Posted on 07/15/2005 8:37:10 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier
While many news sources report it as fact, it is very unclear what Valerie Plame's status is/was. Here's the most important part of Wilson's interview from last night. In order to protect himself from criticism about the Vanity Fair photo shoot, the book deal, and his generally self-aggrandizing, self-enriching behavior since July 2003, Wilson admits that his wife was not a covert agent:
BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.
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.
She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...
First, no one is really spending much time talking about the details of her cover, for good reason.
Second, I guess you've never heard of Brewster Jennings? You know, the CIA front company that was her 'employer'? The one that also 'employed' other agents who were no longer covert after Plame's status was publicized?
I think you could be on to something. Wilson's statement now that his wife was not undercover could be to help divert attention from the fact that he said she was when he shopped out the story two years ago.
Now Valerie Plame's former CIA supervisor, Fred Rustman (who WAS a covert official) has gone on record saying she was not a covert employee...and that virtually everyone in the social circle around her and Wilson knew that she worked at the CIA.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm
Whew.....this DU thread would be funny except that they are so INCREDIBLY INSANE!!!! They (DUmmies) walk among us, people...BE AFRAID!
That is exactly my suggestion. Wolf's question presupposes that there was something untoward about their 'photo shoot', since she was a 'clandestine agent.' Wilson replies that she wasn't a clandestine agent on the day Novak published. Sounds to me like he was saying "There wasn't anything wrong with doing that shoot, her name was already out there from Novak."
Just a guess, but I suspect that Valerie Plame leaked the info to the NYT reporter--It makes sense because her husband was getting grilled at the time and it's the old bait and switch that the CIA likes to do....
Karl Rove should sue Joe Wilson and all the newspapers, magazine's, politicians etc. for falsely accusing him. He would make millions!
Joe Wilson should be prosecuted for impersonating a diplomat sent to Niger by Cheney.
Yeah.Yeah.Yeah!!
Bingo. That, my wise FRiend, is why we have a GJ investigation. There doesn't seem to be much dispute that she was NOC in the past, with Brewster-Jennings. She wasn't the only person 'employed' by that company. And I'm guessing that she and other 'employees' in that 'energy consulting company' had an asset or two in the part of the world where all the energy comes from.
Do we have a link to this?
I hate that typo. PRINCIPLES.
I heard on TV yesterday that to be in violation of the law (the 1982 law that Sen. Schumer voted AGAINST), among other things,
(1) The accused must have gotten the info from a confidential source,
(2) The accused must KNOW that the agent is clandestine,
(3) The exposed agent must be serving overseas, and undercover, or must have served in this capacity within 5 years of the exposure.
Wilson and wifey both admit that no element of #3 was in place. The exposure took place in 2003, and Plame's last overseas posting was in 1997. Besides, at CIA in 2003 she was simply working as a regular staffer...not in a clandestine role.
The Dems need to sit down abd shut up.
It certainly is still on the radar.
It's a pack of lies, and it won't bring down Rove, because Bush is loyal to his staff as long as they do their jobs, and because if Bush gave in it would be an open invitation for another attack. The Democrats are like Palestinians; if you show weakness in the face of threats, they will just behave even worse next time, expecting another success.
It won't succeed, except possibly by giving bystanders, who don't really follow these complicated arguments, the impression that Rove is somehow corrupt. They managed to tar Ashcroft as a Bible-thumping fanatic, and they are working hard to tar Rove as a sinister power monger, and through him Bush, even if they can't bring him down.
So the question is, who wins the propaganda war? So far, I'd say that the MSM has probably only reached their loyal following, and undecideds are probably just confused about the whole thing.
This would be bad, right? Confused.
I've seen that - and I think, based on what I've read, that she probably hadn't been under NOC since she was pulled back to DC in 1997. But see my previous post. I've said before that I doubt disclosing her identity was, in and of itself, a violation of the statute. But the consequences of doing so went beyond disclosure of her identity. I doubt whether that kind of domino effect violates the law, either - I don't know. But it is, IMHO, a bit reckless and slimy to do so for what is, essentially, a response to a critic's press statements.
The DUmmies are trying to console each other:
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.