The Plame Game

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2004
4,092
449
48
The Plame Facts about Distraction
By Mark Steyn, The Washington Times
July 18, 2005

Karl Rove? Please. I couldn't care less. This week finds me thousands of miles from the Beltway in what I believe the ABC World News Tonight map designates as the Rest Of The Planet, an obscure beat the media can't seem to spare a correspondent for. But even if I was with the rest of the navel-gazers inside the Beltway, I wouldn't be interested in who "leaked" the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame to the press.

As her weirdly self-obsessed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a "clandestine officer" and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only "leak" her name in the way one can "leak" the name of the check-out clerk at Home Depot or the busboy at Denny's.

Back when Woodrow Wilson ran for president, he had a campaign song called "Wilson, That's All." If only. With Joe Wilson, it's never all. He keeps coming back like a song.

But in the real world there's only one scandal in this whole wretched business -- that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic "fact-finding mission" that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes' celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found.

This controversy began, you'll recall, because Mr. Wilson objected to a line in President Bush's State-of-the-Union address that British intelligence had discovered Iraq was trying to acquire "yellowcake" -- i.e., weaponized uranium -- from Africa. This made Mr. Bush, in Mr. Wilson's incisive analysis, a "liar" and Vice President Dick Cheney a "lying sonofabitch."

In fact, the only lying sonofabitch turned out to be Yellowcake Joe. Just about everybody on the face of the Earth except Mr. Wilson, the White House press corps and the moveon.org crowd accepts that Saddam was indeed trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Don't take my word, for it; it's the conclusion of the Senate intelligence report, Lord Butler's report in the United Kingdom, the British external intelligence agency MI6, French intelligence, other European services -- and, come to that, the original CIA report based on Joe Wilson's own briefing to them. Only Yellowcake Joe knows why he then wrote an article for the New York Times misrepresenting what senior figures from Daouda Mallam Wanke's Niger regime told him.

As I wrote in this space a year ago, an ambassador, in Sir Henry Wootton's famous dictum, is a good man sent abroad to lie for his country; this ambassador came home to lie to his.

for full article:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050717-094452-4542r.htm
 
Adam's Apple said:
As her weirdly self-obsessed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a "clandestine officer" and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only "leak" her name in the way one can "leak" the name of the check-out clerk at Home Depot or the busboy at Denny's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

Yeah. Apparently the CIA went through all the trouble to set up a front company for their NOC officers, when they might as well work for Home Depot :rolleyes: .

It's amazing how far people will go to excuse the Bush administration. Clearly there was wrongdoing, if this entire front company was exposed.

She wasn't a "clandestine officer". She was a NOC.
 
Max Power said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

Yeah. Apparently the CIA went through all the trouble to set up a front company for their NOC officers, when they might as well work for Home Depot :rolleyes: .

It's amazing how far people will go to excuse the Bush administration. Clearly there was wrongdoing, if this entire front company was exposed.

She wasn't a "clandestine officer". She was a NOC.


I believe you would feel more at home here with the rest of the loonies..www.democraticunderground.com
Tell me is there gravity in your universe? Or are all physical laws and reason out of the question?
 
ThomasPaine said:
I believe you would feel more at home here with the rest of the loonies..www.democraticunderground.com
Tell me is there gravity in your universe? Or are all physical laws and reason out of the question?

This post has no substance whatsoever. What was the purpose of it? Do you really have that little to say?
 
Max Power said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

Yeah. Apparently the CIA went through all the trouble to set up a front company for their NOC officers, when they might as well work for Home Depot :rolleyes: .

It's amazing how far people will go to excuse the Bush administration. Clearly there was wrongdoing, if this entire front company was exposed.

She wasn't a "clandestine officer". She was a NOC.

This post has no substance whatsoever. What was the purpose of it? Do you really have that little to say? :rolleyes:
 
kurtsprincess said:
This post has no substance whatsoever. What was the purpose of it? Do you really have that little to say? :rolleyes:
LOL I realize that you envy me, but you don't have to copy everything I say.

I was simply pointing out that the WashTimes article was full of it... to say that she wasn't covert is idiotic - exposing her exposed an entire front company.
 
