Mickey Kaus updates the recent Diana story that generated speculation, interest and even excitement. Mickey links to Byron York’s NRO column on the Stevens report: “Did the Clinton administration spy on Princess Diana? No.” Mickey’s update on the story exhibits his affection for alliteration, his sense of humor, his close reading skills and his intrepidity, as in this PS:
P.S.: I should also note, at the risk of sounding like a raving conspiracist, that the Stevens report doesn’t seem to say anything that would rule out a U.S. a bugging of Forstmann that turned up conversations with or about Diana**–though to be consistent with the NSA’s account they would have to be “only short references to Princess Diana in contexts unrelated to the allegations” about her death being the result of a conspiracy. It’s just that the Stevens report was what was supposed to substantiate the Forstmann angle, and it doesn’t. It’s not like there is a lot of other evidence for the Forstmann-bug scenario–unless the credibility-challenged Brit papers can produce some. …
Via Instapundit.
JOHN adds: That’s right. I donwnloaded the report and reviewed the section dealing with allegations involving intelligence agencies. No names are mentioned, Forstmann’s or anyone else’s. So what we have here is an anonymous leak from someone ostensibly involved in the Stevens investigation. Now, if only they would print it in the New York Times, everyone would assume it’s true!
OOPS, SORRY: There was one name mentioned in the report, Lucia Flecha de Lima, the wife of the Brazilian Ambassador to the U.S. Her name wasn’t disclosed by NSA, but apparently came to light as the result of a leak from that agency. Princess Diana and Ms. Flecha de Lima discussed hairstyles. Apparently, this reflects the time-honored practice of bugging embassies. This, of course, sheds no light on whether any of the other calls in which Diana was mentioned involved Forstmann, or anyone else.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.