Saturday, August 25, 2007

Did the CIA Inform MAMZ of the Iraq War 2 Years Before it Began?

A couple of people have pointed out something about MAMZ's June 2, 2006 speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that deserves to be pursued further. In the context of his assertion that everyone he met at the CIA was a "liberal," MAMZ's says of a woman with whom he spoke at the CIA,
This is before the war, right? And she was saying, 'Man, they're going to take us to war. This isn't right.'
The war in Iraq started two years later, officially on March 20, 2003. Did staffers at the CIA discuss this war with Markos Moulitsas two years before it began? If so, why? And what else did they discuss with Markos Moulitsas that has never been discussed with the public?

MAMZ says that he applied to the CIA in 2001. Presumeably, at least some part of this six-month application process would have had to occur AFTER September 11, 2001, unless MAMZ would have us believe that CIA officials discussed the Iraq War with him BEFORE the Twin Towers were destroyed.

The US War on Afghanistan began officially was in motion by October 2001. But there is some seems to be a consensus among politicians that there were at least militants in Afghanistan who arguably might have been anti-American. But what about what MAMZ insists he was told at the CIA in 2001: "Man, they're going to take us to war. This isn't right." Was this woman referring to the War in Afghanistan and saying that "This isn't right?" Or was she saying that the war on Iraq," even a full two years before that war began in earnest.

One thing is clear. We just don't know all that we need to know about MAMZ's participation at CIA, what he learned there, what he did there, what he was told there, and when and why.

And because this timeline offered by MAMZ in his Commonwealth Club speech simply doesn't hold water, the speech simply cannot be taken at face value, and nothing that he said in the speech can be accepted as unquestionably accurate.

All we know is that MAMZ said he spent six months interviewing with CIA officials and meeting with CIA officials, and he discussed his blog with CIA officials, and then his blog became a media darling.

In the speech, MAMZ predicted that Hillary Clinton would end up like Lieberman. If so, it should be noted that Moulitsas adamantly opposed Lieberman and then Lieberman was won the electoral race that MAMZ predicted Lieberman would lose.


Anonymous said...

Regarding the war....he refers to the CIA officer saying "the evidence isn't there"....that's referring to Iraq..

But as you can see he went to work for dean in 2003...and that's all we need to means that his decesion to join the CIA or not join took place in 2003....the "interview" process began in you idea that he worked fof the CIA gains sounds like it's quite possible or probable he was in fact trained by the CIA....a people trained by the CIA are paid. So the timeline is very revealing.

In any case he had already started Daily Kos during the period he says he was talking to the CIA....and he says he discussed his website with the CIA.

It all begins to fall into place...

And it's a deception

Stu Piddy

Here's a detailed blog about it.

Francis Holland said...


That's a great blog article you wrote, explaining that MAMZ MUST have been at the CIA when he was blogging at DailyKos, perhaps for as much as two years. That means he WAS trained by the CIA, and he DID get paid for his training, so he DID work at the CIA, just as I asserted he did.

Based on what he said at the Commonwealth Club, it only made sense that he had to get paid. Now you have proved that he got paid by showing he was at the CIA for at least a year, maybe two, and that means he was "trained" and he got paid for the training time at the CIA. He was a CIA-employee/trainee.

Anonymous said...

Francis, want to know what I think? No? Here it is, anyway.

I don't think Kos ever worked for the CIA. The timeline that Stu Piddy has provided shows that Kos' story doesn't check out, but I don't think that means he was hired by them.

You are familiar with Occam's Razor, yes? The simplest explanation is preferred.

Here's the simplest explanation: Kos is lying about being hired by the CIA (he claims they offered him employment). He didn't pass the screening tests, but he knows that the CIA isn't going to confirm or deny that he even applied, much less was offered (or not offered) a job.

The timeline of what we know about his life does not mesh with the timeline of his "I was offered a job by the CIA".

You think that means that Kos worked for the CIA for a year or two (and maybe is still employed with them).

I prefer the simpler explanation: Kos either never interviewed with the CIA at all, or else interviewed and was turned down.

If you look at how Kos handles himself, he doesn't strike me as much of a "smooth operator". Kos suffers from terminal foot-in-mouth disease.

If a CIA operative was in charge of DailyKos, he wouldn't act the way Kos does. No, that person would pretend to be a liberal (Kos doesn't, and hasn't for a long time) and would arouse as little opposition as possible inside the progressive blogosphere, in order to keep all the progressives corraled at DailyKos.

I don't think Kos ever worked for the CIA, and I'm beginning to doubt whether he ever even interviewed with them.

Francis Holland said...

If so, that means that MAMZ is a child who invents fundmantal facts in the context of public speeches to make himself look more important.

If what you are proposing is true, then this person has to be a sociopathic liar (he feels no remorse about misleading the entire country).

What happens when a sociopathic liar who feels no remorse, and who believes in states' rights and is homophobic is able to increase his influence in government?

What you are proposing would mean that the most fundamental parts of MAMZ's personality - the habitual lying and the insecurity - have been significant factors in his life even as late as 2006?. They continue in him, even in his transmutation to Democrat?

The question we have to ask and answer over the next 18 months is, "How much influence should such a person have over the judgments of the Democratic Party during the next 18 months, and what role should a person who lies about this have in a new Democratic administration?

No one who sees MAMZ's frenetic naitonal and international activity can doubt MAMZ's lofty political aspirations. If he stands in front of an audience and lies about (or totally invents a CIA history), like a six year old, then how much of a role should he have in the Democratic Party? I think the answer is "a very, very severely limited and rigorously restricted role."

If he lied about something this important, then we need to be held accountable for that. He needs to be made to explain to the public what the truth is and why he lied.

So, bringing his assertion to the attention of the public is the right strategy whether his assertion is evidence of CIA activity or evidence that he is a pathological liar.