Max Power said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

Yeah. Apparently the CIA went through all the trouble to set up a front company for their NOC officers, when they might as well work for Home Depot :rolleyes: .

It's amazing how far people will go to excuse the Bush administration. Clearly there was wrongdoing, if this entire front company was exposed.

She wasn't a "clandestine officer". She was a NOC.

From your own story....

She was a "former employee" of that company that worked at CIA headquaters. If you have ever been there you would know that there is a large exit sign on the highway pointing to it (it literally says CIA Headquaters) and anybody at all can stop and watch every single person that drives in there. IF the CIA was that worried about "outing" the company it sure wouldn't have her work at HQ.

Sometimes it is amazing to me how a non-story blooms into a "story with legs" over some important information that is conveniently left out by the people who want a story over actual news.
 
Max Power said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

Yeah. Apparently the CIA went through all the trouble to set up a front company for their NOC officers, when they might as well work for Home Depot :rolleyes: .

It's amazing how far people will go to excuse the Bush administration. Clearly there was wrongdoing, if this entire front company was exposed.

She wasn't a "clandestine officer". She was a NOC.
This is so funny.

She no longer was undercover. Period. Even Joseph Wilson says she was no longer covert at the time the info came out. Love how you libs pick and choose what you want to hear or read.
 
freeandfun1 said:
This is so funny.

She no longer was undercover. Period. Even Joseph Wilson says she was no longer covert at the time the info came out. Love how you libs pick and choose what you want to hear or read.

Yeah? Even Joe Wilson says so?

How about some proof of that.
 
Max Power said:
Yeah? Even Joe Wilson says so?

How about some proof of that.

From the Washington Post:

(Also from the first post that you must have pretended to read.)

As her weirdly self-obsessed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a "clandestine officer" and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only "leak" her name in the way one can "leak" the name of the check-out clerk at Home Depot or the busboy at Denny's.
 
freeandfun1 said:
This is so funny.

She no longer was undercover. Period. Even Joseph Wilson says she was no longer covert at the time the info came out. Love how you libs pick and choose what you want to hear or read.

LOL

A statement by Wilson on Wolf Blitzer's July 14, 2005 CNN program that, "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," has caused some to consider it an indication that Wilson acknowledged Plame was no longer covert at the time. However, this statement was made in response to a question about whether Plame's actions had blown her cover, and Wilson went on to continue with his assertion that Novak was responsible for his wife's exposure. The day following the CNN interview, Wilson clarified his statement, saying that what he had meant to say was, that, as a result of Novak's column, Plame was effectively no longer a clandestine officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Nice, way to take Wilson's words out of context :).


An anonymous CIA official was quoted as saying, "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral,"

Yep, she was undercover. Quit arguing it.
 
Max Power said:
Yeah? Even Joe Wilson says so?

How about some proof of that.
I believe no1 just laid it out for you. It was all over the news this weekend... I assumed (damn it, mad and ass outta me!) you watched the news to try and prepare yourself for the discussions that occur here. I over estimated you. I see now that you just regurgitate whatever you read at DU without verifying the facts...

Thanks no1!
 
no1tovote4 said:
From the Washington Post:

(Also from the first post that you must have pretended to read.)

She wasn't a "clandestine officer" because her cover was blown, genius. :rolleyes:
 
Max Power said:
LOL

A statement by Wilson on Wolf Blitzer's July 14, 2005 CNN program that, "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," has caused some to consider it an indication that Wilson acknowledged Plame was no longer covert at the time. However, this statement was made in response to a question about whether Plame's actions had blown her cover, and Wilson went on to continue with his assertion that Novak was responsible for his wife's exposure. The day following the CNN interview, Wilson clarified his statement, saying that what he had meant to say was, that, as a result of Novak's column, Plame was effectively no longer a clandestine officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Nice, way to take Wilson's words out of context :).


An anonymous CIA official was quoted as saying, "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral,"

Yep, she was undercover. Quit arguing it.
lol typical liberal speak. "He didn't say what he said".
 
