Judith Miller’s “trial and error” approach to journalism!


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

While on a tour hawking her new book "The Story" Judith Miller admitted to James O'Keefe that she takes a "trial and error" approach to journalism.

Miller's exact quote: "That's what journalism is, trial and error."

Wow! That's the most incredible thing I have ever heard a person who purports to be a journalist say. For Miller, journalism is a - crapshoot!

Add that to the fact that she claims to have written her new book to correct the record, and you have unadulterated stupidity.

But wait, it gets even better.

Miller, while being interviewed by Ed Morrissey, gave the following explanation for why she now believes that she gave false testimony in the U.S. v Libby trial:

"My memory failed me, in part because the prosecutor withheld information I needed to decipher my own notes."

Really Judy, reporting is trial and error, and you need someone else to decipher your own notes? Truly remarkable!

More remarkable is that Miller now credits Scooter Libby with deciphering her notes correctly for her in 2010. Libby's interpretation of her notes was that he's innocent. Imagine that!

Miller has yet to offer an explanation for her waiting five years to profess Scooter's innocence after her epiphany that she gave false testimony.

I'll come back to Miller's notes and the importance of her relying on others to decipher them in a more in-depth  follow up article that will detail Libby's behind-the-scenes involvement in her book.

Unlike Miller, I do not believe journalism is done by trial and error, I believe you just report the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

With that in mind, here are some of the facts that Miller and friends do not want you to know.

Fact: Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage did not expose Valerie Plame as an employee of the CIA in 2003.

It was Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman who exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Plame in 2001. (Remember, Miller confessed to me in 2013 that she knew it was not Armitage.)

Grossman not only outed Plame, at the same time he was also caught on an FBI wiretap bragging that he would fax articles to the New York Times and they would just print them under someone's byline.

Judith's byline? Perhaps.

Fact: On October 1, 2003 when Armitage came forward to claim he was the leaker of Plame's identity, it was not Patrick Fitzgerald that asked him to keep it to himself. It was the FBI - under the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller who instructed Armitage, Colin Powell and then State Department Counsel William H Taft who was present in the room - not to tell anyone.

Fact: Attorney General John Ashcroft did not recuse himself in the Plame case because of his close ties to the White House. Ashcroft recused himself because at that time he was in front of FISA court Judge Reggie B. Walton enforcing a gag order on the one person who could tell the world that Plamegate was all a sham! That person being FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds.

Walton was also the judge who presided over the Libby case. What a coincidence.

So you see Judith, there's no trial and error. It's simple. A real journalist just states the facts from the get-go.

And since you admit you can't do that, we're not interested in anymore of your false narratives!

By the way, how many times do you feel you're allowed to be wrong?


Patrick Fitzgerald’s “not not denial” that he warned Blagojevich


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-chief

Was former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald displaying his intellectual shortcomings or was he just being duplicitous when he was given the opportunity to deny that he was the one who ultimately warned Governor Rod Blagojevich that he was recording Blago's phone conversations?

In a recent phone call Fitzgerald was asked directly:

"Do you deny that the U.S. Attorney's Office had communications with the Chicago Tribune about the Blagojevich case on Dec. 4, 2008?"

Fitzgerald's response: "I'm not denying it and I'm not not denying it."

Really, Patrick? "Not not denying it"?

You either deny it or you don't.

And for the record, you did "not deny" communicating with the Chicago Tribune before you decided to "not not deny" communicating with them.

What's next, Patrick? Are you and former White House counsel Greg Craig, who is now your law partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, going to do Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first" routine for us?

And by the way is "not not" the kind of nonsense you teach the students at the University of Chicago Law School in your capacity as a Feirson Distinguished Lecturer?

If so, they will never be able to practice law anywhere but Chicago.

To: Sarah Galer
Cc: amgardn, andaws
Sent: March 29, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Feirson Distinguished Lecturer

Ms. Sarah Galer

Please inform Patrick Fitzgerald that the Office of Professional Responsibility and the U.S. Inspector Generals Office would be who conducts an investigation of a U.S. Attorney.

I would have thought a "Feirson Distinguished Lecturer" would know that.

< name redacted >

p.s. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald's 1st lecture could be on this very subject.

-----Original Message-----

To: Patrick Fitzgerald
Cc: Aaron Goldstein , Sheldon Sorosky
Sent: 2013-03-29 02:46:11 +0000
Subject: Fwd: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald

Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald

You are on the record claiming that you do not know who would investigate the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the leaks to John Chase and the Chicago Tribune.

