Tuesday, March 20, 2007

The Farce Called the Valerie Plame Affair


"The blond leading the blind. "

Ramirez nails it again at Investors Business Daily.

****************

UPDATE:
Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?
Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert and cited Hayden as proof. Hayden's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

"...I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

Outing a previously NOC CIA Officer is a farce. Right.

Obviously former President George H.W. Bush didn't think so when he made that comment at the CIA on April 26, 1999.

Webutante said...

The idea that she was a secret agent at the time of the so-called outing, is beyond ridiculous in my opinion. This has been much ado about less than nothing.

Anonymous said...

Well, Valerie Plame said under oath that she was a covert agent, Gen. Michael Hayden, current director of the CIA confirmed to Henry Waxman that she was covert, Larry Johnson, a classmate of Ms. Plames confirms she was covert. http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

So, either all three of them are lying and you are correct and she was not covert, or they are correct and you have your facts wrong. Again.

More interesting is why those on the right continue to downplay the damage done by outing her, i.e., all the contacts she had over her 20 year career are gone. Doesn't that bother you???

Webutante said...

No.

And a few highlights from a recent IBD editorial:

'I did not recommend him,' Plame claimed before the House panel last Friday. She was referring to her husband, Joseph Wilson, sent to Niger in early 2002 by the CIA to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein sought uranium there. 'I did not suggest him,' she added.

But the Senate bipartisan report of July 2004 indicates otherwise:

• The reports officer of the CIA's Counterproliferation Division (CPD), where Plame worked, told committee staff that Plame 'offered up his (Wilson's) name.'

• In a memo to the CPD deputy chief dated Feb. 12, 2002, Plame wrote, 'My husband has good relations with both the PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.' That's not a recommendation?

• The day after that memo, Plame's CPD division sent a cable 'requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador (Joseph Wilson) to Niger . . .'

• Plame 'told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him 'there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.'

*******

In the course of her testimony, Plame did a lot of hand-wringing about her blown cover and ruined career. (She's apparently consoling herself with a million-dollar book deal.)

Too bad she never got the chance last Friday to address what Bill Gertz reported in the Washington Times in 2004: that her cover was actually blown at least a decade ago by a Russian spy, exposed then after a botched CIA delivery to the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

The Plame-Wilson PR machine wants Americans to think it's all about a patriotic spy being victimized. The real victim here, repeatedly, is the truth.

Anonymous said...

An 18 year career as a NOC - working on behalf of all of citizens in this country, regardless of party - and you could care less about the damage done releasing her name. Unbelievable. You must have some insight into her background and/or career to care so little about the damage done to our country. Is there something you know about her, or do you just follow Victoria Toensing's lead?

As for your arguments about Joseph Wilson being chosen to investigate the Iraq/Niger/yellowcake claim, perhaps Valerie Wilson did mention her husband for the job. He was, as I'm sure you know, the US Ambassador to both Iraq AND Niger. Perhaps someone else at the CIA knew that and thought his contacts there might be able to shed some light on Pres. Bush's infamous words.

I do want to thank you for stating the obvious, that "the real victim here, repeatedly, is the truth." Seldom have I read a truer statement about the past six years...

Fistandantalus said...

You have to discount what Ms. Plame said under oath, she was refuted by many sources who know she was not covert.

What she has been prompted to testify to in the latest round of this debaucle is annoying and false.

Anonymous said...

Fine. Name the sources who said she wasn't covert. Names, dates, that sort of thing.

Webutante said...

Anonymous,

This non-story has been in the news for all to read and use their First Amendment right of interpretation for far too long. I have drawn my conclusions and you yours. Beyond that, it is all a part of the public record which you are free to dig out for yourself.

This editorial cartoon portrays my sentiments perfectly. Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

You're absolutely right. You have the right to choose your sources, who seem to not know what they are talking about. I choose to listen to those who worked with Valerie Plame and who know her personally. It just amazes me that you continue to insist she was not a covert agent when those who worked with her state with certainty that she was.

Might I suggest stepping out of the Sean Hannity/Laura Ingraham/ Fox News realm once in a while. Getting information from different sources is beneficial to all of us.

Webutante said...

FYI, I was once a radical liberal to the left of Hillary and worked for a left leaning big morning daily. I helped create the biased news you eat like candy and think passes for truth.

And then one day, I started reading, and studying both sides of the issues.

Today many years later, I have made a 180 degree shift and can only say, I was once where you are today.

But never again.

Anonymous said...

Biased news that I eat like candy? That I think passes for the truth? Ummm...ok...

You and I have different views. I think that's pretty well established. I'm not a liberal, not a conservative, I'm in the middle. I get my news from various sources across the political spectrum. Sorry friend, I don't think the notion of a brainwashed pablum eater fits me...though it may fit others.

I'm curious, though, do you really still study both sides of the issues? Based on most of your posts, your blog list, and your general philosphy I think that's pretty suspect.

Webutante said...

Only the shadow knows.....

Anonymous said...

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.