Max Power said:
She wasn't a "clandestine officer" because her cover was blown, genius. :rolleyes:

Look "genius" you haven't read any of the posts before or you wouldn't still be arguing this nonsense.

First of all he said she hadn't been for SIX YEARS. There is no way that Novak has outed her when she hadn't done that for SIX YEARS.

According to YOUR OWN LINK, she was a former employee of said "cover company", yet the CIA had her work at Headquaters as an analyst knowing that anybody that works there has no cover at all?

She worked at a big building as an analyst at the time that has it's own exit off of the highway marked "CIA Headquaters". Anybody can watch who gets off the exit and their "covers" would all be blown except that those that are undercover don't work at that building. The CIA knows people that work there are often watched by others, they don't bring their operatives to that place.

Read all of the posts before you keep making yourself look like a moron.
 
The “gotcha” game is in full swing in Washington as the vultures circle slowly over the White House, hoping for Karl Rove’s scalp.

The ritualized homicide/suicide is well-programmed. A White House insider is accused of doing something, the news media hype the story and, finally, without proof or presumption of innocence, the staffer resigns so as not to become a “distraction” from the president’s agenda.

But maybe this time the cycle can be stopped before it runs its bloody course.

Karl Rove did nothing wrong. The statute he allegedly violated has a number of very specific triggers. The person who reveals the identity of a covert CIA operative has to intend to uncover her identity, know she is a covert operative and know that he is blowing her cover.

The law is designed to stop the likes of Philip Agee, whose 1975 book Inside the Company revealed secret CIA information to sell books. Rove’s actions are a far stretch from those the statute was designed to cover.

Rove did not call Time magazine’s Matt Cooper. Cooper called him. He did not mention Valerie Plame’s name. He may not have even known it. He had no intent to reveal her identity. The context of the conversation was that Rove was trying to disabuse Cooper of the impression that CIA Director George Tenet had been the moving force in choosing former Ambassador Joe Wilson to investigate the nuclear dealings reported to be going on in Niger.

Rove said that it was not Tenet who pushed the appointment but that it likely stemmed from the fact that Wilson’s wife “apparently works” at the CIA.

To call that conversation a deliberate revelation of an agent’s identity designed to blow her cover is a far, far stretch of the statute’s wording and intent.

But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame’s cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term.

Washington is a mean town where human sacrifice has been raised to an art form. But Karl Rove does not deserve this fate. He has served loyally and well, resisting enormous opportunities to leave midway and reap a bonanza of income in the private sector. He has shown himself to be a man of uncommon integrity and selflessness in serving this administration and this country. He should not be tossed to the partisan wolves.

Bush, having appointed a special prosecutor and pledged to fire anyone who was responsible for revealing Plame’s identity, cannot just sweep the matter under the rug. But he should allow Rove to clear his name through the normal process of investigation and testimony.

He should keep Karl onboard, stipulating only that he fully answer all questions from a grand jury — as he has done already? — should the prosecutor need him to appear again.

If Rove is indicted or even named as a target, Bush will have to let him go. But that’s not going to happen based on the current fact pattern, and Bush should not let himself be pushed ahead of the process by firing Rove.

Indeed, there is some question that the reporters who took Rove’s lead, looked up Plame’s name and published it may themselves be more likely to have violated the statute than is Rove himself. Whoever took the information Rove provided and outed Plame was, in fact, deliberately outing a CIA operative and may be a better fit for the statute’s intent than Karl Rove.

Bush should not fire Rove. He should stick by him until or unless the criminal investigation makes it evident that he may have violated the statute. Otherwise, he should stay on the job.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1442733/posts
 
no1tovote4 said:
Look "genius" you haven't read any of the posts before or you wouldn't still be arguing this nonsense.

First of all he said she hadn't been for SIX YEARS. There is no way that Novak has outed her when she hadn't done that for SIX YEARS.
Really? He said that?
Let's look at the transcript.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.
http://mediamatters.org/static/video/wolf-200507150003.wmv (VIDEO)

Hmm, looks like he didn't say that at all! In fact, he refused to comment on it.
You just got OWNED no1tovote4.
 
Bonnie said:
He did not mention Valerie Plame’s name.

