A second voice
Cliff Kincaid serves as a second voice telling us of the CIA effort aimed at undermining the Bush Administration is the big story of the Wilson-Plame affair. Much like the other-Victoria Toensing for Human Events-has pointed out, the CIA was incompetent at worst and just sloppy at best on Iraq's WMD's and so the choice of a Joe Wilson for a sensitive investigation appears to lead to only one conclusion: They were covering their collective ass at the expense of the WH.
From Toensing: Savvy Washington journalists scratched their collective heads, questioning, “Why Wilson?” Why would the Vice President send a person to Niger on a mission about WMD who was not an expert in that subject, had never served in a senior capacity in Niger, had not worked for the CIA, and was known to oppose the White House Iraq policy? Wilson, in addition to all that, was known around town as a grandstander and a bit of a flake.
The “Why Wilson” question was being asked by the Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine, and columnists such as Novak. Reporters were not the only ones asking. Cheney was surprised that Wilson had claimed the mission was at his request since it was not true. It probably was not a pleasant call that went from Cheney’s office to then CIA Director George Tenet.
Perhaps Tenet was also asked why a person sent on such a sensitive mission, unlike the rest of us, did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement and was permitted to publish an account of that mission. Was the CIA trying to put the blame on the White House for the State of the Union misstep?
From Kincaid: We are still left with the mystery of why Miller didn't write anything based on what Libby told her. She says she proposed a story. Miller and/or her editors may have been persuaded to drop it by other sources, who may have been in the CIA. It makes perfect sense. The CIA had been behind the Wilson trip from the beginning and, as Libby told Miller, had been trying to undercut the administration's Iraq policy and divert attention from the agency's poor performance on Iraqi WMD. The CIA did not want the full extent of its role uncovered and decided that the best way to divert attention from its own shabby performance was to accuse Bush officials of violating the law against identifying covert agents. This was one covert operation by the CIA on top of another. Miller watched the whole thing play out and refused to tell her own paper and the public what was really happening.
2 comments:
Somehow the reference make me think of Cliff Kincid whenever I hear about what Armando Iannucci refers as: "Gullible zeroes with less mental originality in their heads than the contents of a worm's thought-bubble."
You will love the answers what Armando Iannucci offers for his multi-option quiz:
Those "columnists who, to this day, still bang on about what an amazing difference democracy has made to the lives of normal Iraqis are:
a) Incapable of processing any events in front of their faces. In fact, they're so detached from reality that they can't form any coherent assessment of anything involving people, places, sensory experiences, communicated signals or experiential phenomena of any kind. They're the journalistic equivalent of Helen Keller completely off her face on cider.
b) Reanimated zombies, being the souls of journalists from the time of the Boer War but inserted into the lifeless body of the likes of Melanie Phillips. She may look like Melanie Phillips, she may write like Melanie Phillips but, in fact, she's the ranting thought-pus of a brain-dead Victorian.
Enjoy the piece in its full glory at:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1968829,00.html
Post a Comment