Clintonites bug Lady Di? A possible 'why.'

A mostly political Weblog.
Dec. 12 2006 3:45 AM

Clintonites Bug Di? Take II

kausfiles finds the dots. You connect them!

(Continued from Page 1)

**--Alert reader K.M. notes that the British papers do not capitalize "secret service," suggesting that they may be referring not to the actual Secret Service but to any one of a number of secretive U.S. snooping agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.). That puts the capitalized statement of an unnamed U.S. Homeland Security official--"The Secret Service had nothing to do with it”--into perspective. ...

***-- ABC  and CBS  suggest Diana was of interest to the U.S. because of her campaign against land mines. I'm still pushing the school choice angle. The N.E.A. is a very powerful lobby! ...

More:kf readers are demanding a Ron Burkle angle. There is a connection! Burkle and Forstmann appear to have been principal contributors to the same low-income scholarship fund  in the '90s. The rest is all too obvious, don't you think? ... [Thks to reader S.S.]  ... Say Anything goes with the "school vouchers"  explanation. Yes!

Meanwhile: WaPo's Sullivan and Pincus do their best to calm everyone down, reporting the denials of the NSA (which seems to be restricted to "NSA originated and NSA controlled documents")  and the CIA ("rubbish")--denials that are hard to interpret as decisively refuting the "Di-was-bugged" leaks from the British inquest, as reported by at least three British papers. True, they're British papers ... but still! The official British report is scheduled to be made public on Thursday. ... Sullivan and Pincus also assure us there "was never a romantic relationship between" Diana and Forstmann. (So they talked to Forstmann?) And they make it sound as if the "security" problem was simply that the Brits didn't want Diana's sons, the heirs to the throne, staying at a rented house in the Hamptons.  But that would seem to explain the bugging only if Diana was its "target," which is exactly what the NSA now denies. Assuming there was bugging, of course! ... Bonus question: Do Sullivan and Pincus have NEXIS? How about Google? You would think they'd at least get their Forstmann "source" to comment on the Sept. 15 Daily News story about Forstmann's White House ambitions (and Diana's ambitions to accompany him) ...

Lucianne: "Could Di and Teddy Forstmann have been looking for mines in the Hampton dunes ..."

Advertisement

Loose End: How did the Brits find out about the decade-old spying, if there was spying? Wouldn't the U.S. government have to tell them? But why would the Bush administration want to possibly make public this info ... oh, right.

Coincidence? In the news this very day:"Hillary delays decision on 2008 bid" .... OK, I agree. Now I am going mad. ...

12/12 Update: Byron York discusses whether, if the Brit stories are true, the Clintonites coulda, shoulda, woulda gotten a warrant--but he notes "British press accounts can be notoriously unreliable." ... 10:27 P.M. link

Did the pessimistic Tom Ricks get it wrong  about Ramadi? That's what a less-pessimistic  Michael Fumento says, and he seems to have a point (though WaPo's latest piece from Ramadi isn't quite as "upbeat" as I'd expected after reading Fumento's blog.). ... [via Insta12:07 A.M.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Was that such a "dressing down" that Robert Rubin got from the Dobbsy Democratic House caucus? Republican Influence Peddler says it was, echoing hortatory spin  from Dem populist David Sirota  ("a VERY encouraging sign for progressives") that's so flimsy even Sirota's vaguely embarrassed by it. ... Was an incoming Indiana Democrat with a Delphi plant in his district not going to ask Rubin about outsourcing? That seems like a normal question Rubin has to be prepared to answer. ... If Sirota really is this gullible--impressed with standard Congressional posturing--maybe it will be easier to thwart the resurgent House "progressives" than it seemed a month ago. ... 11:38 P.M.