Do you agree, there should be an investigation?

< name redacted >

-----Original Message-----

To: sgaler@uchicago.edu
Sent: 2013-03-27 09:34:58 GMT
Subject: Media inquiry/Patrick Fitzgerald

Ms. Sarah Galer

The fact that the University of Chicago Law School is welcoming former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to be part of your schools program. And, that your showering him with accolades at a time that he is embroiled in controversy. Leads me to believe that you might not be aware of just how serious this may ultimately be for your institutions reputation.

Are you aware of the following?

And, if so, have you done due diligence?

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald “Most Dangerous Man”

Why no Grand Jury? Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase involved in a crime. AGAIN!

< name redacted >

Former U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald named Feirson Distinguished Lecturer


In Fitzgerald's defense, there is the distinct possibility that he really is this stupid. And let's face it, if he truly is mentally challenged, how would he know unless someone told him?

After all, the media does nothing but tell Fitzgerald how wonderfully smart he is.

In fact, the fawning Chicago media actually remained silent as Fitzgerald declared during a press conference about the Blagojevich case that the leaks to the Tribune "might have come from his office so he could not investigate them," and that he "had no idea who would investigate".

Wow! Can you believe that?

Amazingly, no one in the adoring mainstream media insisted that Fitzgerald explain those ridiculously stupid statements.

Well, Patrick, IP2P has news for you: you're not as bright as the media has led you to believe.

And now that it appears that Blagojevich will get out of prison soon, we insist that you explain your asinine statements about the leaks from your office to the Chicago Tribune.

And while you're at it, Fitz, you also need to explain to the public why you buried irrefutable evidence that:

(A) Sibel Edmonds gave you in the Plamegate scandal;

(B) John A. Shaw gave you in the Nadhmi Auchi scandal; and

(C) I, Ernie Souchak, gave you in the Blagojevich scandal.

Not to mention the well-documented burying of evidence you did in the Southern District of New York.

To be continued...


Judith Miller’s book canceled due to recent Plamegate confession


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Fox News contributor and author Judith Miller recently confessed that Dick Armitage was not the person who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA, and that "a lot of people" in Washington knew this.

Miller went on to say that she was going to tell the story of what really happened during the Plamegate scandal her way in a book due out this spring.

Keep in mind that at that time, Miller had not planned to make a confession about Plamegate. When she realized what she had done, she immediately contacted Scooter Libby in hopes that he could do damage control.

Anyone want to guess what happened next?

Suddenly, with absolutly no warning and no explanation, the release of Miller's book was canceled.

Ouch. It's gotta hurt when you write your memoir and you can't release it because of your own big mouth.

Now Miller is refusing to answer any questions about Plamegate or the cancellation of her eagerly awaited book.

And she's not alone.

Her publisher, Simon & Schuster, and Fox News are also refusing to answer any questions.

The good news: former CIA attorney John Rizzo's recent willingness to discuss Plamegate and his acknowledgment that it was a CIA disinformation campaign could very well make hearing Miller's version of events unnecessary.

We'll see, won't we?

In any case, it might be a good time for you to consider another career change, Judith.

Just a suggestion.


Former CIA attorney John Rizzo confirms Plamegate was a disinformation campaign


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Former acting general counsel for the CIA, John Rizzo, was recently provided articles from IP2P that state clearly and unequivocally that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, and he was asked to comment on them.

After reading these reports, Rizzo conveyed his compliments, adding that "Mr. Souchak is obviously a good, dogged reporter".

So not only did Rizzo not dispute my reports that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, he actually praised me for them.

Thank you, John.

Now we're getting somewhere. Valerie Plame, it's your turn to tell the truth.

Please start by explaining your relationship with Marc Grossman, the man who really exposed your cover, Brewster Jennings & Associates, as a CIA front.

And while you're at it, Valerie, why don't you tell everyone exactly what your husband, Joe Wilson, was doing for the American Turkish Council.

And I am sure that your adoring fans would also love to hear why you're actively campaigning to elect Hillary Clinton president after she appointed Marc Grossman special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2011.

Remember it was Grossman that got caught on a FBI wiretap peddling nuclear secrets on the black market that ultimately wound up in Pakistan.

