I apprecitate and respect this well written comment and want to put it on my front page, however much I still disagree with the contention that Plame was covert. Thank you for sharing this with us:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post referring to "The Farce Called the Valerie Plame Affair":
"My husband is a military officer. Whether in uniform, or at the grocery store in civilian clothes, or at the gym in workout gear, he's an officer in the US military. Even when he's driving to work. Both of our vehicles have stickers which indicate both where my husband works and his status in the military; I highly doubt Valerie Plame had anything on her vehicle which indicated where she worked or what she did. Valerie Plame stated, under oath, that she was covert according to the IPAA, because she had done work overseas in a covert status within five years of her House testimony, which meant, of course that she was also covert in July of 2003. Besides Robert Novak and Victoria Toensing, neither of whom know Valerie Plame personally or work (or worked) at the CIA, can you name one individual who knows her and worked with her who denies her covert status?As for your contention that 4 star AF General Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA, is "too close to democrats", apparently you don't have too much knowledge of Generals, or the military in general. It's a very conservative, heavily Republican, pro-Bush group of folks. I can understand why the Director of the CIA might not want to be discussing sensitive information with each of the 40 members of the House Oversight and Reform committee, but save his remarks for either the Chair (Henry Waxman) or the Ranking Minority Member (Tom Davis). What was interesting about the hearing was that Tom Davis basically accepted what Hayden said about Valerie Plame's covert status and blamed the CIA for not doing more to protect her identity. By the way, why not acknowledge where those questions came from? I read that op-ed in that well known communist anti-American front - otherwise known as the Washington Post - delivered to my doorstep yesteray. Maybe that editorial was the only "truth" in the whole rag. overt, that is. "
And her later comment on Saturday:
GEN Michael Hayden was appointed as CIA Director in May, 2006, replacing former Congressman Porter Goss (R-FL). From March, 1999 - April, 2005 he was the Dirctor of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service. From April, 2005 - May, 2006 he was the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. I'd say the guy has his bonafides in intelligence.So, you're right that he's only been onboard since 2006. My guess is that during his early days as Director required more than just "reading documents written by someone else". I think I've reached the end of this. There is no point in going forward with this topic on this site. No one has provided a single source or link to anyone who says that Valerie Plame was not covert - save for Robert Novak, who certainly has his own personal reasons for wanting to "prove" by offering more questions that Valerie Plame wasn't covert, if only to assuage his guilty conscience for writing the editorial in July, 2003 that led the CIA to contact the Justice Department to investigate the outing. You continue to doubt what the players in this story have said - many times UNDER OATH - believing that Valerie Plame and her outing is nothing more than a "non-story" and a "farce", and that the damage done by outing her, and her front company, are nothing to be concerned about. I can't help but wonder, though, if this had been done in either the Clinton, Gore or Kerry administrations - would you still feel the same way? I can state with certainty that I would. I doubt the same could be said for you.
Thank you. I'm sure there will be more on this in the days ahead.