that Foley lleft the CIA.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=anl.gov+alan+foley&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=my-vert-web-top&x=wrt&u=www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2004/news040316.htm&w=anl+.gov+alan+foley&d=bqXAKDmtMvu3&icp=1&.intl=us>March 2004

clarice

Sue, I don't know Foley..I just asked him a series of questions which were perfectly logical if he had been, as reported, her boss at WINPAC.

Sue

What about forwarding the email to Vanity Fair and see if they respond?

letters@vf.com

kate

Javani-you're right. The two quotes concern the conversation w/Cooper. I believe his perjury was that he said "I heard that too from reporters" while Cooper says Libby said, "I heard that too."

That's a slight difference for perjury and I suspect the Cooper charges may be dropped before trial.

I'm assuming Libby's imaginary discussion w/ Russert was a little longer and possibly stronger, since apparently poor Libby didn't even discuss Wilson/Libby/Plame but just the show.

Sue

Has no one asked him that question before?

clarice

No, it's an interesting enough mystery that it deserves to be blogged on its own ..Of course, there is no reaspon why not to email the blog to vanity fair for comment, but it is a more important issue than getting VF in an error..

Sue

I don't think VF had the error. I think either the Wilsons lied to VF or Foley is lying. For some reason, I am suspecting Foley in this instance since it has been almost 2 years and no one has even questioned him being named her boss in that article.

Javani

Kate:

"I'm assuming Libby's imaginary discussion w/ Russert was a little longer and possibly stronger, since apparently poor Libby didn't even discuss Wilson/Libby/Plame but just the show."

Why do you think Libby chose Russert to pin this story on? Libby's talking with reporters on a daily basis about Iraq but he decides to frame this false story onto a conversation he initiated to register a complaint unrelated to Wilson?

maryrose

I attended the John Carroll University Scholarship fundraiser where Tim russert was the featured speaker having attended John Carroll in the 70's. He talked about his 2 books and there was no Q and A.
His advice to his son in college:
Study hard
Laugh a Lot
Live Honorably
So I guess we wait and see how this all plays out.

kate

My initial reaction is that Libby got confused and mixed up Russert with someone else.

I'm not sure because you're right Russert doesn't make sense to weave a false story about since they didn't discuss Wilson at all.

I still don't get the advantage over the real conversation with Russert which would be good to testify to - nothing about Wilson/Plame. Then he makes up a story that looks like he's talking about Libby/Plame with fake quotes. What does he gain? Even if he thinks Russert won't reveal him as a source what does he gain from the madeup story???

It puzzling, really.

Sue

Who says Libby and Russert didn't discuss Wilson? No one has asked that question that I've seen.

Pete

Will reporters save Libby? It is not looking this way. May said two and a half years ago that reporters knew, but he has not reiterated what he said or offered any proof. Andrea said it once but has retracted her statement (and I suspect to protect the leakers in the Bush administration). Which other reporters have publicly made this claim?

Russert will be a key witness, and based on his recent statement, I think his testimony will be damaging for Libby.

I look forward to the trial, though I think that a pardon will pre-empt the trial.

kate

I thought that Russert claims that they just discussed Matthews show, nothing about Wilson, Plame,

Javani

"My initial reaction is that Libby got confused and mixed up Russert with someone else."

That's a possibility. And if a reporter did say to Libby "all the reporters know" that reporter will not come forward and admit he or she exaggerated to compel Libby to think it was safe to confirm a rumor. Wouldn't look well to admit these tactics to the public, reputation and all that.

"Even if he thinks Russert won't reveal him as a source what does he gain from the madeup story???"

Good thinking. Perhaps they did talk about Wilson's wife so he pinned the "all the reporters know" on Russert. But then, Russert denies talking about Wilson's wife in that conversation.

Sue

Matthews show was about Wilson wasn't it?

MayBee

I think either the Wilsons lied to VF or Foley is lying. For some reason, I am suspecting Foley in this instance since it has been almost 2 years and no one has even questioned him being named her boss in that article.

I'll go with the Wilsons for $500, Sue.
They held out their little sugar cube nuggets of 'truth' for the VF reporter, and the reporter just lapped them off their hands. That's what VF does- it is a great read, but it is an agenda magazine.