Or was that sanctioned by the CIA as well?

What say you, Valerie? You were supposed to be watching out for that kind of activity, weren't you?

In any case the good news is that we can now once and for all dispense with the ridiculous notion that Dick Armitage was the person who exposed Valerie Plame as CIA.

The Armitage cover story was so easily disputed that it was downright embarrassing for us as a nation to have swallowed such a feeble lie.

And best of all, now that John Rizzo has confirmed for us that Plamegate was a CIA disinformation campaign, will someone please lower the curtain on the nauseating "Valerie Plame Show"?


The interviews Valerie Plame and her “publicity-seeking, preening blowhard” husband do not want you to know about


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Former CIA attorney John Rizzo was correct when he called Valerie Plame's husband, Amb. Joe Wilson, a "publicity-seeking, preening blowhard".

However, we can tell you that there are at least two interviews that both Plame and her "publicity-seeking" husband do not want you to know about.

The first: In 2005 Valerie and Joe welcomed French film director Mathieu Verboud into their home to interview Wilson for the documentary Verboud was filming about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds entitled "Kill The Messenger".

At the time, Wilson was presenting himself to the world as a proxy whistleblower of sorts for his wife. So when the opportunity arose for Wilson to go in front of the camera to claim that Plame was somehow a heroric figure just like Edmonds, he jumped at the chance.

According to Verboud, that's exactly what Wilson spent nearly 90 minutes doing. That is until he was caught off guard when Verboud began asking him questions about Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman's involvement in exposing his wife's cover, Brewster Jennings & Associates, as CIA.

That's when the interview came to a screeching stop and Wilson made it very clear to Verboud that he would not answer any question about Marc Grossman.

Wow. Talk about a "60 Minutes" moment. Wilson was clearly not expecting any questions about Grossman.

Remember, Edmonds had already been silenced by the Dept. of Justice under States Secrets Privilege Act., so Wilson thought no one knew about Grossman's involvement in the outing of his wife.

So Verboud now had Joe Wilson on film refusing to answer questions about the man Sibel Edmonds swore under oath had exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and Valerie Plame as CIA back in 2001. And that man was none other than Wilson's friend and former college classmate Marc Grossman.

For a filmmaker making a documentary about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, this was pure gold!

Clearly Verboud thought so as well - demonstrated by the fact that a short clip of the Wilson interview was included in the film's official trailer.

View Trailer: Kill The Messenger

The second interview that Plame and Wilson do not want you to know about is: Verboud's interview with Grossman himself for "Kill The Messenger".

In this interview, conducted in 2006 at an American Turkish Council event. Verboud asked Grossman a question about Valerie Plame and he pretended not to know who she was.

Even though he testified under oath during the Scooter Libby trial about his friendship with Wilson and enjoying breakfast at Joe and Valerie's house.

Here's Verboud in his own words:

Mathieu Verboud: Coming back to Grossman, exposing his role would have been interesting for the film, but the guy being what he is, there was no way that he would have given an interview if we had brought up any kind of charges. So we decided to just let him talk, give us his vision of Turkey...

Then we tested him - we asked him about Valerie Plame - and it was amazing to see his face change! He had the nerves to say that he didn’t know anything about Valerie Plame, or about Brewster Jennings - which is simply false! As mentioned earlier, his name had already appeared publicly in the Valerie Plame's case! Anyway, we didn't point out to that simple fact and fended off.

But Grossman was not finished lying on camera yet.

Verboud: Next, we just mentioned that there was this little woman of Turkish origin whose name was mentioned in an article in Vanity Fair speaking about FBI and Turkey… His face changed again, and he came up with this answer: "Vanity Fair? I am afraid it is not a magazine I read!" We then asked him directly about Sibel Edmonds and he said that he didn't know anything about her. Even the name was "unfamiliar".

Verboud must have been leading a charmed life to get such interviews on film. This is pure documentary filmmaking gold.

So, now the only question is why did Mathieu Verboud and co-direct Jean R. Viallet exclude this amazing footage of both interviews from their film?

Wilson appears in the trailer but not the film itself, and the film credits posted by IMDb list the Grossman interview as being "deleted" from the film. Repeat: "Deleted".

We know that Plamegate was a disinformation campaign. But what we would like to know is who applied the pressure to keep these two interviews out of the film?

To this day, both co-directors and Zadig Productions still refuse to release footage of either the Grossman or Wilson interviews.

And Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and their friend, Marc Grossman, while not denying these facts as stated, also refuse to answer any questions about the interviews.

Watch the full 82-minute final version of "Kill The Messenger" here:http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/5629



Richard Perle feeds American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Not only was Richard Perle feeding the American Thinker what he wanted them to report during the Iraq war and Plamegate.

Turns out he was also sautéing foie gras for American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson and friends.

Lifson's good friend Bob Lee tells of an intimate gathering at the house of Washington insiders Clarice and Howard Feldman, where Perle played a co-host of sorts.

Yes, this is the same Clarice Feldman who writes for American Thinker and who recently insisted that Plamegate was not a deliberate plot by Goerge W. "Bush and pals to distract from Iraq."

It also turns out that Clarice Feldman considers Richard Perle such a good friend that she puts him to work in her kitchen when he attends her soirées.

Here's what Bob Lee wrote about the intimate gathering.

Richard Perle Sauteed The Foie Gras …

There were probably 1000s of other such conversational gourmands meeting inside the Washington Beltway on Friday night. Nine adults enjoying a 4-course gourmet dinner au conversation. Ours had a former Asst Secty of Defense, the ex-wife of The Head of The World Bank, a military historian, a Libby Trial aficionado, a right-wing fanatic from Berkley, and a North Carolina couple referred to as friends of Tom. … That grotesquely hilarious report about Apple Cheek Johnny's Poverty Castle ??? Wait til BobLee tells you THE REAL STORY!

If you want to skip down to the hilarious REAL STORY about Apple Cheek’s Monster Manse go ahead … but do come back up for this account of our Foggy Bottom Fandango.

Remember The Brunswick Stew Party a few years ago. Given my druthers I’d take that over Friday night for pure conviviality plus b-stew trumps foie gras every time with me. But, our dinner party in a prominent DC-A list neighborhood certainly added a few memories to the life larder. The Mizzus could not get out of Georgetown fast enough Saturday as urban congestion about did her in. With me it was the Euros and faux Euros that slink up /down M Street. They are sorta like Shineolas except they (the Euros) have greasier hair.

Our dear friend Thomas The Berkley Right-winger had invited us. Clarice and Howard were our gracious hosts. We had no idea who was on the guest list, nor did they. They likely still don’t know and we’re still not sure ourselves.

Howard perked up when I said I am a legendary humorist. So is my brother he said. Feldman ... yikes ... was this MARTY FELDMAN's brother??? ... Hump, what hump ... Walk this way ... I'll take the one in the turban. No ... Michael Feldman ... an NPR talk show guy that is well outside my interest sphere.

When the big man in the hat said his name was Richard Perle I first thought the guy that started those Vision Centers. Close … the former Reagan Asst Secty of Defense not affectionately known around DC as the Prince of Darkness. Richard, legend has it, was the first one to get GWB’s ear after 9/11 and strongly recommend taking down Saddam ASAP.

I introduced myself as the last remaining member of The Flying Wallendas and Mizzus said she was Stephanie Powers’ younger sister. I detected a glimmer of recognition with the name Wallenda but it flickered and died quickly. After game after game of “hey look, IT’S BOBLEE…” it was sort of nice to be naught but a whozit for an evening. Now I know how those three little white boys at the end of Dean’s bench musta felt all those years.

A pre-dinner conversational mini-joust highlighted by one of Thomas’ Napa Valley finest led us to the dinner table. I was seated between Thomas From Berkley and a little Jewish lady named Clare with a daughter at Chapel Hill and an ex-husband who was almost CIA Director and instead is Head of The World Bank – Paul Wolfowitz.

Mizzus was between Richard and Peter The Lawyer From Annapolis. During the course of four courses and about two hours of chitting and chatting, Peter actually used the word Parenthetically ... TWICE. In well over 50 years I’ve never used in once nor do I ever intend to. Peter used it with a deftness that would lead one to believe he uses it daily if not hourly. I wonder if Paul Johnson, a football coach who lives in Annapolis, has ever used the word parenthetically? I doubt it.

A French onion soufflé began our epicurean journey. At about the 15-minute mark Richard left the table. When he returned he had grease stains all over the front of his blue oxford button-down. Since I’ve been known to get a tab rowdy in eating I chose not to inquire “yo Perle, whats with the grease spots?”

