Mind Over Ludicrous
MIND OVER LUDICROUS
11.09, .10, .11 “Bungling Meant Leak Letter Leaked.”
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/111005/news4.html
Bungling meant leak letter leaked
By Alexander Bolton
A leak suspected to have come from the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) complicated, confused and nearly derailed a joint effort by Senate and House Republican leaders to seek an investigation of the unauthorized release of classified information.
The last five words could be replaced by “leak” without loss of meaning; that is today’s prevailing metaphor of choice for unauthorized release of classified information, as this passage well illustrates. “Taking time out for leaks”, a wag might put it.
But this one does take the cake. The mind reels contemplating the layers and levels of political compost to dig through to spell it out, but here goes.
First, before Nov. 2. ’05, when the Washington Post published Dana Priest’s article exposing the existence of secret CIA detention centers for suspected terrorists in Eastern European democracies (violating human rights), a very noisy investigation of a leak of Valerie Plame’s name and CIA identity was ongoing; by Robert Novak, in response to the now famous NYTimes article by Joe Wilson that exposed Cheney/Libby originating war lies. (With help from some of Berlusconi’s SISMI boys, as it turns out; see Nov. issue of Buchanan’s American Conservative – the Italians helped the Feith-Rumsfeld-Cheney CIA faction set us up, it says.)
Call this Leak 1. It’s investigation, initiated by the same CIA route now called for on Leak 2, has led to indictment of Irve Lewis Libby, associate of R. Perle, D. Feith, J. Bolton, E. Abrams, others in such powerful lobby groups as AEI, PNAC, AIPAC; all of whom are associates of neocon media mavens Time Warner/CNN; NY Post/Fox news (R. Murdoch’s empire); National Review (under management by Jewish youth); Weekly Standard (only ones publishing Chris Hitchins’ slobbery anymore); more. These are the ones most directly responsible for taking the United States into war on Iraq on the pretext that it was necessary to defend against imminent mass destruction. It was not. “It was a pack of lies”, in Galloway’s words. They “marketed” the “war on terror” (=an emotional state), as it is being put now, by terrorizing the public with information known to be faulty at the time. All THAT threatens to flood the foggy bottoms about the Potomac like the breech in the 17th street canal levee on Lake Pontchartrain flooded New Orleans.
Next comes Leak 2, last Wednesday, investigation into which was called for this Tuesday, just as the CIA had done before for who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, after Novak’s article. It is important to re-iterate this original source each time in order to avoid escaping the obvious: that it was leaked by Novak as part of a general plan TO PROVOKE THE INVESTIGATION! This hardly seems credible when first encountered, but the more it is pursued, the better it looks.
Leak 3. Here it gets ludicrous quick. As best as I can piece it together, Frist’s people first prod Hassert’s to issue the call to Gonzales’ guys over at Justice to deal with the complaint filed by the CIA. Then Frist delays signing the letter for several hours, leaving Hassert hanging out there, while the mass media churns out the lead line, confusing many with a development in the Fitzgerald/Libby “CIA leak” situation. “What? – Another one?” one asked oneself. Frist’s sign off may well have been delayed by checking who, exactly, DID leak the unauthorized classified information to Dana Priest for the WP article? Trent Lott, whether speaking out of turn or not, questioned as much: the leak may have come from a Senator, he said, naming no names. From Frist’s own staff? With his knowledge, or without it? The article quoted above goes on to relate that it is still not certain Frist did sign it; his spokesman said he did, but would not release it. So as of this date, 5:00 we have no letter signed by the Senate Majority leader calling for an investigation. The following sketches the situation Hastert and the American people are left with:
The lack of confirmation about Frist’s support raised the specter that Hastert would be left alone in calling for the investigation. That would have likely been a source of major irritation for House Republicans since the idea for the investigation originated with Frist office, said a senior Senate GOP aide.
And the cause for the mistiming would likely have been a leak from Frist’s office.
Republican aides said the leak either came from Hastert’s or Frist’s office because they were the only two offices handling the matter.
Scott Palmer, Hastert’s chief of staff, emphatically told The Hill that the Speaker’s office was not the source of the early leak. When pressed, Frist’s office, however, did not offer a similar denial.”