Now, THERE'S a great defense. He didn't mention Plame's name. He just referred to her as "Wilson's wife."

Why, he could've been referring to the lovable Mrs. Wilson!
item_m_DTM010.jpg


I hope you all realize what a JOKE these defenses of Rove are.
 
Max Power said:
Really? He said that?
Let's look at the transcript.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. :rolleyes: Interesting the press doesn't let Scott get by with this kind of tripe. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.
http://mediamatters.org/static/video/wolf-200507150003.wmv (VIDEO)

Hmm, looks like he didn't say that at all! In fact, he refused to comment on it.
You just got OWNED no1tovote4.

Much more likely scenario:

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp
July 18, 2005, 8:01 a.m.
Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?
What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won’t tell you.

With each passing day, the manufactured "scandal" over the publication of Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA establishes new depths of mainstream-media hypocrisy. A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant. But it is not too early to assess the performance of the press. It's been appalling.


Is that hyperbole? You be the judge. Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade — i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

No, you say, you hadn't heard any of that. You heard that this was the crime of the century. A sort of Robert-Hanssen-meets-Watergate in which Rove is already cooked and we're all just waiting for the other shoe — or shoes — to drop on the den of corruption we know as the Bush administration. That, after all, is the inescapable impression from all the media coverage. So who is saying different?

The organized media, that's who. How come you haven't heard? Because they've decided not to tell you. Because they say one thing — one dark, transparently partisan thing — when they're talking to you in their news coverage, but they say something completely different when they think you're not listening.

You see, if you really want to know what the media think of the Plame case — if you want to discover what a comparative trifle they actually believe it to be — you need to close the paper and turn off the TV. You need, instead, to have a peek at what they write when they're talking to a court. It's a mind-bendingly different tale.

SPUN FROM THE START
My colleague Cliff May has already demonstrated the bankruptcy of the narrative the media relentlessly spouts for Bush-bashing public consumption: to wit, that Valerie Wilson, nee Plame, was identified as a covert CIA agent by the columnist Robert Novak, to whom she was compromised by an administration official. In fact, it appears Plame was first outed to the general public as a result of a consciously loaded and slyly hypothetical piece by the journalist David Corn. Corn's source appears to have been none other than Plame's own husband, former ambassador and current Democratic-party operative Joseph Wilson — that same pillar of national security rectitude whose notion of discretion, upon being dispatched by the CIA for a sensitive mission to Niger, was to write a highly public op-ed about his trip in the New York Times. This isn't news to the media; they have simply chosen not to report it.

The hypocrisy, though, only starts there. It turns out that the media believe Plame was outed long before either Novak or Corn took pen to paper. And not by an ambiguous confirmation from Rove or a nod-and-a-wink from Ambassador Hubby. No, the media think Plame was previously compromised by a disclosure from the intelligence community itself — although it may be questionable whether there was anything of her covert status left to salvage at that point, for reasons that will become clear momentarily.

This CIA disclosure, moreover, is said to have been made not to Americans at large but to Fidel Castro's anti-American regime in Cuba, whose palpable incentive would have been to "compromise[] every operation, every relationship, every network with which [Plame] had been associated in her entire career" — to borrow from the diatribe in which Wilson risibly compared his wife's straits to the national security catastrophes wrought by Aldrich Ames and Kim Philby.

THE MEDIA GOES TO COURT ... AND SINGS A DIFFERENT TUNE
Just four months ago, 36 news organizations confederated to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. At the time, Bush-bashing was (no doubt reluctantly) confined to an unusual backseat. The press had no choice — it was time to close ranks around two of its own, namely, the Times's Judith Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper, who were threatened with jail for defying grand jury subpoenas from the special prosecutor.

The media's brief, fairly short and extremely illuminating, is available here. The Times, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration, encouraged its submission. It was joined by a "who's who" of the current Plame stokers, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch).

The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public's right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp — details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.

Though you would not know it from watching the news, you learn from reading the news agencies' brief that the 1982 law prohibiting disclosure of undercover agents' identities explicitly sets forth a complete defense to this crime. It is contained in Section 422 (of Title 50, U.S. Code), and it provides that an accused leaker is in the clear if, sometime before the leak, "the United States ha publicly acknowledged or revealed" the covert agent's "intelligence relationship to the United States[.]"

