Valerie Plame, the "undercover" agent whose cover was "blown" by Richard Armitage reportedly has testified to Congress that, prior to Armitage's revelation, her covert status "was not widely known on the Georgetown cocktail circuit." I guess that counts as keeping a secret by Washington standards.
Plame also apparently is claiming that she did not recommend that her husband, Joe Wilson, go to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq was talking to Niger officials about purchasing uranium (allegations which Wilson found to be true before he found them to be false). Rather, it was some guy who walked by her desk at CIA headquarters (where secret-agent Plame worked). Plame and "the guy who walked by" then took the idea to her supervisor, who told her to bring her husband in and to write an email about it. So sending Wilson to Niger was the idea of walk-by man and her supervisor, according to the lame Ms. Plame.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Plame may be lame, but Rudy is flaming out with 9/11 families launching a "Swift Boat" attack on Rudy and all those Rudy drag queen videos: http://www.solidpolitics.com
Bill at 12:12PM on Mar 16th 2007
2. threadjack take your Rudy bashing somewhere else
jack at 1:26PM on Mar 16th 2007
3. Why do Democrats have to lie?
We can see consistent deceit, being produced repeatedly by Democrat Partisans to enhance their agenda, like Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame, on a daily basis...
How did they come to believe this is helpful for their cause?
Is this a larger issue, of some sign of gross instability?
Can the unethical nature of the Democrat Faithful, greatly enhanced during the Clinton Administration, be explained by some larger development or condition?
HNAV at 4:26PM on Mar 16th 2007
4. 1) Joe Wilson objected to the 16 words in the 2003 SOTU about uranium
2) The Bush Administration retracted the 16 words
Steve J. at 2:03PM on Mar 16th 2007
5. Doesnt her civil suit for "the intentional and malicious exposure" fall apart when confronted with her testimony today alleging that they "carelessly and recklessly" exposed her name? MARK
mark at 2:45PM on Mar 16th 2007
6. mark: "Doesnt her civil suit for "the intentional and malicious exposure" fall apart when confronted with her testimony today alleging that they "carelessly and recklessly" exposed her name?"
She'll probably amend her suit to claim they "intentionally and maliciously, with careless recklessness" exposed her name.
Jeff H at 3:52PM on Mar 16th 2007
7. These Democrats are wasting more time and money on this pointless "investigation." Plame is a phony, no-account CIA employee whose only motivation is to cash in on this phony scandal. And she will.
The Democrats should spend as much time and energy investigating Iranian nukes and preventing the next 9/11 than they do perpetuating this fraud. Maybe we can replay this dog-and-pony show on C-Span after the next terror attack kills thousands of Americans and we all again ask, "How could this have happened?"
Adirondack Patriot at 4:37PM on Mar 16th 2007
8. Adirondack Patriot:
Unfortunately, next time a terrorist attack occurs, the Dems and media will chant "It's all Bush's fault!!" like a mantra. And the 2/3rds of America that only knows what the TV tells them will believe it.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but believe that it is all over for this country. When in our history did such a steady stream of half-truths and lies take over the entire political dialogue? The Democrats seem to be able to lie, twist, smear with complete impunity. It is a sickness, and we are a LONG way from getting well.
Ask yourself this, "When is the last time a Democrat was even criticised in the mainstream press?"
Mike at 6:50PM on Mar 16th 2007
9. You're right, Mike. Unfortunately, the trend in America is to vote for or believe people who mouth the most simplistic, illusory answers to complex issues -- thereby appearing more intelligent that Republicans.
For example, the "It's the economy, stupid" was hardly an economic plan, but it worked. Today, the Democrats spew their "End the war now" garbage, knowing that it CAN'T happen without empowering jihadists and endangering Western nations.
This nonsense will continue until the next jihadist attack, and the illusion of Democrat competency will be shattered, and the American people will look to the Republicans because they'll need adults to run their government again.
Adirondack Patriot at 7:08PM on Mar 16th 2007
10. If Val was sooooo concerned about her covert status, did she ever ask her husband to perhaps reconsider writing an inflammatory editorial full of faslehoods for the NY Times? "Joe, what if some reporter tries to find out how you were picked for the trip and it gets back to me? My covert status will be compromised!"
the commodore at 7:33PM on Mar 16th 2007
11. Steve J. -
Like too many people, you seem to either filter your facts through a partisan mesh or rely upon partisan sources.
