"It is not surprising that your White House distrusts and/or despises the
media, the CIA, the State Department's career officers, the United Nations
and a host of other institutions that you could not control, but that you
could not accept that you could not control. Like most paranoia, yours is
not totally unfounded: People in those institutions were out to defy and/or
get you.

But you and yours helped them accomplish the mission. One lesson available
in this story is that amateurs are no match for the CIA in disinformation
campaigns. The spies are far better at operating in the shadows than you
politicians will ever be. They have a license to dissemble.

The hidden management of the criminal justice process and the news media
practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of brilliant.
So you were right to fear the agency. Where else do you think the one-page
crime report that triggered the investigation and then the pressure-building
leaks disclosing its existence came from?"



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202277_pf.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as I told Ol Blue Eyes in another thread...

Disgruntled ex-CIA ops are behind the entire Plamegate story...and that
article by Giraldi is

nothing more than a partisan hack piece.

Another perspective from Zell Miller:

Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA

By ZELL MILLER
Published on: 11/02/05
It's like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties
have fostered an intelligence officer's resentment against the government.
Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national
leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification
for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can
get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it
public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.

But the rules on agents are clear. They can't purposely distort gathered
intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or
information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking
their job or jail.

But their spouse can!

The agent realizes her spouse can go out on behalf of the spy agency, can
distort information, go public with classified information and use all this
spy-agency-sponsored material and credentials to try to pull down the
current government, and it is all perfectly legal.

Suppose the spouse adds just one more brilliant, well-aimed lie: claim your
foremost political opponent put the spouse up to the trip. As your spouse
uses your agency's name to mount attacks, your enemy may fall into your
trap. Will your enemy suffer your spouse's lies or take the bait and try to
clarify his non-role? If he tells the press he didn't hire your spouse, the
press will demand to know, "Then who did?"

Instead of you violating secrecy laws, it is your victim who is guilty
because he tried to set the record straight. Heads, you win; tails, he
loses.

It sounds unbelievable, a fiction, perhaps to be called "To Sting a King."
But it is no fiction. This is the story behind Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and
the Bush administration. And it appears that Plame and Wilson will get away
with the biggest sting operation ever.

No one seems to care that our intelligence agency has crippled our
president. Certainly not the media. They are determined to make Wilson a
hero. Recall the dozens of times the Washington Post and The New York Times
carried his lies on the front page, above the fold. The conclusive story
discrediting Wilson was buried 6 feet deep, back by the obituaries.

To the media, it doesn't matter that the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence says Wilson lied about what he did and with whom he met while
investigating Iraqi attempts to purchase "yellowcake" uranium.

To the media, it doesn't matter that the CIA says what Wilson did actually
find supported that Iraq was attempting to buy the uranium - a direct
contradiction to Wilson's public claims.

To the media, it doesn't matter that he claimed the vice president assigned
him to the uranium investigation when we all know now it was his wife.

Some absurdly claim that Plame had nothing to do with her husband's
political activities against President Bush. But let it be clear. Plame
could not have done what Wilson did and gotten away with it. Wilson could
not have done what he did without Plame giving him a way to do it.

Something has to be done. We can't let the CIA become the domestic dirty
tricks shop, with Republican and Democratic agents each trying to pull down
their opposing presidents.

We need a Plame rule. Any family member of a CIA agent tapped to help out
must live by the same rules regarding information disclosure and domestic
political manipulations as those imposed on the agent. If the family member
fails to live by those rules, the agent is terminated.

Clearly this will restrict the flexibility of the CIA. But who ever thought
that the flexibility given to CIA agents would be misused to destabilize a
U.S. president? No one - until Valerie Plame.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The indictment of Libby is going to prove to be a God-send to the Bush
administration. Just today, Libby's attorney stated that his client will be
seeking a jury trial. I predict the CIA angle will be played up big in
court.

Current and former CIA agents working covertly to destabilize a US President
in time of war! This is going to get really, really good. grin

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:18:46 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"It is not surprising that your White House distrusts and/or despises the
media, the CIA, the State Department's career officers, the United Nations
and a host of other institutions that you could not control, but that you
could not accept that you could not control. Like most paranoia, yours is
not totally unfounded: People in those institutions were out to defy and/or
get you.

But you and yours helped them accomplish the mission. One lesson available
in this story is that amateurs are no match for the CIA in disinformation
campaigns. The spies are far better at operating in the shadows than you
politicians will ever be. They have a license to dissemble.

The hidden management of the criminal justice process and the news media
practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of brilliant.
So you were right to fear the agency. Where else do you think the one-page
crime report that triggered the investigation and then the pressure-building
leaks disclosing its existence came from?"



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202277_pf.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as I told Ol Blue Eyes in another thread...