As it happens, the media organizations informed the court that long before the Novak revelation (which, as noted above, did not disclose Plame's classified relationship with the CIA), Plame's cover was blown not once but twice. The media based this contention on reporting by the indefatigable Bill Gertz — an old-school, "let's find out what really happened" kind of journalist. Gertz's relevant article, published a year ago in the Washington Times, can be found here.

THE MEDIA TELLS THE COURT: PLAME'S COVER WAS BLOWN IN THE MID-1990s
As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.

But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.

Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn).


THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."

And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove — who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment — one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.

A COMPLETE DEFENSE?
The defense in Section 422 requires that the revelation by the United States have been done "publicly." At least one U.S. official who spoke to Gertz speculated that because the Havana snafu was not "publicized" — i.e., because the classified information about Plame was mistakenly communicated to Cuba rather than broadcast to the general public — it would not available as a defense to whomever spoke with Novak. But that seems clearly wrong.

First, the theory under which the media have gleefully pursued Rove, among other Bush officials, holds that if a disclosure offense was committed here it was complete at the moment the leak was made to Novak. Whether Novak then proceeded to report the leak to the general public is beside the point — the violation supposedly lies in identifying Plame to Novak. (Indeed, it has frequently been observed that Judy Miller of the Times is in contempt for protecting one or more sources even though she never wrote an article about Plame.)

Perhaps more significantly, the whole point of discouraging public disclosure of covert agents is to prevent America's enemies from degrading our national security. It is not, after all, the public we are worried about. Rather, it is the likes of Fidel Castro and his regime who pose a threat to Valerie Plame and her network of U.S. intelligence relationships. The government must still be said to have "publicized" the classified relationship — i.e., to have blown the cover of an intelligence agent — if it leaves out the middleman by communicating directly with an enemy government rather than indirectly through a media outlet.

LINGERING QUESTIONS
All this raises several readily apparent questions. We know that at the time of the Novak and Corn articles, Plame was not serving as an intelligence agent outside the United States. Instead, she had for years been working, for all to see, at CIA headquarters in Langley. Did her assignment to headquarters have anything to do with her effectiveness as a covert agent having already been nullified by disclosure to the Russians and the Cubans — and to whomever else the Russians and Cubans could be expected to tell if they thought it harmful to American interests or advantageous to their own?

If Plame's cover was blown, as Gertz reports, how much did Plame know about that? It's likely that she would have been fully apprised — after all, as we have been told repeatedly in recent weeks, the personal security of a covert agent and her family can be a major concern when secrecy is pierced. Assuming she knew, did her husband, Wilson, also know? At the time he was ludicrously comparing the Novak article to the Ames and Philby debacles, did he actually have reason to believe his wife had been compromised years earlier?

And could the possibility that Plame's cover has long been blown explain why the CIA was unconcerned about assigning a one-time covert agent to a job that had her walking in and out of CIA headquarters every day? Could it explain why the Wilsons were sufficiently indiscrete to pose in Vanity Fair, and, indeed, to permit Joseph Wilson to pen a highly public op-ed regarding a sensitive mission to which his wife — the covert agent — energetically advocated his assignment? Did they fail to take commonsense precautions because they knew there really was nothing left to protect?

We'd probably know the answers to these and other questions by now if the media had given a tenth of the effort spent manufacturing a scandal to reporting professionally on the underlying facts. And if they deigned to share with their readers and viewers all the news that's fit to print ... in a brief to a federal court.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
 
Max Power said:
Now, THERE'S a great defense. He didn't mention Plame's name. He just referred to her as "Wilson's wife."

Why, he could've been referring to the lovable Mrs. Wilson!
item_m_DTM010.jpg


I hope you all realize what a JOKE these defenses of Rove are.

AS long as your willing to admit this whole feeeble charade the Dems are tyring to use is simply due to sour grapes and a hatred of Bush. Bottom line is there is no proof Rove did anything wrong but let the special council figure it out before you convict him!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top