Just as VF reported that Wilson's office was in Rock Creek's office space but he wasn't really with Rock Creek. Except that online transcripts of Joe Wilson speeches in the year previous identify him as an employee of Rock Creek.

Perhaps Foley didn't read the VF article, or perhaps he was not interested in getting involved in the whole Wilson bru ha ha.

Javani

"May (Libby?) said two and a half years ago that reporters knew, but he has not reiterated what he said or offered any proof."

It was less than a year. And he did offer "proof." His testimony. Unless there's an audiotape there could be no more "proof" except a confirmation from the reporter.

kate

I think it was mostly Matthews spitting out stuff about the neo-cons and Libby furious that there was some subtle anti-Semitism from Matthews. Don't know if Wilson came up or not. Russert says no...

Sue

Kate,

Where does Russert say they didn't discuss Wilson?

topsecretk9

Perhaps Foley didn't read the VF article, or perhaps he was not interested in getting involved in the whole Wilson bru ha ha.

I agree with MayBee. Since, in the big scheme of things it is sort of an aside factoid (i.e.. significant to no one in particular but Plamiacs) I can honestly see (look at the man's picture) him not even reading it. (or that factoid either)

Another thing to consider...he could absolutely not have been her boss and not particularly thrilled with the Wilson's himself (i.e. considers them to be liars) and so perfectly happy to let them have their dream world scarf wrapped spy optic some day come crashing down on them (referral letter?)

topsecretk9

I also look forward to someone familiar with these things (hint Cecil, hint, hint Cecil) let us know how Foley's email affects CW of Valerie's job if true.

Sue

Russert: Libby called me to complain about something he had seen on MSNBC...

Imus: What did he complain about on MSNBC, do you remember?
In December 2005, this is what Russert told Imus...

Russert: I haven't gone into it,--you know-publicly-cause I just didn't want to get involved with all that viewer complaints, but I do remember it because of his language that he chose and that's why- I actually called Ben Shapiro, the president of NBC news and said I just gave your direct line to this guy named Lewis Scooter Libby, who is upset about something he watched on TV and you may hear from him.

Imus: Was it Chris Matthews?

Russert: It could be you...

The shows of Matthews around the time of the phone call had to do with the VP sending Wilson.

Rick Ballard

TS,

Aside from Novak's assertion as to her being a CIA WMD 'operative' and the Ford memo (and meeting notes) assertion of her being a WMD 'manager' or 'managerial type' (which could have been a cover descritption) where else is there an assertion as to Plame's actual job?

I think that's what Clarice is asking and I don't have the grasp of detail to offer a response.

Sue

I'm sorry, I screwed that post up...I've put my post in the middle of the Russert interview... ::grin::

This is my quote...In December 2005, this is what Russert told Imus...

Sue

Ms. Merritt on the show that she (and I) think Libby called to complain about...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/russert-and-libby-the-sh_b_9762.html>Huffington

Sue

And here is Tom on the subject

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/defending_lewis.html>JOM

topsecretk9

Aside from Novak's assertion as to her being a CIA WMD 'operative' and the Ford memo (and meeting notes) assertion of her being a WMD 'manager' or 'managerial type' (which could have been a cover description) where else is there an assertion as to Plame's actual job?

Oh Gawd...had a thought. What if Tom Christian was/is right and she was just a recruiter...(don't worry it's a link to TM)


and so that's why Priest and Woodward and son Laugh out loud at damage

Neo

What ever happened to "Jason's scoop" ?

topsecretk9

Neo

shhh. We're just supposed to pretend A- it never happened or B- Rove is indicted and there is a super secret sealed indictment (pay no attention that the sealed indictment case number is the same as Time Inc.'s case number in USA vs. Libby) and all this is so totally unprecedented and Rove spokesman denials are the ULTIMATE in spin.

topsecretk9

Sue

This weird, but I was just re-reading the link above ... anyways, when I read Tom Christian's comments to me...I seriously start to think it is Scary Larry...really...they are hard to tell apart.

Sue

Top,

LOL. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Lurker

Interesting!

Strata-sphere just reported that USSC ruled against "leakers":

USSC Slaps Leakers - Little Protection

Still limited ruling, nevertheless.

