Thursday, May 18, 2006
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
My quasi-inside (and, apparently, incorrect) dirt on the Plame Game
Steve Clemons also attended the Princeton conference on liberal internationalism. Today he reports as follows: [O]ne other who was there was former National Security Agency Director Bobby Ray Inman.Tom Maguire, the dean of Plame Studies in the blogosphere, has several questions: (1) Why would Inman know this? OK, as "simply one of the smartest people ever to come out of Washington or anywhere", he may know this as part of knowing everything. But maybe there is more.In response to Clemons and Maguire, here's what I can say: 1) I can confirm Inman's statements as Clemons reports them. I can confirm them because Inman made these assertions (and others that, like Steve, I will treat as off the record) to me and the others at my lunch table on the second day of the conference.For those in the blogosohere wondering about motive, Tom Maguire mused about Armitage's possible motives back in November 2005. UPDATE: Steve Clemons' latest post offers up yet another reason why I don't like posting on DC gossip -- because it's often wrong: Bobby Ray Inman's claims are "BS", claimed one very prominent Washington insider after reading TWN's report on Inman's claim that Richard Armitage would be indicted in the Valerie Plame Wilson outing probe.posted by Dan on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM Comments: I'd just like to say that I also have important state secrets. I'm just saying so you don't ask. posted by: adamo@bjk.com on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]> I would describe Inman's knowledge of this Interesing, amusing, and disturbing all in one. Knowing how human beings and large organizations behave, I don't doubt that there are plenty of informal channels of communication in Washington DC. But at the same time, one has to wonder: do classification, compartmentalization, and need-to-know even apply above a certain level? Or are such things just for the "little people"? Cranky posted by: Cranky Observer on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]No, I think this is more about Dan wanting us to know he is considered an "illuminati". Next he will tell us he is the inspiration behind the albino in The Da Vinci Code -- also full of illuminatis. Thanks very much - this is grist for the mill, indeed. posted by: Tom Maguire on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]"I am genuinely surprised that it hasn't appeared anywhere else in the blogoshere." But not surprised it hasn't appeared in the MSM. Are they in the Illuminati too? posted by: PD Shaw on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]I think now we are getting to the point where a back storyline is being developed (possibly by several different institutions) on why and to some extent who did what. Motivation (the story why WH burns CIA or why State burns CIA or why CIA drops ball on war, etc.) is subject to spin as is everything else in politics. posted by: aiko on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]Dan, you're just importing the worst excesses of the media into the blogosphere with this nonsense. Don't act as a gatekeeper to some hidden fount of knowledge. Tell us what you know or don't, but don't play "I know something you don't know", it's not attractive or productive. If it's common knowledge inside the beltway, then whether you also heard it from Inman under disputably privileged circumstances is irrelevant. And I'll add that anything you blab to a table full of people you don't know is inherently fair game for posting. posted by: scalefree on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]Leaving the question as to why Karl Rove would cover up a non-crime committed by Richard Armitage. posted by: Norman Pfyster on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]So Fitzgerald has given up on the alleged criminal aspect of outing Plame, and is now focused on the white color aspect of what is now apparently a non-crime. Talk about a waste of government resources, and then some. posted by: Steve on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]So Fitzgerald has given up on the alleged criminal aspect of outing Plame, and is now focused on the white color aspect of what is now apparently a non-crime. Talk about a waste of government resources, and then some. posted by: Steve on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]Glad to see Fitzgerald protecting America by ferreting out the desperados who covered up a non-crime. posted by: Alan on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]Obviously, Rove would not cover up a non-crime. Fitzgerald has the outing crime nailed and now he's going after the bigger fish, the ones who did the coverup. Compare with Watergate. Nixon didn't do the Watergate breakin. He didn't even order it doen. He just covered it up. Steve, I thought that it had to be established that a crime had been committed first before indictment? Apparently not. Maybe old Fitzy figures that if he can't do anything to Libby except bankrupt him, the next step is to do the same to another Wh functionairly in the hope that this will have the goods on Rove. Why can't we just cut to the chase. Fitzy should bribe Rove to plead guilty with half the cost of his office for another year. It's enough to set the man up for life, and the taxpayer would benefit this way.... posted by: Don S on 05.18.06 at 04:18 PM [permalink]Don S, are you arguing that perhaps no crime has been committed, and that the indictments are proceeding without a crime? Where do you get that interpretation? Post a Comment: |
|