Skip to comments.Valerie Plame, Nude! [Was today's Slate article inspired by a FR poster?]
Posted on 07/06/2005 10:19:59 AM PDT by summer
Valerie Plame, Nude!
Well, without sunglasses and a scarf, anyway.
By Timothy Noah, Slate
Posted Wednesday, July 6, 2005, at 7:40 AM PT
Plame reveals herself in the madding media
crowd. [3rd photo down, on right]
Valerie Plame's career in the Central Intelligence Agency was destroyed by whoever leaked her name to Robert Novak, and that is a terrible wrong. If we ever find out who the leaker is, the president must fire him. (Or them.) That said, I'm starting to weary of the story line that Plame avoids the media spotlight. "She has guarded her privacy" and "shunned publicity," Scott Shane wrote in the July 5 New York Times. That was true once, but it isn't true now. Shane pointed out a glaring exception late in 2003, when Plame "posed with her husband for a Vanity Fair photographer, wearing sunglasses and with a scarf over her blond hair." On Jan. 5, 2004, her husband, Joe Wilson, was quoted telling Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post that there was no remaining national-security reason to continue hiding Plame's face, since her cover was "completely blown." Then why the scarf and sunglasses? "She had to be clothed as generic blonde in order to deal with the genuine concern that some wacko on the street might easily identify her," Wilson explained. "It was just in the interest of personal security." Wilson repeated the need for this precaution in his memoir, The Politics of Truth:
She had already been described as the beautiful blond that she is, and her cover had long since been blown, so the only concern remaining was whether strangers would be able to use a photo to recognize her in public. With proper precautions taken, I saw no reason to deprive ourselves of the pleasure of being photographed together as the happily married couple that we are.
Fair enough. But on Page 70 of the July 2005 Vanity Fairthe one with Nicole Kidman on the cover and Mark Felt's Deep Throat confession insidethere's a photograph of the happy couple at Vanity Fair's party celebrating the Tribeca Film Festival. No scarf and no sunglasses. Plame, seated, is smiling and leaning into the camera. If you're a wacko on the street, please avert your eyes.
I already posted the pic, silly. See above article and caption of photo!
Yes, that's the OTHER photo mentioned in the article -- but, the photo of her WITHOUT a scarf and sunglasses is what a FR poster posted on the thread this weekend -- and, now, that same photo is in Slate.
That ridiculously glam "I'm such a secret agent" Vanity Fair cover destroyed whatever credibility Wilson had. This clown is all about making a name for himself on the cocktail party circuit.
Yeah, but what's interesting to me is that Slate seems to agree with you! :)
I hate you Summer for drawing me into a thread that promises nude photos and delivers nothing! I hate you, I hate you! :)
P.S. however, if you ever find nudes of Brittney Spears, please, oh please, start a thread!
The serious liberal bloggers (meaning the ones that aren't complete loons) like Josh Marshall started laying off the Plame nonsense after that VF spread. It became glaringly obvious to everyone but the idiots at the NY Times that Joe Wilson was a seeker of fame first and foremost.
Any pics of her breastfeeding?
ROTFLMAO...Hey! That was the title of the Slate article! Blame them! The buck stops -- over THERE!
"Please leave us alone we just want our privacy......as soon as we're done with our photoshoot."
I smell book money.
It has been very interesting to see the liberal blogs today, like the Huffington Whatever. All weekend she had Lawrence Lassie O'Donnell up front, first, etc., but now that CNN had him on last night, and all he could say was no crime was committed, Huffington took Lassie down a few notches today.
I posted it yesterday. I got it from NRO's The Corner.
There's another pic floating around of the Wilsons, in addition to the VF pics.
An *ss and his lass.
Beautiful blonde? I guess if the libbies keep saying it long enough, someone will believe it eventually. She is an attractive woman, but the lamestream media and her husband have been playing her up as some kind of blonde bombshell secret agent ("Jane Blonde!") since this whole stupid story began.
You can also bet that before leaning on Novak and the other reporters the Special Prosecutor deposed every person who could have been the leaker. Question two... What would the first question the prosecutor asked each possible leaker? If you say, "Are you the leaker?" then you are batting 100%.
That means the special prosecutor knows who the leaker was. And most likey has what he needs to indict the leaker for perjury and revealing classified information.
What would the prosecutor then need to make a bullet proof case against the leaker? The testimony of other reporters to whom the leaker leake. Also the notes of those reporters to present as evidence at the trial.
It seems obvious to me that the leaker is going to get indicted and very likely convicted of at least perjury.
If that person were a Bush insider the media would have helped the prosecutor get him faster than you can say ... "The TIMES mission is to nail Republicans." But that is not the case.. the media wants to protect the leaker.
There will likely be two results. The leaker gets a felony conviction, and the reporters get some jail time. And the New York times if it fails to turn over its notes may get a large fine or worse.
The New York Times and Time Magazine have managed to prove that they can not protect leakers. Leakers can get in huge trouble, and the media can not even protect itself.
The Times and Time Magazine were stupid enough to demand a special prosecutor. They expected Bush to appoint someone who would slit his own throat. Instead Bush appointed a special prosecutor that would slit the leakers and the media's throats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.