The Plame Game Continues
Posted October 29th, 2007 by Da King
Valerie Plame's book, Fair Game: My Life As A Spy, My Betrayal By The White House, has been released. In it, Mrs. Plame, the wife of liar Joseph Wilson, accuses the Bush administration of maliciously outing her to destroy her career as payback for Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times that called the Bush administration liars for the famous 16 words contained in one of Bush's pre-war speeches about Iraq: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Plame also contends that her 'outing' compromised CIA intelligence operations and endangered lives.
You don't even have to get to the first page of Plame's book to find something misleading, because it's right in the title, in the 'My Betrayal By The White House' part. It wasn't the White House who first told Robert Novak that Plame worked for the CIA, it was Richard Armitage, a State department Iraq war critic, hardly a Bushie. Novak was the one who outed Plame by saying she worked at the CIA in one of his columns. You'd think it was Cheney who announced it in a press conference if you listened to the propaganda from the left. Nope. Novak did call Karl Rove and told Rove he knew Plame worked at the CIA, to which Rove responded with something like 'oh, you now about that too ?'. For that, liar Joseph Wilson thought Rove should be frog-marched out of the White House. Don't think so, Joe. After prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's endless investigation of the White House, nobody was ever charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) for outing Valerie Plame, though Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, was convicted of making false statements to the FBI during the investigation for not remembering who told him Plame's name first several months after the fact. You should have just said you didn't remember, Scooter. It worked pretty well for Hillary. She used some variation of the 'I don't recall' testimony 250 times under oath, and not only is she not in the slammer, she could be the next president. Everybody says how smart Hillary is, but do we really want a president with such a bad memory ? Somebody get the gal some Ginko Biloba or something. I never cease to be amazed at what you can get away with if your last name is Clinton.
Anyway, with Valerie Plame Wilson's book being uncritically reviewed by the NY Times (naturally), and with Plame making an appearance on Hardball With Chris Matthews (which should be renamed Softball in light of Matthews fawning all over Plame), I think at least one person should have thought to ask the following question: Mrs. Plame, if you were so concerned that classified CIA operations were compromised by the release of your name, why did your book have to be so severely redacted by that very same CIA ? You didn't seem very concerned about revealing classified CIA operations when you wrote that book ! Plame said this on Matthews' show:
MATTHEWS: OK. What do the people—what do the spooks you work with think, the real hard case spies? Do they feel that this impeached their role, that this really undercut them, this whole Valerie Wilson case?
WILSON: They know that it happened to me, but it could have just as easily happened to them. Something I feel passionately about is the amount of politics that has spilled into the intelligence realm, which distorts and dilutes the product and thereby harms our national security.
I guess Valerie is even MORE passionate about making millions in a book deal than she was about the intelligence community. I also imagine if Val was so concerned about staying covert, she maybe wouldn't have posed for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine when she was still working at the CIA. Not to mention that Valerie Plame was SO SO SO deep undercover that she drove right to work at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va every single day, not that anyone would ever think to look for CIA employees there. Heavens no. Did I mention that the CIA CONFIRMED PLAME'S EMPLOYMENT OVER THE PHONE FOR BOB NOVAK when he called to ask if she worked there ? Yeah, this gal was DEEP undercover, man. A real spook. About as deep as I am. And speaking of politics spilling over into the intelligence realm, the fact that Joe and Valerie were Kerry campaigners and supporters probably doesn't matter either, right ? How about the fact that the British stand by those 16 words Bush said in that speech ? And does anyone really believe that Joseph Wilson could go to Niger for 8 days to sip tea and come up with all the facts about Saddam seeking uranium ? How can anyone NOT see that Joe Wilson was on a mission to undercut the Bush administration from the beginning, spurred on by his wife, so pardon me if I don't shed a tear for poor Valerie Plame, who along with her hubby wanted to bring down a president. I don't buy the Wilsons act for a minute. They aren't nearly as naive and innocent as they pretend to be, and a lot more people would know it if we actually had a media in this country instead of a bunch of partisan parrots pushing the liberal company line, mixed in with the dumbed down infotainment morons reporting every move by Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:45 am
If there was no crime why did Tenet ask the justice department to investigate her outing?
On September 16, 2003 the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, asserting that Plame's status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information and requested a federal investigation.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
By Gollly, King, I think that Lou Grant has outed you with his dates concerning the CIA asking for an investigation. I wonder what was going on in the two months from the committing of the crime and his September 16, 2003 date. I guess they needed some special time to come up with an accusation and to build a case before asking for an investigation. Do you think that any of this could be involved in the Wilson Lie? It is pretty easy to draw a line from Plame being a "classified" agent and her buddies who had demonstrated some enmity toward Bush about the same time. Maybe I better stop because it probably appears that I am trying to suggest a conspiracy. Well now, I am.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
The real tragedy in all this lies in the fact that Plame is kind of foxy. The democrats have always boasted ladies in the vein of Albright and Reno while a short viewing of Fox News shows that Republican ladies are babes.
