Did Clarice Feldman just say “Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq”?
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
American Thinker writer Clarice Feldman is not only on record stating that Plamegate was a "hoax", she has also at one point or another accused half of Washington of being involved in a "conspiracy" against George W. Bush.
Right, Clarice. Poor George Bush and Dick Cheney were being picked on by all those bad people that worked for them. Ok. Got it.
While being questioned about her "conspiracy" theories, Feldman let loose with this unexpected gem:
" When do we get to Ernie's fantastical notion that Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq? "
Holy cow! Where did that come from?
Clarice, we never said that "Plamegate was a deliberate plot by Bush and pals to distract from Iraq." But now that you mention it, that scenario would explain a great deal of unanswered questions.
Why would the CIA send Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate Saddam Hussein's alleged attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium, when the CIA and George W. Bush knew Hussein had 550 tons of yellowcake 19 miles outside of Baghdad?
And why were the yellowcake documents that Wilson said he read long before they were actually ever made available to anyone in the CIA such poor forgeries? Were the forgeries designed to be easily discovered?
Would a President really tolerate any high-ranking officials in his administration keeping secrets from him, especially during wartime, as Feldman contends?
Of course he would not.
So while IP2P was trying to get Feldman to explain how she came to the conclusion that the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the DoJ Inspector General's Office were all involved in a "conspiracy" against President George W. Bush, she answered with this out-of-the-blue defense of Bush and his Defense Dept.
And in doing so could very well have helped solve the mystery of what the "Plamegate hoax" was really all about.
Coincidentally, the DoD is where Feldman's close personal friends Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were practically running the show during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.
Clarice, you may have really turned us on to something here. Thank You!
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
In a recent phone interview Murray Waas, the reporter who claimed to be the recipient of anonymous Plamegate grand jury leaks, confessed that the Plamegate cover-up is "something that is bigger than Watergate".
Keep this in mind as the Plamegate cover-up continues to be exposed.
Waas is now desperately trying to distance himself from the book he purportedly wrote entitled United States v. I. Lewis Libby, and the reporting he did on Plamegate.
Why would a journalist distance himself from the very body of work that earned him national recognition?
What would cause an author to disown his own book?
And, even more perplexing, what makes Waas think that American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson would be sympathetic to his fear of his confession getting out?
Waas has been communicating with the American Thinker in hopes of defusing the current predicament his recent statements have created for him, so perhaps the better question is:
Why would Waas think the American Thinker would be sympathetic to his attempt to conceal the Plamegate cover-up, and his part in it? A cover-up Waas admitted was bigger than Watergate.
Strangely enough, since Waas' confession American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman has also called Plamegate a "hoax". And she has now added former FBI Director Robert Mueller to her list of people who "conspired to conceal" this from the White House.
When looked at logically, Feldman's list of conspirators-which now includes the State Department, the Department of Justice and the FBI-fully supports Waas' admission of a big Washington cover-up.
Feldman and the American Thinker want us to believe that top officials at these three different agencies, who all served at the pleasure of the President, kept him in the dark for three years that Dick Armitage was Robert Novak's source.
Why is the American Thinker still clinging to the official Armitage "disinformation campaign" version of the Plamegate story, and ignoring the recent confessions of both Judith Miller and Murray Waas?
I wonder, could this ludicrous position the American Thinker is taking have been in any way influenced by their close relationship with members of the discontinued 501(c) 3 known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
More to come....
Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief
American Thinker's credibility is dissipating quickly.
You see, not disclosing conflicts of interest is turning out to be the norm at American Thinker.
For example: IP2P recently informed its readers of Clarice Feldman's close personal relationship with Richard Perle, whom she frequently goes on the attack for and staunchly defends. As in the case of her baseless attack on Sibel Edmonds.
Now IP2P has also learned that Feldman shares a close friendship with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. And as is the case with Perle, she has never disclosed her conflict of interest when attacking others on their behalf.
Nor has American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson required her to do so.
Keeping American Thinker's failure to disclose in mind, let me tell you some other disturbing facts that will have you asking this question: Who is really running the show over at American Thinker?
On September 20, 2012 American Thinker posted an article by Lee Cary entitled "Obama's Chicago Arab-American network comes into focus".