Sue

Top,

I strolled over to Tom's site and re-read some of his posts. He has gotten threatening emails from Scary Larry too. ::grin::

clarice

The USSC ruled against leakers as "whistleblowers". I do hope Fitz gets a copy of the opinion.

topsecretk9

oops, just posted this on that old TChristian thread...again...


Sue

This is interesting...this was one of the people that put Brewster Jennings on their resume

May 3, 2006 I received an e-mail from a Robert Ellmann at ellmann@seznam.cz . He stated that he had not worked for the CIA. According to him he is doing "an internet research project": "What I am doing is an internet research project. May I ask you to fill it out?" I declined to "participate".

Yeah, Larry's email to TomC --"listening to your phone calls, got friends on the inside" -- Did Larry go to FISA for this? Always wanting to be the 4 year, 17 years ago expert.

topsecretk9

--The USSC ruled against leakers as "whistleblowers". I do hope Fitz gets a copy of the opinion.--

Yes Clarice, lurker just posted too...that referral letter might be hot potato now that Walton has it.

Sue

Top,

That place is so spooky I have to creep around hoping he doesn't notice me. ::grin:: He certainly has it in for the CIA.

Sue

I don't see how that would affect Fitz one way or the other. He isn't prosecuting for retaliation against a whistleblower. Officially, anyway. ::grin:: Besides, the court merely affirmed what was already known. Official channels have to be adhered to first. If you are passionate about what you are complaining about and official channels aren't handling it, speak out as a citizen. 1st amendment right. In other words, resign and spill your guts. Sort of. They were much better in their legaleze than I am. ::grin::

Sue

Actually, I threw in resign and spill your guts because that is what I think you should do. They didn't mention resigning, but did say as a citizen, you have the right to go public, but as an employee, you don't.

What they actually said was

"We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties," Justice Kennedy said, "the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

To hold otherwise, he continued, would be to give employees "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit," as a matter of constitutional law. It would "commit state and federal courts to a new, permanent and intrusive role" of overseeing internal communications in government workplaces, the justice concluded.


topsecretk9

Valerie took FULL leave and then held on for FULL retirement. She was not retaliated against.

topsecretk9

i.e. the woman was looking for a way out the door with a big pay-off for big living, one --no matter how hard she tried--- her husband was unable to pull off.

Sue

I don't know if we will ever know the true story of Valerie Plame.

Something weird popped up when I was looking for Alan Foley earlier. Seems Ray McGovern was excited when he resigned from the CIA. He felt Foley would start talking, in the manner of the brave Ambassador. http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern10032003.html>McGovern

topsecretk9

So, no matter how important Joe thought and projected himself...he still probably wasn't able to convince any investors to finances diddle squat when he went into "business" ---which is kinda embarrassing when you think that everyone makes money out of Gov't....and I for one would not be surprised if he were not able to put deals together--- I'd think he were full of crap just like the Hotel workers in Niger....they called him Mr. Clinton (i.e. Wilson acted waaaaayyyy more important than he was--- still does)

Mara

Tonight I heard Murray Waas interviewed by Sam Sedar on "The Majority Report". Wass was suggesting that in the next couple of weeks we will definately be hearing more about the 3 months that Attorney General John Ashcroft stayed on the investigation before recusing himself. Sedar said he was going to try to get more info out of Waas on that subject but then ran out of time and didn't. Any ideas as to why we will be hearing more about this conflict of interest and time delays in the "next few weeks"? Just curious if anyone has some ideas...

topsecretk9

Sue,

When i read that all I could think about was Seixion's VIPS post and the people who "disassociated" themselves from VIPs for being dishonest. I think the VIPes are engaged in LIE warfare...and faking any knowledge of "Alan Foley" is just par for the course.


These people are really beyond sick, really. They are sort of drunk on lies and I guess hate.

topsecretk9

-- Any ideas as to why we will be hearing more about this conflict of interest and time delays in the "next few weeks"?---

because there is no new development and nothing interesting to report, so old unimportant crap seems new and shiny?

MayBee

I agree with TS, Mara.