Come back to your people, Valerie.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
I thought republican males were more into Jeff Gannon.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Larry you have broken Lou's heart it seems. Yes the lady is very easy to look at and should be changing parties but I doubt many of our people would accept her and her lying husband since they have been lying all along.
I thought king was very cute in his ending but he was also very right about how the MSM deals with news.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:59 am
Lou Grant, you're missing the point. There WAS an investigation, and NOBODY was charged with outing Plame. Those are the facts. I don't object to the investigation itself(although I'd like to know why it took so long when Fitzgerald knew all along it was Armitage). If you remember, at one point Fitzgerald said Plame's covert status didn't even matter to the investigation, which I thought was about the strangest thing I ever heard. At that point, it just looked like Fitzgerald wanted to charge somebody with something after all his efforts, and he found his whipping boy in Libby.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Roy, I'm right there with you on the conspiracy angle. Plame/Wilson basically admitted on Chris Matthews program that they were out to get Bush. Listen to these quotes by her from that program:
WILSON: I will tell you, when I heard the now infamous 16 words in the State of the Union address, I thought it was odd. But don‘t forget, there are two other countries in Africa that also mine yellowcake ore.
WILSON: So you know, it just seemed strange. And Joe spent the next couple months discreetly working back channels to try to understand how such a whopper got into the State of the Union address, when on at least on four occasions the CIA had taken that claim, the nuclear threat, out of major speeches done by the president.
Plame/Wilson is telling us they were out to get the Bush administration. Never mind that what she calls a 'whopper' was believed to be true by the source, the British government, and it still is believed to be true. What she is also leaving out is; we know from George Tenet's book that it was Tenet himself who said he should have vetted that Bush speech and removed anything the CIA couldn't corroborate, which included those 16 words, but HE DIDN'T DO IT. They had removed those words from previous speeches, as Plame said, but just didn't examine that particular speech, as standard procedure calls for them to do. So when Plame wonders how the 16 words got into the speech, why doesn't she mention it was because of a CIA failure ? Why does she call the 16 words a 'whopper' ? I think we both know the reason for that - Politics. She's no innocent here.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
King, we know that politics and money are the main reasons for the whole deal. The Wilsons came out with their money for the Vanity Fair article, their book and impending movie and the enemies of Bush come out with a convicted and unjailed Libby so in no way do the Wilsons suffer at all and Bush is seen much worse than he would have been without the investigation. I think they got about all they could have expected, going in.
I guess Fitzpatrick came out with some green in his pockets and is now known, by many of us, as a failure since he didn't get very close to Bush even though the opposition wants us to believe that he was just next to him. The great lawyer, the self-professed diplomat, and the undercover spy are all famous now with some green to spend in their reclining years.
I will never understand how anybody as supposedly deep in undercover work drove to work at Langley every day, wore a badge around the place and worked all day in the open could be seen as so classified as she was. Maybe the CIA isn't as secret as they want to think they are.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
It's unfortunate that King's post didn't contain much, if any, truth about the Plame case.
Any intelligent human can read the trial transcripts of Scooter Libby's multiple felony conviction case and see and understand for themselves. Perjury and obstruction convictions have nothing to do with forgetfulness.
It's clear from the transcripts that Dick Cheney's office was Ground Zero for the Plame outing caper. Rove, Fleischer, Libby, Armitage did the outing. All but Armitage did the outing as part of a White House conspiracy to silence any intelligence people who might be thinking about doing what Joe Wilson did, that is, speak truth to liars in power.
The Plame case is, or should be, a case study in the dual narratives approach Karl Rove brought with him to the White House. Media members, who can't speak truth to power any longer for fear of losing their access to power, spun the dual narratives about Plame. Still today 1/3 of Americans believe a lie about what really happened.
King's post here is proof positive he has fully accepted a false account.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:43 am
Lou, your dems are more like Barney Franks than any GOPer is like a Gannon. Besides, I thought you sexual perverts were all in favor of EVERYONE coming out? Does that mean we will soon be seeing a press release about fat teddy and dirty harry's secret affair?
October 31st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Excuse me, Rev, but I didn't see anywhere where you disproved one single thing I said. I kinda thought proof was required when you call someone a liar.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Ah, King, proof is never needed when libs are calling anyone else a liar. In fact, it seems to me that the "libber" one is the less proof he thinks he needs. In that case if far left is extreme liberal Rev Red is surely as lib as you can get. Just saying the word liar to another satisfies him that he has proved his statement.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:38 am
I enjoyed the part of Rev's post where he talked about the Bush holding the media under his thumb. I guess that explains why the MSM has been so doggone friendly to Bush all these years, LOL.
Pure fiction from the Reverend.