Cynthia McKinney's CIA Agent Involved in Plame Letter

Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored.

That, in and of itself, is nothing unusual for Cynthia McKinney. But, the story gets more interesting as you read on:

The commission's report was not a rush to judgment, it was a rush to exoneration," said John Judge, a member of McKinney's staff and a representative of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the Sept. 11 commission's report.

The White House and the commission have dismissed such questions as unfounded conspiracy theories.

McKinney first raised questions about Bush's involvement shortly after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, generating a furious response from fellow Democrats in Washington and voters in Georgia, who ousted her in 2002.

"What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families," McKinney, a DeKalb County Democrat who won back her seat in 2004, said during the proceedings.

She rebuffed a reporter's repeated attempts to ask her why she would so boldly embrace the same claims that led to her downfall.

"Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian," panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said. "And I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom."

Who is Melvin Goodman? Why, one of the signatories to this letter regarding the Plame leak. The letter that has been widely trumpeted by Josh Marshall and others.

Assuming there is only one former CIA official named Mel Goodman, it appears Mr. Goodman has been very busy lately. His inclusion as a signatory also makes the letter from former 'outraged' CIA officials look less like straight talk than it did initially. That in and of itself does not invalidate the letter, but it makes it look much less like the pristine indictment against all things Bush that Mr. Marshall would have you believe.

In continuing our examination of Josh Marshall's favorite letter, we're moseying on down the list of signatories, and their credibility ain't exactly improving.

Ray McGovern, for instance, contributed an article to the ultra-left truthout.org arguing that the Downing Street Memo conclusively proves that Bush deliberately forged intelligence to get us into war in Iraq. Now, are we to believe that he just innocently and in a non-partisan manner became concerned about what happened to poor old Valerie Plame? If you're still unconvinced, read his hysterical rant at DemocracyNow about what a right-wing rag the WaPo is. You might also be interested to know that McGovern thinks that the reason 9/11 happened was because of "gross ineptitude and gross malfeasance" on the part of the Bush administration. They should have paid more attention to Sandy Berger. I'm serious, it's all in there.

One of the other signatories to the letter, David MacMichael, also belongs to McGovern's group, Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which has been virulently anti-war since well before the Plame situation exploded. Observe some of the quotes from MacMichael during an interview with lefty host Amy Goodman:

It is all happening because there are lies upon lies, deceit upon deceit that have been used to justify this illegal war on against an unprovoked enemy, or an enemy that does not provoke us.

AMY GOODMAN:Now one of the things we are talking about a lot and seeing a lot is that the same people that were there during the Reagan-Bush years and even before, the Wolfowitzes the Rumsfelds, Cheneys were there then. What was George Bush’s view of these people then?

Those were 1981-1983 under Reagan and under William Casey. In fact I embarked on that job the day Casey came in. I can assure you that the way in which the National Intelligence Council and the National Intelligence officers, the directing officers in there were stacked during the Casey years, meant that intelligence was designed, and I focused principally on Central America, the whole Iran Contra thing later, truthful analysis was not the highest priority there. The determination was to produce analyses that would support the previously decided upon policy so for me, getting back involved with Ray McGovern here and VIPS dealing with this current situation, its kind of like déjà vu all over again. It’s a familiar process.

Additionally, several of the other signatories had been outspoken critics of the administration's decision to go to war before the incident with Plame erupted, including Col. Patrick Lang. Vince Cannistraro was part of the group of CIA officials who suspiciously began speaking critically about the Bush administration in the month before the general election, rather than at a time when it might have been practically useful (such as, before the war).

This letter becomes less credible by the minute. We are still looking for a signatory that didn't have an axe to grind with Bush BEFORE the outing of Plame.

Mr. David MacMichael, former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA

(Appearance by: Dr. David C. MacMichael, former CIA analyst. Page 7 of the transcript, 7:32 minutes in the movie): ""... very disturbing ... intervention by people particularly from Vice President Cheney's office and Vice President Cheney himself ... to produce precisely the language which would allow them ... to support the decision to go into Iraq." -Film "Uncovered": The Whole Truth about the Iraq War by Producer/ Director Robert Greenwald, 2003, 56 minutes. Independent film by the Producer. Web site: Uncovered.

A transcript of the movie is available online.

Also stars Larry Johnson and Joseph Wilson, Mel Goodman, Scott Ritter, Richard Clarke....