Disgruntled ex-CIA ops are behind the entire Plamegate story...and that
article by Giraldi is

nothing more than a partisan hack piece.


And you even posted the URL of your reference, and it was the almighty
Washington Post!
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:50:11 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:
Another perspective from Zell Miller:

Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA

By ZELL MILLER
Published on: 11/02/05
It's like a spy thriller.

Zell is out of the locked ward again? Do his keepers know?

Do yours?

--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:05:32 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:



Ya see, Krause assumed you were smart enough to do your own Google search.

NOYB, being of like mind, knows you're too stupid.

-OR-

NOYB has nothing to hide.

Krause does.

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:

Disgruntled ex-CIA ops are behind the entire Plamegate story...and that
article by Giraldi is nothing more than a partisan hack piece.

The left has hated the CIA since its inception. When I was in college,
campus lefties protested their presence in job fairs.

The number of "leftist partisan hacks" at the CIA, past and present, can
be counted on zero fingers.

It's not about being left or right. The ideological difference is over the
topic of pre-emptive war...and even war in general. There's a strong
pacifist group in the CIA and State Dept. that worked strongly to see that
the Iraq war never happened. Having failed, that same group has been
working to destabilize the Bush Presidency so that he cannot follow the war
on terror to its roots: Iran and Syria.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:05:32 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:



Ya see, Krause assumed you were smart enough to do your own Google search.

NOYB, being of like mind, knows you're too stupid.

-OR-

NOYB has nothing to hide.

Krause does.

Sources lend credibility to an argument. But when you're a Narcissist,
you're so much smarter than everyone else that they should just take you at
your word.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:

Disgruntled ex-CIA ops are behind the entire Plamegate story...and that
article by Giraldi is nothing more than a partisan hack piece.
The left has hated the CIA since its inception. When I was in college,
campus lefties protested their presence in job fairs.

The number of "leftist partisan hacks" at the CIA, past and present, can
be counted on zero fingers.

It's not about being left or right. The ideological difference is over
the topic of pre-emptive war...and even war in general. There's a strong
pacifist group in the CIA and State Dept. that worked strongly to see
that the Iraq war never happened. Having failed, that same group has
been working to destabilize the Bush Presidency so that he cannot follow
the war on terror to its roots: Iran and Syria.



Ahh, thanks for presenting us with the latest conspiracy theory bandied
about on reich-wing radio, newscraps or Faux, or wherever you got it.

I presented the notion 2 years ago when the crap with Wilson started. Check
the archives. That's why I was such a strong advocate for Goss when he was
named as intel czar. I knew he'd clean out the partisans hacks in the CIA.


I'm glad to see that the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal and
Constitiution are finally starting to run editorials about the possibility
that this whole thing was nothing more than a covert op by CIA and ex-CIA to
destabilize a sitting President.

And you can bet that will be the tack that Libby's defense attorney takes
during the jury trial.

NOYB wrote:
It's not about being left or right. The ideological difference is over the
topic of pre-emptive war...and even war in general. There's a strong
pacifist group in the CIA and State Dept. that worked strongly to see that
the Iraq war never happened.

Because it was a stupid idea, not "ideological" at all. Based on faulty
intel, would be an expensive & bloody quagmire, would not contribute at
all to fighting terrorism, and would lead to a less stable Middle East,
etc etc.

I thought the Bush Administration's official position was that nobody
had ever warned them about the pitfalls of invading Iraq? And now you
say a large number of foreign policy professionals actively wroked
against it?

... Having failed, that same group has been
working to destabilize the Bush Presidency so that he cannot follow the war
on terror to its roots: Iran and Syria.


Yeah, that must be it... we have TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS in the CIA and
State Dept!

Gosh it's a shame Joe McCarthy has been dead all these years. The Bush
Administration could really use a man like him now.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
It's not about being left or right. The ideological difference is over
the topic of pre-emptive war...and even war in general. There's a strong
pacifist group in the CIA and State Dept. that worked strongly to see
that the Iraq war never happened.

Because it was a stupid idea, not "ideological" at all. Based on faulty
intel, would be an expensive & bloody quagmire, would not contribute at
all to fighting terrorism, and would lead to a less stable Middle East,
etc etc.

I thought the Bush Administration's official position was that nobody had
ever warned them about the pitfalls of invading Iraq? And now you say a
large number of foreign policy professionals actively wroked against it?

... Having failed, that same group has been working to destabilize the
Bush Presidency so that he cannot follow the war on terror to its roots:
Iran and Syria.


Yeah, that must be it... we have TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS in the CIA and
State Dept!

They're not terrorist sympathizers. They're pacifists.


Gosh it's a shame Joe McCarthy has been dead all these years. The Bush
Administration could really use a man like him now.

I'd volunteer if I had someone who I trusted to run my dental practice in my
absence.