Clarise explained it all … she had asked Richard to sautee the foie gras. Although he knew one should slide the foie gras delicately into the hot pan, silly Prince of Darkness DROPPED the foie gras from several inches above the skillet … voila … grease spots all over his shirt. And this was the man that convinced GWB to take out Saddam! I wonder if Cindy Sheehan knows how to sautee foie gras?

The thought occured to me twixt Course Two & Three ... suppose Ol' Fruitcake Freddie From Franklin Street had been hiding under the table? That silly wabbit's tin foil hat woulda been spinning like a top. Lord have mercy, Freddie would have been dialing up the Mutha Ship for sure to report a new CONSPIRACY!

I cleaned my plate because that’s how I was raised plus, like Mikey, I eat most anything. Mizzus nibbled and later expressed her pique at the goose liver. The Beef Wellington of Course Three was equally tasty to me but a bit too rare for Mizzus.

As the evening progressed everyone seemed to assume familiar roles … listening to Richard Perle tell about meeting with world leaders and getting the Chi Coms to reduce the price of AK47s to the Mujaheedin. Richard Perle does NOT care much for The Saudis. In other words, the same chit chat you get about anywhere. Richard did ask me which other humorists I admire the most. Since I did not mention PJ O’Rourke or Robert Benchley it didn’t much matter who I mentioned. I deftly dropped Dave Huxtable’s name and I thought I noticed a slight shiver from ex-Mrs Wolfowitz.

John McCain’s name came up. Mizzus did that finger down the throat gag sign which took Peter Parenthetical aback. The military historian lady even pretended to care on that. Richard seconded Mizzus’ low opinion of McCrazy with a few stories on him that likely are not in his official bio. Apparently John McCrazy has a hair trigger temper and the attention span of a gnat. But, unlike Barack, he has normal ears ... and unlike Hilly, he has discernible ankles.

I noted to ex-Mrs Wolfowitz that out-of-state tuition had just been increased at UNC. She said she didn’t care since her(daughter’s) father can afford it. He’s head of The World Bank. She’s likely right. I tried a second question tied to 40 Point Frank’s next career move. I lost ex-Mrs Wolfowitz … never to regain her. I later learned she is a somewhat famous anthropologist specializing in Sumatra. She woulda lost me quickly on that.

We did learn all about the shadow government that really runs Washington … the insidious webees that have been in place forever and defy all administrations and/or new personalities.

Clarice, our gracious host, attends the Scooter Libby Trial each day. She had many harsh words for Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. I later learned from Thomas that there are at least two websites devoted to people who dislike Clarice a lot. TWO … My kinda woman!

On the drive home Saturday we stopped at the Silver Diner at Potomac Mills. Mizzus had a grilled cheese. I had a crab cake melt. It was good.


Wow. Although no doubt unintentionally, Bob Lee has opened a serious can of worms for the American Thinker by preserving for the record the events of that little get-together.

First thing we have to ask is this:

If Richard Perle was feeling chatty enough to talk about "meeting with world leaders and getting the Chi Coms to reduce the price of AK47s to the Mujaheedin", why did Lifson and Feldman not find this interesting enough to write about?

And as long as Perle was telling war stories, why didn't Lifson or Feldman ask him about more current topics, such as the 550 Tons of yellowcake that was then still sitting in Iraq?

And while we're at it, why didn't the American Thinker editor ask Clare Wolfowitz about the letter she wrote to George W. Bush that derailed ex-husband Paul Wolfowitz's bid to be the director of the CIA.

Instead, Thomas Lifson and Clarice Feldman continued to publish stories attacking those who disagreed with Perle or Wolfowitz without disclosing that they were close personal friends.

How is that for journalistic integrity?

We now know that Clarice Feldman's ridiculous attack on Sibel Edmonds' credibility, claiming Edmonds "misunderstood what she had overheard," certainly must have come from Richard Perle.

We also know that Feldman cannot name Perle as her source for that dubious claim due to the fact that Edmonds made it clear that if the FBI wiretap tapes she translated were ever made public, Perle would go to prison.

Remember, the Department of Defense, Perle's old stomping grounds, was instrumental in invoking states secrets privilege on Edmonds so that she could not talk publicly about what was on those tapes.

Bit of a conflict there, don't ya think, Clarice?

If that's not enough to make you ask who's running things at the American Thinker, we have reason to believe that the "military historian lady" at this private gathering was none other than Laurie Mylroie.