Cary's article states some unflattering facts about a man named Nadhmi Auchi, aka. Saddam Hussein's bag man.
Naturally Auchi did not appreciate this article and to no one's surprise he instructed his lawyers at the London law firm Carter-Ruck to send a letter threatening legal action if said article was not taken down.
Upon receiving Auchi's letter, Lifson took the article down momentarily to verify that it was completely factual. After determining that it was correct, Lifson promptly reposted Cary's article unchanged.
That's because Lee Cary's work was solid, and contributor John A. Shaw is as honest and credible a man as you will ever find.
Taking down that article would have given the public the perception that there was something wrong with the story. And that clearly would not be fair to either Cary or Shaw.
At that time IP2P, which was also named in the letter from Auchi's law firm, posted an article praising American Thinker for doing the right thing.
Due to many factors, including Auchi's inability to legally enter the United States, the letter from his lawyers was an idle threat. And that should have been the end of the story.
Unfortunately that happy ending was not to be.
What happened next was that someone on this side of the pond told Lifson to take the article down. And he did, a second time!
We can not tell you exactly who it was at the moment, we can tell that it was not Nadhmi Auchi or his people, according to Lifson.
Could it have been one of Clarice Feldman's close friends? Perhaps Wolfowitz, Perle or Feith?
In any case, if that wasn't bad enough, Lifson then had the audacity to think that IP2P would take the article down as well. And for some peculiar reason, he would not even tell us why.
Of course Lifson received a prompt, "Hell no!"
In fact, we at IP2P still feel that Thomas Lifson owes Cary and Shaw a formal apology for removing their article a second time from American Thinker without even giving them the courtesy of an explanation.
And more importantly, due to recent revelations about American Thinker's close ties to the Washington elite, Lifson needs to publicly address his publication's controversial policy of not disclosing conflicts of interest.
Read the article that Thomas Lifson took down twice here:
Related articles by John A. Shaw
Ernie Souchak, Editor-inChief
American Thinker's failure to disclose conflicts of interest raises serious ethical questions about the website.
Case in point.
Meet Clarice Feldman, attorney, Washington insider, and close personal friend of Richard Perle and his wife Leslie Barr.
That's Clarice up front and center, enjoying herself at former Chairman of the Defense Advisory Board Richard Perle's annual 4th of July bash in the South of France. Looks like she is having a wonderful time.
That's great Clarice!
Although it does present a bit of a problem for us common folk back in the States.
You see, very serious allegations have been made against Richard Perle (see email below)
The American Thinker thought it was OK to publish Feldman's baseless hit pieces on those who make allegations against her friends.
And if that's not bad enough, American Thinker did not feel obligated to disclose Feldman's conflict of interest. This is deplorable, and should not be tolerated.
Sent:Tue Jan 14 03:52:33 UTC 2014
Subject: Conflict of interest (Clarice Feldman)
Please tell me how Clarice Feldman's close personal relationship with Richard Perle and his wife Leslie Barr is not a conflict of interest, as it pertains to Feldman's "prerogative" to attack Sibel Edmonds' credibility.
Writer, American Thinker website
Military.com Covers Edmonds Disclosures, Reports 'Denials' From Several Fingered Bush Officials
Feature article offers comment from Perle, Feith, spokesman for Grossman, as well as information and comment in support of the FBI translator/whistleblower's charges of nuclear treason...
Tasty Food to Celebrate American Freedom in the South of (Clarice Feldman)
American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson still feels he has no obligation to disclose Feldman's close personal relationship with Perle.
Sent:Fri Jan 10 12:48:05 UTC 2014
Subject: RE: American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit
Clarice does not believe Edmonds, as is her prerogative. I trust Clarice far more than I trust you. You throw around ugly words. I don't know what you think is going on, but your tactics have alienated me.
Please do not correspond any further with me. Such correspondence is unwelcome and may constitute harassment.
It is also apparent from Lifson's email response above that he thinks someone's use of ugly words(?) is all the justification he needs to ignore evidence that proves Clarice Feldman's attacks on Sibel Edmonds are based on falsehoods. And that publishing them is unethical.
As for the rest of Feldman's reporting on "Plamegate"......much more to come......