If Waas says we'll be hearing more about that time, its because Camp Wilson wants to talk to Waas about that time.
Which means it will make Ashcroft and Rove look bad.

topsecretk9

Which means it will make Ashcroft and Rove look bad.

and Rove for realsies this time, promise no crossies, indicted.

Carol Herman

Don't know if you saw it, but Justice Kennedy just wrote the majority opinion letting government workers know they're not protected under the FIRST AMENDMENT when they leak, because they've got opinions that differ from elected officials. In the weight of his decision, he's pointing to being ELECTED as the factor that rules.

I'll also bet that Bill Bennett is a very good lawyer.

And, I'll go with a CONSPIRACY, cooked up by the FRENCH, with the Niger forgeries, to let Bush make his State of the Union speech (way back in 2003?) The trick was to have Bush not just accused of LYING (about WMDs). But to be impeached. Didn't happen. Didn't mean it wasn't planned.

PLAN "B" was the Plame Game.

And, if nothing else, Judith Miller was holding out against testifying in front of the grand jury UNTIL Fitzgerald told her he wouldn't ask about anyone BUT Libby.

THE CONSPIRACY THEORY LIVES.

And, when this case hits the courtroom (if it hits the courtroom, without being dismissed, beforehand), then at least Judith Miller would have every reason to TAKE THE FIFTH.

What are lawyers for? There job's to keep you OUT OF JEOPARDY. And, if the Supreme's just said insiders who work at the CIA are not protected FROM leaks, if they get caught DOING LEAKS, you're gonna see a lot of backtracking taking place. Judith Miller wouldn't be the only witness told to TAKE THE FIFTH.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. But I don't think you can pick and choose your way through questions, answering some, and then going to THE FIFTH. You pretty much have to parrot the FIFTH from the first question, onward.

Now, that would be interesting for Judge Walton. He can't forbid it. And, I guess after a certain number of questions, he'd have to let the witness go.

How many witnesses take the FIFTH. Depends on how close they were to the SET-UP. And, how "gossip" works in DC. (Seems when things happen that are hush-hush, a lot of people end up knowing about "stuff.")

BOB WOODWARD GETS TO WRITE THE BOOK. About the CONSPIRACY to topple this Bush's Presidency.

IF the courtroom turns into a circus; and Fitzgerald really produces no witnesses of merit against Libby, then the Prosecution "RESTS." Be funny if all Theodore Wells has to do is "REST" as well. And, the judge has to instruct the jury that its NOT CRIMINAL TO TAKE THE FIFTH. If you know there's an underlying crime, you do not have to implicate yourself. That's the law.

The jury can be in and out in ten minutes. Definitely under an hour.

Why did RUSSERT go on TV? Because he's got an idea that this case does not go to trial in January 007. And, his favorite person, Bubba, is also known for his skills at parsing questions. So, there ya go. Russert told ONLY HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. There's more to come.

kate

Sue-didn't post last night because I was getting real tired. Found it's best not to post when tired, lots of typos, jumbled thoughts.

You are correct, my source for the fact that Russert didn't talk about Wilson is Russert. He said that he talked about a TV show. If those shows were about Wilson it is likely the topic of the noble whistleblower may have come up. Don't know...

Syl

re Foley

Remember the CIA is a bureaucracy too. And there are about 25,000 employees at Langley. It's very possible Foley didn't know who Plame was and had never heard of Wilson.

I don't know how many work for WINPAC. And, IIRC, though I don't remember where I heard it, I read something early on where Valery was on loan to WINPAC from CPD. Not necessarily something Foley would know about. She probably wasn't even the only one.

I think Pavitt was closer to the situation. Down the chain a bit--closer to the actual employees.

And wasn't there some connection between Pavitt and Harlow?

Carol Herman

Remember, Clarice, Alan Foley might just be PARANOID. Like Nixon.

In other words, you touched a nerve. Enough so that he responded to a STRANGER. With "facts." Trying to brush off his imaginary woes, I suspect. (For a boss not to "know" a WMD worker; when that's his baliwick, seems very strange, indeed.)

Especially if you look at what Mark Felt knew, and how he was able to take down Nixon; while nobody at the time had more than a clue. Nixon, himself? He suspected Felt. But was never able to get the word out in time. And, it turns out Felt, at 92, gets mad, because he never made any money.