How it stands….
11.09, .10, .11 “Bungling Meant Leak Letter Leaked.”
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/111005/news4.html
Bungling meant leak letter leaked
By Alexander Bolton
A leak suspected to have come from the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) complicated, confused and nearly derailed a joint effort by Senate and House Republican leaders to seek an investigation of the unauthorized release of classified information.
The last five words could be replaced by “leak” without loss of meaning; that is today’s prevailing metaphor of choice for unauthorized release of classified information, as this passage well illustrates. “Taking time out for leaks”, a wag might put it.
But this one does take the cake. The mind reels contemplating the layers and levels of political compost to dig through to spell it out, but here goes.
First, before Nov. 2. ’05, when the Washington Post published Dana Priest’s article exposing the existence of secret CIA detention centers for suspected terrorists in Eastern European democracies (violating human rights), a very noisy investigation of a leak of Valerie Plame’s name and CIA identity was ongoing; by Robert Novak, in response to the now famous NYTimes article by Joe Wilson that exposed Cheney/Libby originating war lies. (With help from some of Berlusconi’s SISMI boys, as it turns out; see Nov. issue of Buchanan’s American Conservative – the Italians helped the Feith-Rumsfeld-Cheney CIA faction set us up, it says.)
Call this Leak 1. It’s investigation, initiated by the same CIA route now called for on Leak 2, has led to indictment of Irve Lewis Libby, associate of R. Perle, D. Feith, J. Bolton, E. Abrams, others in such powerful lobby groups as AEI, PNAC, AIPAC; all of whom are associates of neocon media mavens Time Warner/CNN; NY Post/Fox news (R. Murdoch’s empire); National Review (under management by Jewish youth); Weekly Standard (only ones publishing Chris Hitchins’ slobbery anymore); more. These are the ones most directly responsible for taking the United States into war on Iraq on the pretext that it was necessary to defend against imminent mass destruction. It was not. “It was a pack of lies”, in Galloway’s words. They “marketed” the “war on terror” (=an emotional state), as it is being put now, by terrorizing the public with information known to be faulty at the time. All THAT threatens to flood the foggy bottoms about the Potomac like the breech in the 17th street canal levee on Lake Pontchartrain flooded New Orleans.
Next comes Leak 2, last Wednesday, investigation into which was called for this Tuesday, just as the CIA had done before for who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, after Novak’s article. It is important to re-iterate this original source each time in order to avoid escaping the obvious: that it was leaked by Novak as part of a general plan TO PROVOKE THE INVESTIGATION! This hardly seems credible when first encountered, but the more it is pursued, the better it looks.
Leak 3. Here it gets ludicrous quick. As best as I can piece it together, Frist’s people first prod Hassert’s to issue the call to Gonzales’ guys over at Justice to deal with the complaint filed by the CIA. Then Frist delays signing the letter for several hours, leaving Hassert hanging out there, while the mass media churns out the lead line, confusing many with a development in the Fitzgerald/Libby “CIA leak” situation. “What? – Another one?” one asked oneself. Frist’s sign off may well have been delayed by checking who, exactly, DID leak the unauthorized classified information to Dana Priest for the WP article? Trent Lott, whether speaking out of turn or not, questioned as much: the leak may have come from a Senator, he said, naming no names. From Frist’s own staff? With his knowledge, or without it? The article quoted above goes on to relate that it is still not certain Frist did sign it; his spokesman said he did, but would not release it. So as of this date, 5:00 we have no letter signed by the Senate Majority leader calling for an investigation. The following sketches the situation Hastert and the American people are left with:
The lack of confirmation about Frist’s support raised the specter that Hastert would be left alone in calling for the investigation. That would have likely been a source of major irritation for House Republicans since the idea for the investigation originated with Frist office, said a senior Senate GOP aide.
And the cause for the mistiming would likely have been a leak from Frist’s office.
Republican aides said the leak either came from Hastert’s or Frist’s office because they were the only two offices handling the matter.
Scott Palmer, Hastert’s chief of staff, emphatically told The Hill that the Speaker’s office was not the source of the early leak. When pressed, Frist’s office, however, did not offer a similar denial.”
How it stands….
posted by Sid Thomas | 5:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home