If so, we have a few questions for Clarice Feldman's "dear friend" Mylroie as well.

Perhaps Lifson or Feldman will get back to us on that.

In any case, we can hardly wait to read Judith Miller's tell all book due out this spring.

Judith, can you give us a preview?


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.

For example:

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.

President George W. Bush meets with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2003.


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!


Plamegate Update: American Thinker fails to disclose conflicts of interest!


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.

From: <redacted>
To: thomas@americanthinker.com
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.

(name redacted)
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.

From: thomas@americanthinker.com
Sent:Fri Jan 10 12:48:05 UTC 2014
Subject: RE: American Thinker's dishonest attempt to discredit

(name redacted),

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......


Plamegate update: Clarice Feldman says Sibel Edmonds misunderstood


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman came up with a stunning justification for her hit piece on Sibel Edmonds' credibility.

After she was criticized for failing to provide any facts or references to support her public declaration that FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is not credible, Feldman finally offered this journalistic gem:

"p to p has no secret info to my knowledge. As I recall the investigation of Sibel's charges was mixed--She was found credible respecting claims of the operation of the FBI's Arabic translation group. Not so with her assertions that a variety of high govt officials were engaged in treasonous stuff with Turkey. As to those things I thing she misunderstood what she had overheard"

So, according to Clarice Feldman, the woman who testified before the 911 Commission and had state secrets privilege invoked on her twice, simply "misunderstood what she overheard" on the FBI wiretap tapes.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up for us, Clarice.

Now if you don't mind, just tell us the correct translation of what is on the FBI wiretap tapes that Edmonds "misunderstood".

And please show us where DoJ Inspector General Glenn Fine says Edmonds is not credible as it pertains to "her assertions that a variety of high govt officials were engaged in treasonous stuff with Turkey" in his unclassified report.

Because we can't find that in the report. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Unless of course Clarice received a copy of the classified report. Well, did you Clarice?

But Feldman is right about one thing: "Plamegate" was a hoax. However, she is not telling the truth about the who, what, why, when, and where of the hoax. Or the more accurate description - disinformation campaign.

And now Feldman is continuing the disinformation campaign by quoting from a new book by John Rizzo, a CIA attorney and self described friend of Patrick Fitzgerald.


Will get back to you on that one......more to come...


Valerie Plame lied and people died


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief

Valerie Plame lied about her cover as a covert CIA operative at front company Brewster Jennings & Associates being blown in 2003 due to an article written by Bob Novak.

And as a result, the U.S. invaded Iraq and people died!

You see, as we now know from documents and sworn testimony of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the cover of Plame's CIA front company Brewster Jennings & Associates was blown in the summer of 2001 by Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman.

Grossman exposed Plame as CIA long before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 or Plame's husband Ambassador Joe Wilson's infamous trip to Niger in 2002.

In fact, Plame's CIA front company was exposed before the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 (the CIA's second largest complex) on September 11, 2001.

Thanks to Sibel Edmonds we now know that Valerie Plame, Lewis "Scooter" Libby and the White House were all fully aware of the fact that Brewster Jennings & Associates was exposed and shut down in 2001, and that Grossman was selling nuclear secrets at that time.

So, ask yourself this.

If in 2001, Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson would have told the truth about the fact that Marc Grossman (the third highest ranking official at the State Department) exposed Plame as a CIA operative to officials in Turkey and Pakistan, and was selling nuclear secrets on the black- market, would we still have invaded Iraq?

Of course not!

Remember, in 2001 Valerie Plame was purportedly in the CIA's counter-proliferation division. Plame's job was to catch people who were selling nuclear secrets on the black-market. People like Grossman!

And, "Special Counsel" Patrick Fitzgerald was head of special task force unit 49 in 2001, nicknamed the bin Laden unit. Unit 49 was a antiterrorism task force that operated out of the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern Dist. New York. (Manhattan)

Valerie, isn't Pakistan where the A.Q. Kahn network operated out of?

And Patrick, isn't Pakistan where Osama bin Laden operated out of?

Why is it that Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson now refuse to answer any questions about a subject that in the past you could not get them to shut up about?

Why is it that Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson refuse to answer any questions about their friendship with Marc Grossman, the man who exposed Brewster Jennings and Valerie as CIA?

Answer: Plame and Bush lied - people died!

As for former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, there is some blockbuster news coming very soon.