Moulitsas Acknowledges that Many Consider Him a CIA Agent

MAMZ (Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga) finally acknowledged, in an interview with Politico of August 26, 2010, that many people suspect that he is a CIA agent:

Your relevance is directly proportional to the amount of chatter you generate about yourself. Given that I'm trying to have an impact on the American political system, I'm more than happy to tolerate crazy CIA conspiracy theories about me.

This blog would have reported this acknowledgment earlier, but I simply don't have the patience to read and write about MAMZ's day-to-day "chatter"-making statements.



MAMZ (Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga) finally acknowledged, in an interview with Politico of August 26, 2010, that many people suspect that he is a CIA agent:

Your relevance is directly proportional to the amount of chatter you generate about yourself. Given that I'm trying to have an impact on the American political system, I'm more than happy to tolerate crazy CIA conspiracy theories about me.

[I would have reported this acknowledgement earlier, but I simply don't have the patience to read and write about MAMZ's day-to-day attention "chatter"-making statements.]

Today, MAMZ says his involvement with the CIA is a "crazy CIA conspiracy theory."  If so, it's a "crazy" theory based on MAMZ's own "crazy" statement of June 2, 2006 at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

Here is what MAMZ said to get the "crazy conspiracy theory" going:

QUESTION: Not long ago, liberals loathed the Central Intelligence Agency as the enemy of democratic governments and they installed dictators around the world, and these days you read the papers and people on the Left are rallying to the defense of the CIA and are indignant when the CIA is politicized. How did this come about, that suddenly liberals are championing the CIA:

MAMZ's ANSWER: I don’t know. You know I.

QUESTION: Do you find it stranger or ironic, this sudden love for the CIA?

MAMZ's ANSWER:: You know . . . coughs . . . I think a lot of the people that did have problems with the CIA, I mean it was a very vocal minority.

MAMZ's ANSWER: You know . . . coughs . . . I think a lot of the people that did have problems with the CIA, I mean it was a very vocal minority. I think most people really didn’t think about it all that much. Right? It wasn’t really on their radar screens, ah, in the way that now it is, because now we are in this huge war, and it was the CIA that was warning the Administration against invading because, there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Here’s a little secret I don’t think I’ve ever written about: But in 2001, I was unemployed, underemployed, unemployed. You know I was in that . . You all have been there “dot com” people? Kinda like, in between jobs, doin’ a little contract work and . . . kinda. So, you know. That’s where I was: in this really horrible netherworld of ‘will I make rent next month’ and . . .

So, I applied to the CIA and I went all the way to the end, I mean it was to the point where I was going to sign papers to become Clandestine Services. And it was at that point that the Howard Dean campaign took off and I had to make a decision whether I was gonna kinda join the Howard Dean campaign, that whole process, or was I was going to become a spy. (Laughter in the audience.) It was going to be a tough decision at first, but then the CIA insisted that if, if I joined that, they’d want me to do the first duty assignment in Washington, DC, and I hate Washington, DC. Six years in Washington, DC [inaudible] that makes the decision a lot easier.

[ . . .] This is a very liberal institution. And in a lot of ways, it really does attract people who want to make a better, you know, want to make the world a better place . . . Of course, they’ve got their Dirty Ops and this and that, right but as an institution itself the CIA is really interested in stable world. That’s what they’re interested in. And stable worlds aren’t created by destabilizing regimes and creating wars.

Their done so by other means. Assassination labor leaders . . . I’m kidding!

[ . . . ] I don’t think it’s a very partisan thing to want a stable world. And even if you’re protecting American interests, I mean that can get ugly at times, but generally speaking I think their hearts in the right place. As an organization their heart is in the right place. I’ve never had any problem with the CIA. I’d have no problem working for them . Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA at the Commonwealth Club.

After MAMZ stated publicly that he trained for two years to be a CIA agent, I cannot see anything "crazy" about demanding to know his level of involvement with that agency now.   What is "crazy" about wondering how he uses his CIA training and contacts in the context of his present activities?  What is "crazy" about wondering if he maintains these contacts now, exchanging privileged information from the left with handlers at the CIA?

In the audiotape recorded at the Commonwealth Club on June 2, 2006 and transcribed  above, MAMZ states that in 2001 he began training to be a "secret agent" for the US Central Intelligence Agency and that "when the Dean campaign took off" (which happened at the very end of 2003) MAMZ chose to work with that campaign rather than to be a CIA agent, potentially infiltrating that campaign and the blogospere in general. 

In a very real sense, he acknowledges that he infiltrated the Left by training at the CIA while participating among people with real and true leftist beliefs and commitments.  And he was duplicitous and traitorous when he waited four or five years to tell his readers, associates and the public about his CIA affiliation.

Does MAMZ believe that his two years at the CIA are irrelevant to his resume?  This doesn't appear in any of his own biographies and curriculum vitae.   Did he just think that it would be easier to announce his CIA involvement later, off-offhandedly, rather than post a serious article about it at his blog in 2002, when his blatant conflict of interest commenced? 

There is one point on which I agree with MAMZ.

Your relevance is directly proportional to the amount of chatter you generate about yourself.

However, I would substitute the phrase "ignominious infamy" where MAMZ says "relevance." Unfortunately, it's easier to generate chatter by doing something unspeakably horrible (like infiltrating the Left for the CIA while pretending to be a leftist) than to become notorious while doing something good, during an entire lifetime. 

It's easier to generate an "amount of chatter" by shooting thirty fellow students at a university than it is to become famous while teaching thirty kids to read.  It is unquestionably faster and easier to become famous and therefore "relevant" by doing evil than by doing good.  The "chatter" about Adolph Hitler and Benedict Arnold may never completely subside.

Outstanding acts of evil are more newsworthy than positive commitment to others because most people do not practice outstanding evil while trying to attract "chatter."  It's easier to pull the trigger on a semi-automatic rifle for a minute and kill people than it is to research cancer cures for a decade.  So, if MAMZ chose the route of quick chatter through evil (announcing his involvement with the CIA) rather than quietly doing good, then maybe that's comprehensible from someone who believes as he does that "chatter' is indispensable.

So, what better way could there have been for MAMZ to generate chatter than to assert, as MAMZ did on June 2, 2006 at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, that MAMZ had trained for two years (2001-2003) to become a CIA agent, while starting DailyKos (2002).  A CIA agent-in-training starting a "leftist" blog simultaneously is inherently newsworthy, to say the least.  Maybe MAMZ just announced this truth in 2006 because he wanted the "chatter" that would result.
But, did he want chatter so much that he would lie about a nonexistent connection with the CIA?

If MAMZ would lie about training for two years with the CIA, is there anything that he would NOT lie about?  And if he told the truth in 2006, then there is no excuse for him to dismiss that truth as a "crazy conspiracy theory" in 2011.  This instance show just how quick MAMZ is to call something a crazy conspiracy theory when there is substantial or even overwhelming evidence to support the theory


The Truth About Kos will continue to public information about MAMZ that sheds light on his own connections to the CIA and his family's connections to the US Government.  See, for example,

"The Indictment of Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA (MAMZ) by Justice and History (Updated with Additional Information and Counts)"