Not suitable for commenting on national security cases or wrapping fish.

March 8, 2007 -- Yesterday, The Washington Post, in an editorial reminiscent of the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst, launched a tirade against Ambassador Joseph Wilson; his wife, former CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson; and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. While WMR has been critical of Fitzgerald and his softball tactics, the Post does not have the right to criticize anyone involved in the prosecution of CIA Leakgate since the Post, itself, was complicit in the underlying crime of being involved in a major leak of classified information.

Incredulously, this is what the Post had to say about Libby's conviction: "The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance." It would be interesting if the Post actually believes that the compromise of a sensitive U.S. intelligence operation aimed at interdicting weapons of mass destruction lacks substance. Make no mistake about it, the CIA Damage Assessment Report on the leak -- one of the hottest documents in Washington, DC, if any copies remain intact and not destroyed on orders from the Bush White House, will show that CIA non-official cover agents and assets -- some working for the Brewster Jennings and Associates CIA front company and others working for foreign intelligence agencies and other firms involved in WMD proliferation -- were identified, quickly extricated, tortured, imprisoned, or executed as a result of the leak.
Not suitable for commenting on national security cases or wrapping fish.

The Post refers to a "bipartisan" Senate intelligence committee report that concluded that Wilson was not truthful. The Post fails to mention that those "conclusions" were in the majority Republican report lorded over by Kansas right-wing cipher Pat Roberts, not the minority, Democratic, view. So why does the Post erroneously use the word "bipartisan?" It is because the Post cannot and will not report accurate news. Its true editorial masters will not allow it.

The Post also falsely states, "The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert." That is just a flat out lie and the Post is trying to protect its reporters who were identified in prosecution evidence as being tagged by the Bush White House as willing reporters to spread the disinformation about Wilson and his wife and engage in the underlying crime of leaking classified information. Dick Cheney's general counsel, David Addington, listed the Post's main water carriers for the White House: Walter Pincus (who continues to cover the intelligence beat, including the CIA), Mike Allen (now with Texas Republican Joe Albritton's Politico.com), and Glenn Kessler, whose name is all over the AIPAC-Larry Franklin espionage story. With the Post complicit in two major espionage stories involving neo-con and Israeli intelligence asset moles within the Bush administration, it is ill-suited to comment objectively on either the Plame matter or the AIPAC spy story. Some Post journalists will whisper very quietly that their paper's editorial policy is directly dictated by the Israeli Lobby in Washington, New York, and elsewhere.

The Post then resorts to the type of name-calling one might expect from a North Korea daily propaganda sheet: "The former ambassador [Wilson] will be remembered as a blowhard . . . Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess."

It is such histrionics on behalf of a corrupt Washington elite that has earned The Washington Post the nickname, "Pravda on the Potomac."

Wayne Madsen Report