..film was first released in November 2003 via thousands of house parties organized by MoveOn.org...

http://www.truthuncovered.com/ Source: http://www.hevanet.com/peace/

WOW! Where to begin?

I think it fair to make a statement regarding these individuals and their contentions and allegations. There is so much that I'll restrict my remarks to views philosophical in the hope that one comes to realize that a person of ulterior motivation can put facts together to attribute just whatever they want to ascribe to them. I think they, generally, fall into three major categories and I'll comment on them:

1. The Conspiracy Theorists> Who generally have a common trait in that they are to a greater or lesser degree paranoid regarding those in power. They distrust them and are bent upon attributing clandestine motivations to what they do. NOW! This is not to say that a little paranoia, based on real historical reference/s isn't justifiable, because it's a fact politicians; especially, are NOT among the most savory of individuals. Such distrust must be tempered with reality and a 'Let's take a step back and view this from a wider perspective' mentality. Failing to do so puts one in the category of the fellow who thinks he's being followed. He notices someone that has followed his path for two blocks across an intersection. He abruptly turns, walks towards the subject, pulls a gun and to a startled pedestrian demands..."Why are you following me?" The shocked fellow exclaims "I'm not following you, just happen to be going in the same direction just like the rest of these folks walking by". At this time, in this Nation...we are so politically polarized with two major, distinct beliefs of diametrically opposed attitudes that those on both sides need to be a bit more the pragmatic realist. "Emotion is the fuel for a rush of s__t to the brain" (me).
Can you spell T-R-I-L-A-T-E-R-A-L C-O-M-M-I-S-S-I-O-N ?

2. The Crusaders/Idealists> Cast from a similar mold and a attired from a common bolt of cloth they differ only in how they are attired. The net result is the same though. They perceive a singular factoid to be the preliminary cancerous cell, which if left intact will metasticize and consume us all. With the fervor of a temperance lecturer they focus in on the quarry to the rejection of all knowledge outside their peripheral field of vision and attack. Now, be advised that I'm making generalities herewith and they, by their nature, are inaccurate as they tend to brand all with the same mark. I realize that, but one must also accept how idealistic focus (illustratable by 'Bush hatred' amongst other examples) breeds a very real narrowing of one's intellectual reasoning. When you throw political operatives along with disingebuous politicians and lawyers into the mix you have a bouillabaisse for disaster! The solution, difficult as it may seem, is to take a deep breath and try to view the scenario from the complete opposite perspective, DEVOID of emotional rant. Once gain,"Emotion is the fuel for a rush of sh__ to the brain" (me)

3. The America haters> Of which there is an overabundance. When Bush the First coined the phrase the NEW WORLD ORDER and I first heard it, I literally heard myself think..."What! Are you nuts? You'll come off as a latter day Hitler and an arrogant and pushy ugly American. They won't understand your frame of reference AT ALL." I just COULD NOT believe the sheer ignorance of that remark. Though unspoken it, I firmly belief, became the subliminal image in the minds of the many world-wide, who DON'T KNOW US, and...at home, who DON'T TRUST US (US meaning the government), and the rallying cry for all. Then you have the left-leaning liberals, an offshoot of the '50s Marxist-Leninist Socialist/Communist amalgam whose objective was to use the freedom of our society to destroy us from within. One tool, creatively used by groups like the ACLU, ACP, MOVEON.ORG, et al is to use "personal rights" as a vehicle to literally create a 'tyranny of the minority'. That is to say a society where, bulwarked by judicial activism and sojourns into law changing rather than law interpretation, the individual right is championed at the expense of the MAJORITY. The court rules in favor of whatever minority group (minority opinion in number relative to overall popular opinion) and it becomes the law of the land. In this way the minority has quite effectively forced the majority to abide by what they desire. As is readily seen this is a cauldron of anarchy for when the general public has had enough and the courts have become so out of touch with the needs and wants of the public at large what is left is...VIOLENT REVOLUTION FROM WITHIN. In the history of the world such an event has never occurred, but certain as night follow day...if changes are NOT made to the way the courts function, primarily the USSC, in this society...it is just a matter of time. Decent people will only be pushed so far before they collectively shout 'ENOUGH!' Why? you ask. Simply because...,"Emotion is the fuel for a rush of sh__ to the brain" (me)

I hope this was enlightening.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.