Just so readers know, I’ll be posting today — there are a handful of surprisingly important items in the news — though I’ll probably have far less content than a typical weekday. Also, as a special treat, Saturday contributor Morbo will be stopping by this morning with a special Wednesday post.
I hope everyone has a happy, healthy 4th of July holiday. And now, back to the news….
I wrote some comments here last night that people may have missed. Check them out in edited form (for, hopefully, a little more clarity) on my blog.
Happy 4th! Thanks for posting today, and thanks to Morbo – I always enjoy Morbo’s posts.
Swan @ 1:
Subterfuge does have a way of twisting issues such that it’s often impossible to ever find the truth — and the more sinister the players, the more the unthinkable becomes possible.
To refresh my memory of who said what to whom and when, I looked over Wikipedia’s CIA Leak Scandal Timeline last evening. It is remarkable how many people in the administration are on record as having discussed Plame, Wilson and the Niger trip, and the length of time over which it was discussed. There were 10 incidents of leaks to reporters prior to the appearance of the first Novak article — and while no one admits they knew that Plame was covert (such being the key to a criminal act), they sure are being sneaky about it. Worth remember is that the CIA referred the case to DoJ — and DoJ knew about Armitage before it appointed a special prosecutor.
CB: I hope this means you’re taking some time off today; the InterTubz need time to process you previous output.
Worth remember is that the CIA referred the case to DoJ
Yeah, but if the CIA was in on it, would they act (publicly) how people expect them to act or would they do things that obviously make them look shady (“Ho, hum, some reporter exposed one of our agents, which is a crime… what do we care?”), when their whole business and expertise is deception? They have to think about and reflect on what they’re doing for more than a few seconds, if they’re making a living off of doing it.
Also it could be that the CIA never expected the investigation to get to the White House, but things didn’t work out that way. The CIA are not infallible, presumably.
It could be the first 10 attempts at a leak were meant to be to people who the CIA thought would end up causing harm to Wilson or to his reputation somehow, but it wouldn’t be as likely the whole thing would be blown out of proportion. But it didn’t work out- those leaks didn’t go very far- but maybe on the 10th try, literally the 10th guy on the CIA’s list, the leak finally went somewhere, but they had to do it with somebody they couldn’t sure would not end up provoking a lot of scrutiny of what went on (a reporter who would damage Wilson’s rep/credibility through the press, rather than through social circles of nation’s diplomats and the press’s social circles).
jeez, c.b. – what shall those of us hunkered over our keyboards with our fingers coated with whatever the left-wing equivalent of cheeto dust (hearth-baked blue corn tortilla chip residue? margarita salt?) do?
hmm…margaritas.
your pal,
blake
Comments are closed.