"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you don't have real enemies."

As to e-mails, up at Little Green Footballs, Charles Johnson has been bumping up an IP ADDRESS from REUTER's. Where he had gotten a death threat into his e-mail. He then SHOWED the IP address information on his blog. Reuter's has yet to own up to anything.

Whose to say if push came to shove, Alan Foley wouldn't come out attacking, you, Clarice, for blogging about "ficticious stuff?" You should see the way REUTER's is now dancing around IP ADDRESS information.

Carol Herman

RUSSERT, and Andrea Mitchell, too, are both using the EPIPHANY "defense." In other words, "even if everybody was talking about IT," the "IT" didn't click until the light went on. And, for both of them, it's Novak's column.

Since the witnesses against Libby are attempting to use the "memory defense," to make it look as if Libby is a liar, what should get noticed is that RUSSERT is using the TV medium, in a way in which he is very familiar! (The friendly interview.)

Doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the real world, I'd imagine.

The other thing, when Bubba "parsed" the "I didn't have sex with that woman," he only had to do it ONCE. How come Russert keeps repeating this? Does he think his audience "forgot?"

kim

TS, he was rehearsing in Niger for when he might be Mr President.
=======================================

JM Hanes

Clarice

I'd go ahead and publish your query and Foley's response before asking anyone else about it. You can theorize about it later. That story is a real get, and you should get the credit for it.

You could mention that you're contacting VF (and anybody else) for comment, and then refer VF to your item when you do. They may feel more inclined to respond if it looks like they are being publicly challenged? Just a thought.

BTW, if you do write to Vanity Fair, don't forget to ask which wife was at the Wilson/Kristoff breakfast!!!!

JM Hanes

tops

"Oh Gawd...had a thought. What if Tom Christian was/is right and she was just a recruiter..."

ROTFLMAO! Sooo funny, but it makes a weird kind of sense, doesn't it?

JM Hanes

Cecil

If he'd kept his trap shut, I'd have a different theory. Instead it's denials citing "Plame." My Occamizer says "parsing."

I suspect Russert told the NBC crowd that he couldn't get away with saying absolutely nothing (esp. in light of Miller & Cooper's expansive statements). So they worked out the one paragraph non-denial denial that he's been repeating almost verbatim since he introduced it on his own "Tim Russert" show last October. I remember thinking that the whole conversation with Mitchell looked staged when I saw it at the time.

Lurker

Can Alan Foley get you for copyright issues by publishing his email? Just wondering...

Lurker

He's trying to get us to forget that Hardball show.

He also knows that he's become the primary witness in the Libby case. Why else would he appear to be more willing to be interviewed and asked those specific questions since the last Walton rulings? Wasn't he sorta quiet about this before the last rulings?

kim

We don't know what Plame did. Apparently her boss didn't either. Now, that's covert.

Next question. Did Val know what she was doing?
==============================

Cecil Turner

So they worked out the one paragraph non-denial denial that he's been repeating almost verbatim since he introduced it on his own "Tim Russert" show last October.

Yeah, I think that's the highest probability competing theory. And if it were just a matter of telling the story, I'd probably guess that one as most likely. But that begs the question of why the denial wasn't a bit more definitive. My suspicion is that they do in fact have a source, and are parsing their way 'round having to provide a name. (Though again, there's not much to pick between the two.)

kim

Don't you think Wells we'll either take him apart or force him to divulge this witness, then take them both apart?
========================

Sue

Syl,

He didn't just deny knowing her to Clarice. He denied being her boss. If she worked for WINPAC, wouldn't he have been her boss whether he knew her personally or not?

kim

It is earthquaking if for real. I'm reminded of Brinkley tired of Kerry putting off on him the excuse that his records couldn't be released, and growling, go ask him.

If real, this may be a similar Foley growl. Go ask your source.

Hello, Joe? Got a question for you. Val around? She might be able to help. Did she tell you Foley was her boss?
========================

kim

And, if real, it means Foley thinks he has plausible deniability. Would those clever people have set it up so Joe would be left holding the bag if the job failed.