1. Joseph Wilson was suggested for the job of investigating the charge that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger by his wife, per the Senate Select Committee on Pre-war Intelligence. He was not qualified, and per his own statements did most of his "investigation" sitting beside the hotel pool drinking green tea. (See .)
2. Joe Wilson reported verbally to the CIA that the former Prime Minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, said that he had been approached by an Iraqi official attempting to buy what Mayaki interpreted could only be yellowcake uranium.
3. The British government, relying upon many sources including the French (but not relying upon forgeries later sold stating the same thesis) notified the USG that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger.
4. The President's speech included the notorious "16 words": “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
5. The Senate Select Committee's report, as well as an independent British report (referred to as the Butler report), concluded that not only had the British government indeed told the US this, but they still believed it was true. The US IC confirmed this attempt in part relying upon Wilson's report.
6. Wilson wrote a commentary for the New York Times on July 6, 2003. He falsely stated that his report had debunked the idea that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. See the Washington Post .
7. DCIA George Tenet stated on July 11, 2003, that the "16 words" should not have been included in the SOTU address, but the President, to my knowledge, never retracted the statement which has been repeatedly shown to be factual.
8. Too many people have twisted the "16 Words" to say the claim was that either Iraq had *obtained* yellowcake from Niger or that the President relied upon the forged docs which had already been discredited. Neither is true. The statement was, and is, factual. There is no question that the Brits informed us of this allegation, and still stand by it. Please understand that the President never said Iraq had sought or obtained uranium from Niger; he said truthfully that the Brits had informed us they had evidence that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Africa.
9. The WaPo was rather peeved with Amb. Wilson after it learned that he had lied to them for a follow-up article they did. He had intimated that he was assigned to the task because the Vice President's office had requested him, which was not true. He denied that his wife was involved in his selection, which was not true. He also said that he had seen the forged documents and could tell they were obvious forgeries when he had not seen them. The WaPo quoted the Seneta Select Committee in debunking Amb. Wilson's claims, such as:
"The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger." (.)
So perhaps it is not as cut and dried as you seem to think...
LD
Lester Dent at 1:40AM on Mar 17th 2007
12. as a very liberal-leaning democratic socialist, i was appalled at reading the above disparaging comments. i scoffed and stammered, and yet, obviously i make the same grand sweeping statements about republicans and conservatives all the time. for once could it be about furthering ideas of humanism, progress, and educaion of the masses, rather han childish pride and bickering?
jessica at 1:56AM on Mar 17th 2007
13. This hearing is a joke and a waste of our tax dollars. If she was really a covert agent and truly fears for her life why did she sign a multimillion dollar deal for a movie. Her and her husband achieved exactly what they wanted. Early retirement and lots of money in the bank at the expense of the American taxpayer.
wrightclan at 8:53AM on Mar 17th 2007
14. Did any of you even listen to the C-Span version of the hearing??
Regarding who recommended Wilson, Plame states that the person who is on record said that his words were twisted in the report, he tried to return back to the Senate committee (under Republican control) and correct the record, but was denied.
Plame said the person involved also wrote a memo regarding this issue. This should be easy to verify and set the record straight once and for all.
Her most compeling statements were that when you work in the CIA, your biggest concern about being outed is by a foreign government. She commented that it was ironic that it was her own government that blew her cover.
Regardless of how you feel about Plame, it is obvious we only use rhetoric when we say "support our troops". It means more than sending people to battle. It also means protecting our assets. Plame worked for the CIA for over 20 years, went on secret assignments abroad and had a network of people who probably are in jeopardy.
Shame on them and the potential information that could have been learned...
marjory at 7:59AM on Mar 19th 2007
15. "Can the unethical nature of the Democrat Faithful, greatly enhanced during the Clinton Administration, be explained by some larger development or condition?"
HNAV at 4:26PM on Mar 16th 2007
I think so. There seems to be quite a bit on that topic at http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
and it seems to make an awful lot of sense.
yonason at 10:35PM on Mar 18th 2007