The Washington Post Hiding LIVEONLINE Transcript of CIA Mel Goodman

The Washington Post | October 1, 2003 | CIA Mel Goodman LIVEONLINE

[SBD1]

It appears that the Washington Post has removed a transcript entirely from their website. The transcript dated October 1, 2003 was titled The White House, Congress and the CIA.

Mel Goodman, former CIA analyst and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, discusses the misuse of intelligence and the need to protect CIA operatives.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...not wanting it to remain available to the public.

Ooopsy. Too late! We must all archive this piece and get it out there when the time is right.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

CDs are awesome and backups can be stored safely at a friend's house. Most CDs now have CD-RW although Microsoft's software isn't as useful as InCD Packet Writing, also known as Nero.

But Microsoft's version is on a gazillion machines so that's quite OK, use what you've got.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

I'm here to serve, Renowned Researcherette! ;^)

[expatpat]

Perhaps the WP is close to getting zapped on CIA secrets?

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thank you for the chuckle and kudo!

[Bahbah]

I already saved a copy.

Me too. I want to go back through it and see how many lies and misstatements of fact I can actually find.

[solzhenitsyn]

Thanks very much. "Mommy, why does our Fitzmas present make that ticking sound?"

[BigBobber]

We need to repeat often and loudly how the entire Democrat scenario of how the Bush administration got us into the war in Iraq is preposterous. This is the plot line they have been trying to sell for the last two years.

1) The CIA and the Bush administration obtained irrefutable evidence that Iraq possessed no WMDs. This evidence was obtained in the few months since the end of the Clinton administration, since Clinton and all his followers were convinced Iraq had WMDs before they left office.

2) Knowing there were no longer WMDs, Bush had several lines of argument to support going to war, including humanitarian, war crimes, UN resolutions, democratization of the ME, and WMD. Knowing they would find no WMDs after invading Iraq, Bush nevertheless made WMDs the key argument for going to war, pushing all other reasons to the back.

3) Once the Iraq war began, Bush knew they would find no WMDs, but had no sinister backup plan to fabricate records, plant phony evidence, or have an Iraqi informant tell us the weapons were moved to say, Syria, which would give Bush reason to invade yet another country in his quest for global domination.

4) Bush's sinister plan to hide the CIA's irrefutable evidence of no WMDs consisted of leaking the names of CIA agents to Democrat reporters in liberal media like the Washington Post, NY Times, and Newsweek, and then hope that these liberal would publish their names. Of course, this would be done only AFTER the CIA leaked the information to these same news outlets.

Do the libs really think we are all this stupid? Does any of this make sense when their entire revisionist history is put together, instead of laid out a piece at a time?

[FlingWingFlyer]

This Goodman character sounds like a real DemocRAT K-Y cowboy. I've never seen so much hate in my life.

[Valin]

OH NO! I may have learned something. I'm scared.

[Sam Hill]

"Thank you. I have been watching VIPS and the Post and find it interesting that they are scrubbing the record of their promoting this group and Wilson."

If it were anyone else but the WP, I'd say it was from shame.

Since VIPS' mission is to get people to leak secret information to help our enemies.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

That's spelled SKEERED!

We's rabid Redneck extreeeemists, remember?


;^)

[andyandval]

"Mommy, why does our Fitzmas present make that ticking sound?"

I scared the cats right out of the room laughing at that one!

LOLOL!

[sausageseller]

Mel Goodman: There is only a violation in the case of someone under cover. The CIA employee has been under cover her entire career. The CIA tried to get Novak to drop her name, which was meaningless in the context of the story, but this less than savory journalist went ahead.

Liar, Liar you pants are gonna be on fire.

[Just mythoughts]

"CDs are awesome and backups can be stored safely at a friend's house."


This is getting serious if we are now going to have to store safely at friend's house.

[Dolphy]

Well they are not hiding this June 10, 2003 on-line chat. Interesting timing, part of the beginning roll-out that included Wilson as an anonymous ambassador.

Bush administration clearly exaggerated the intelligence and, in some cases, lied about specific factors. A key issue regarding both the intelligence community and the Bush administration is the use of a forged document to make the case regarding Iraq's nuclear program.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

It's worth doing. Computers crash, laptops get stolen, houses burn down.

[Just mythoughts]

I agree with you.

[ScaniaBoy]

Thanks for posting this. Saved to my HD. I haven't had time to read it all yet, but the name, Mel Goodman, says it all - the leopard never changes its spots!

For those who don't know, here is some background on prof Mel:

As you can see from post #15 Goodman was an analyst on Soviet affairs in the CIA from mid 70s until 1990.

I haven't been able to find any direct quotes, but it is more than likely that Mr Goodman (as he was then) was one of the CIA analyst that most strongly argued against DCI Bill Casey and his view on the Soviet Union, and specifically the link that the reporter Claire Sterling had found between the Soviets and the terrorist movements in the 70s and 80s.

A lot of the criticism directed against Sterling's book in leftist circles can actually be traced back to leaks from the CIA claiming that her book was based on disinformation disseminated by the CIA.

As far as I know it has never been shown that Mr Goodman was directly responsible for these leaks, but that he subscribed to the "analysis" is borne out by a highly public statement he made in front of Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence to try and block the nomination of Robert Gates as DCI in succession to Bill Casey.

Goodman accused Gates of deliberately skewing his anlysts' opinions and rewriting key passages "to conclude there was Soviet complicity in the attempt on the Pope's life".

In his sworn statement in front of the committee he must have come as close as one possibly can, and definitely should not, to committing perjury.

Gates was supported by three other analysts (Oliver, Seger, Haus), and the Committee rejected Goodman's criticism - whereupon Goodman resigned.

Gates was eventually approved for the post of DCI (1991). The criticism leveled against Gates by Goodman still played a part in the confirmation hearings. In the end it appears that it was a very forceful speech by Senator D'Amato that secured the confirmation.

I have posted his speech at this thread (post #6):

Crime of the Century (The plot to kill the pope: Willful CIA & MSM bungling)

One fallout (intentional or unintentional) of Mr Goodman's intervention was that after Gates's stormy confirmation process, very few people dared to raise the topic of precisely who had tried to kill the Pope and why.

It wasn't until these last years, with the opening of the Stasi archives, Bulgarian archives, and some information from the Czechs that it became as clear as anything can be in the murky world of undercover and espionage that the Soviets had been behind the attempt on the Pope's life - just as Casey, Sterling and some other analysts had stated those many years earlier.

And of course Mr Mel Goodman didn't make the connection then - and I'm sure he doesn't make any connections now.

(The parallels between the case of the attempted murder on the Pope, and Iraq's connection to WMDs and al Quaeda is quite astonishing.

But I guess it is only one thing that really matters: The Left was wrong then, and they are wrong now!)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the background information!