Joe. Got another question for you.
====================

kim

C, if you've not been disinformed then the rats are slipping down the lines. The problem is, what rat ever announced he was abandoning ship? I'm dubious, but thrilled anyway.
===============================

sad

Maybe the reason for Foley's silence is as simple as the expense of retaining an attorney during an investigation. A special prosecutor means lots of fees for lots of people for lots of years.

lurker

As for Ashcroft recusing himself, he either saw it as a conflict of interest (e.g., his investigation would be geared in support of the WH adm, etc) and know how the MSM would treat and grill him. I don't think he saw anything damaging to the point that it will hurt him or Rove.

Pete seems to think that Rove, Ashcroft, and Bush are EEEVVVIIILLL!!

Carol Herman

Well, Clarice, I'd imagine if you're the recipient of the e-mail, then you own the "rights." (Little Green Footballs put up the death threat they got AFTER Charles Johnson identified the exact location of the computer. Not that it just was Reuter's property, either.)

But who says that e-mails have to be honest?

If that were true, why would BUYER BEWARE be such an establish FACT under the LAW?

Could Alan Foley say the e-mail isn't his? AGAIN, he can say whatever he likes! Maybe, he "knew" Valerie "AS THAT BLOND BIMBO."

I still think it's Alan Foley's name on the REFERRAL LETTER. Which is still a secret. BUT it's in Judge Walton's hands, now.

Yes, Alan Foley can do SLAP SUITS. They're not against the law, either. And, where's the CONTRACT? For you to swear you've been lied to, FIRST YOU NEED A DOLLAR BILL. Or "CONSIDERATION." Alan Foley didn't even shake your hand. Hence, no contract.

This is a very big CONSPIRACY; considering all the facts. And, how the french government was involved in trying to produce a situation where Bush would fall. (Perhaps, parliamentarians are weak at understanding our system?) DeVillpin was hip deep in a ruse to destroy SARKOSY. So far, the french rats haven't been tossed. And, french governments fail, routinely.

Given that CHICAC LIKED TO BUSH'S FACE. So we got to have those 16-words-in the SOTU speech; and then DeVillpin lied to Colin Powell. Turned around. Left the room. And, went on CNN. So that Colin Powell's "jaw dropped to the floor."

Don't forget, Valerie Plame (Amb. Wilson's WIFE #3), was "PLAN B."

Wife #2 is Jacqueline. Deep in the french diplomatic/intelligence corp.

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.

None of Joe Wilson's wives are dead. And, there may be more than enough money to go around. For a man with 3 wives he sure seems to be leading the good life. What? No alimony? If this were true, he must know some great lawyers.

Carol Herman

Talking of great lawyers, wouldn't Bill Bennett want to know what Judith Miller was like BEFORE he took her on as a client?

When did lawyers lose the cover extended to priests in the Confessional? In other words THEY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. THE WHOLE TRUTH. Beause they don't want to be surprised, later.

Even while Judith Miller was in prison, she was entitled to converse with her attorney and the government was forbidden to stick in "ears." If they eavesdropped ... I'd bet they collected worthless trash. And, problems, galore, if they ever tried to use it!

What do you think Bill Bennett would have discussed with Judith Miller? Her specialty was WMD's. And, she was Chalabi's "contact" with the "great" NY Times for TEN YEARS. (Given that Yitzah Rabin, when he was Prime Minister of Israel, let her watch an interrogation of a prisoner; important to Chalabi) does make ya wonder just how "deep her roots do go?"

Anyway, IF Judith Miller again has to testify, you can be sure Maureen Dowd and Jill Ambramson WILL attack. You can also question, SINCE the NY Times is picking up Bill Bennett's legal bills; that Judith Miller has been assured she can tell him the truth, just the same. And, he will do everything within his legal powers to protect her.

Judith Miller knows how to protect sources. I'm sure Bill Bennett isn't gonna push her around.

While all Russert did was talk on TV, to Blitzer, in a well-rehearsed piece. Since when does constant repitition of an "epiphany" keep working? AGAIN, there's real evidence. And, then there's the sham circus. Just waiting for the suckers who are born every minute.

Bush, today, has problems, because many Americans who supported his stance in Iraq, are now have major problems liking arabs.

Sue

Judity Miller's lawyer is Robert Bennett.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame