Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exploding Liberal Myths 10: The Plame Name - (excellent, coherent, factual summary of this story!)
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | JULY 14, 2005 | JOE MARIANI

Posted on 07/13/2005 9:27:43 PM PDT by CHARLITE

Once again, the liberal media are trying to ramp up hysteria over the “outing” of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. The problem with their frenzy is that there’s no substance to the charge, once all the angry flailing and faux outrage are done with.

Liberals are sacrificing what little credibility they have left with the American people in their desperate attempt to destroy the Bush administration at all cost. To that end, they have continually accused President Bush’s advisor Karl Rove of giving Plame’s name to the media in order to punish Wilson, after Wilson investigated reports of Saddam’s attempt to buy African uranium and lied about his findings.

Wilson filed a disappointingly neutral report upon his return, but published an editorial stating unequivocally that the British-backed claim was absolutely untrue--and that President Bush was using it anyway, to create a reason to attack Saddam. But, in his 2004 book, Wilson revealed that “It was Saddam Hussein’s information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as ‘Baghdad Bob,’ who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade--an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.” So the uranium buy attempt actually did happen, and Wilson knew about it, but lied about it to try and prevent the liberation of Iraq for political purposes.

In the liberal version of events, Karl Rove--a consummately clever political operator by all accounts, except in this story--revealed Plame’s role as a covert agent for the CIA out of sheer vindictiveness. I don’t know how that makes any sense, or what end it was supposed to achieve, but somehow it seems perfectly reasonable to liberals that he would do this. Rove did, in fact, mention that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA to Time reporter Matt Cooper, but never indicated that she had once been a spy. Cooper was not the writer who published her identity--that was columnist Robert Novak. The problem is that in order to prove Rove did anything illegal, an illegal act has to have taken place.

Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If that’s what Rove or anyone else did, he ought to be hung out for the crows. (I wonder whether liberals will wail about such a violation of the Geneva Conventions, as they do when terrorists get too much or too little air-conditioning.) In order for Rove (or whoever the source was) to have broken the law, he would have to know and reveal that Plame was a covert operative for the CIA. The problem is that she wasn’t one anymore.

Apparently, Valerie Plame ceased to be a covert agent when her cover was blown years earlier. The CIA believed that Aldrich Ames (CIA agent/KGB spy/traitor) revealed her role, along with many other operatives, to the KGB before his arrest in 1994. Plame’s former existence as a secret agent became little more than cocktail party chatter with which to thrill the uninitiated. Since her identity was not classified, not secret, and she had not been assigned to duty outside the United States in the last five years, revealing her mundane desk job with the CIA was simply not a crime. After all, lots of people work for the CIA.

What no one talks about is the reason Wilson was picked to go to Niger--the question that originally nagged Novak. In fact, whoever did uncover Plame’s involvement in her husband’s selection did the country a favor. Plame wanted Wilson to investigate the British claim because of Wilson’s vocal antipathy to President Bush and his staunch opposition to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He was sent not to gather evidence and form a conclusion, but because his conclusion was foreordained. Whoever sent him was attempting to exert an undue influence over America’s foreign policy by sending someone who would ignore evidence contrary to his opinion. Do we really want former secret agents playing political games to determine the outcomes of investigations before they’re even begun--investigations the outcomes of which may determine the nation’s course in wartime?

Once again, liberals and their pet Democrats have chosen the wrong hill to die on. While ignoring the real problem we narrowly avoided, they try to whip us into an attack on someone who, even if his accusations are true, committed no crime.

About the Writer: Joe Mariani is a computer consultant and freelance writer who lives in Pennsylvania. His website is available at: http://guardian.blogdrive.com.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cia; cialeak; identity; joewilson; judithmiller; karlrove; matthewcooper; niger; nytimes; saddamhussein; timemagazine; uranium; valerieplame
"Once again, liberals and their pet Democrats have chosen the wrong hill to die on."

Great line! . . . "wrong hill to die on!"

1 posted on 07/13/2005 9:27:45 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Good article! well written and lots of INFO!


2 posted on 07/13/2005 9:37:24 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Up in PfLAMES !


3 posted on 07/13/2005 11:35:39 PM PDT by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Republic Rocker

Good one isnt it? :D


4 posted on 07/13/2005 11:39:34 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

thanks for posting this - I had vague recall of Plame's former covert status being called "a badly-kept secret" and "gossip fodder" for the chattering class when all this blew up.


5 posted on 07/14/2005 6:02:12 AM PDT by King Prout (I'd say I missed ya, but that'd be untrue... I NEVER MISS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
1. But, in his 2004 book, Wilson revealed that “It was Saddam Hussein’s information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as ‘Baghdad Bob,’ who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade--an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.”

2. So the uranium buy attempt actually did happen, and Wilson knew about it, but lied about it to try and prevent the liberation of Iraq for political purposes.

Am I the only person who doesn't see how sentence #2 follows from sentence #1? If there were a "buy attempt", wouldn't the official see it as more than a "possible effort to buy uranium"?

6 posted on 07/14/2005 6:26:26 AM PDT by wotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wotan
The reason the CIA thought Baghdad Bob's trip was for uranium is that Niger exports little else that Iraq could wont. I think sheep's wool is there number two export. I don't think the CIA jumped to a conclusion, though. This wasn't their accusation or conclusion. It was from British intelligence and the Brits could not pass along where they had gotten it from. They stand by it today.

It's amazing to read the report Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They devoted an entire chapter to this event. Every word the President uttered had been passed around to all intelligence agencies and cleared for use - multiple times. In fact, the Intelligence community signed off on his saying "up to 500 metric tons", too. He never used that number. So rather than exaggerate the intelligence on Iraq, in this case, he was understating their conclusion.

Also in that report:

Everything I listed above contradicts what Wilson told the American public. He was on dozens of TV shows and written about in hundreds of reports. When all his information turned out to be wrong (at best) or lies (more likely) the papers ran fewer than ten stories. The lie had gone around the World hundreds of times and the truth was left gasping for air(time).

It's a perfect example of the media fawning over a Bush-hater. They won't demand proof. They won't question his motives. They won't give the correction the prominence it deserves because it proves how negligent they were in the first place.

7 posted on 07/14/2005 7:32:29 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

I'm taking this into unchartered teritory. And its a non-partisan one. When I heard the Republican Talking points on CNN last night and on Fox I was ...stunned. As usual the performances were excellent. And frankly, I was glad as the Monday reaction was not. But there is a new spin on blame the victim I have never heard used before - the rapist defense - reduce the victim to a woman who 'deserved it'. Hey....don't go there. For that is one serious strategic error. Nothing will make an educated female republican wage earner turn on you faster than this approach. I am already foaming.


8 posted on 07/14/2005 12:20:52 PM PDT by littlebulldog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: littlebulldog

Nice words, troll, and your point, you have none. We use facts as evidence, not hyperbole. You, are the vying for the position of king of hyperbole. You said nothing, but acted all big by using big words and sentences. Guess again. We see through your idiocy.


9 posted on 07/14/2005 12:40:07 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Whoever sent him was attempting to exert an undue influence over America’s foreign policy by sending someone who would ignore evidence contrary to his opinion.
I do believe that is a crime...

PATRIOT ACT SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;
Fraud is part of coercion, therefore...wasn't a crime committed?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

10 posted on 07/14/2005 2:15:59 PM PDT by philman_36 ("Itís a legal document, and legal documents do not change." Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
the truth was left gasping for air(time).

IMHO, the reason the truth was left gasping is because of the apparently innate and utterly amazing inability or unwillingness of Republicans to respond vigorously and coherently to attacks on their credibility. I remember one incident where the press was attacking Bush 1 and he finally dimly seemed to perceive that they were suggesting he was a liar, which, of course, they were.

11 posted on 07/14/2005 3:36:08 PM PDT by wotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson