Posted on 11/09/2010 8:41:15 AM PST by Seizethecarp
Valerie Plame says in her memoir that she read the report that the CIA wrote immediately after debriefing Wilson on his trip and also read his column before it was published. She added that she thought the column was accurate. She said the report was only a few pages long. No one, let alone a professional intelligence officer, could have missed the part about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake. She had to know the column was wrong, but evidently said nothing. So she was anything but an innocent bystander as her husband created a political firestorm.
In a question and answer period after the AFI screening, director and Plame/Wilson hagiographer Doug Liman insisted he was “diligent” about fact-checking. He said he left out Armitage and made Libby the heavy “for efficiency of storytelling.” After all, he said, “it all ultimately led back to Scooter Libby,” who, Liman said, put Plame’s name in a memo Armitage saw. But this is simply not true: according to testimony at the trial, a State Department official, Carl Ford, wrote the memo. Libby had no hand in it.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldaffairsjournal.org ...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fair-game-2010/
N Fair Game (2010) $651,082 ..
It made less than a million in it’s first weekend,as with most of Penns movies it will bomb which of course means he gets nominated for a Oscar...
Dumbest scandal ever. Two perps: Plame and Wilson. They together were completely responsible for everything.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
“Fair Game,” my arse.
She’s a bottle blonde.
And her husband is a pompous narcissist and a lying sack o’ $h%t.
Valarie Plame was "exposed" because she engaged in nepotism. Namely arranging for her blow hard, big mouth husband's intelligence gathering "mission" to Nigeria. John Gibson's "How the Left Swift boated America" did a great job of laying out what a farce the whole "scandal" is.
Yet what the script writers conveniently ignore is that the original "16 words" was confirmed, even by Joe Wilson in his original Op-ed! Iraq did did send a trade delegation to Niger, whom had nothing much of great value to export, other than yellowcake Uranium [and was Saddam's previous source for such!]
The 16 words said that Iraq was "seeking", not that they had acquired.
That is significant, in that the Bush Admin detractors, along with Joe Wilson himself, seem to exhibit memory dysfunction on that crucial point.
Meanwhile the Iraqis were doing a smash-up job of otherwise leading the Western world into believing that; not only would they relish cooking up something poisonous to feed us, they were making moves that could be reasonably interpreted as meaning they were actively working at doing so.
The Iraqi trade delegation trip to Niger was just one of them...sort of the icing on the (poison? yellow?) cake, which is likely why it was mentioned in the "16 words", in the first place.
Though perhaps difficult to understand without the rest of the article to go along with it, I found this paragraph to be descriptive:
I, along with most every other guy with conservative leanings, have trouble talking with lefty liberals, in that even after myself having just previously proven` a point, they'll still keep arguing like nothing of the sort was just proven, all without directly addressing the matter being discussed, at all.
It's no wonder they think so much of Joe and Valerie. They all share similar, selective "memory dysfunction", along with the likes of, much of "the Arab street".
My memory tells me that she or her hubby had openly stated that she worked for the CIA and that it was common knowledge before the incident. I don't remember any proof of her clandestine status.
Thanks for asking this question!
In the Hannity & Colmes interview linked below, Valerie Plame’s CIA supervisor blows left-wing witch hunt “Fair Game” framing that Scooter and Cheney exposed Plame’s covert status. At the time Plame only had “light non-official cover” (trivial compared to covert status) as a person who had the appearance of being only an “overt” CIA employee, which was the appearance that Libby and Cheney relied on when they sought to link her to the inaapropriate selection of her husband to go to Niger.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162811,00.html
COLMES: Also, the fact that her cover was blown — doesn’t this expose every asset? Doesn’t it expose other people, every operation that she might have been involved with, and possibly put lives at risk?
RUSTMANN: No, I don’t think so. I think she had official cover for the first part of her career, when she was overseas in an official capacity. She came back to headquarters for a while, and then they sent her out on a light non-official cover.
She was out there. She was collecting information under that cover. She came back to headquarters. They probably then reverted her back to her official cover. In other words, so she wouldn’t — her W-2’s would not say...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: So she went back into cover. But for example, didn’t they expose a front operation that she helped run, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, this made-up company. And wasn’t that exposed as a result of all this, and can’t this damage intelligence operations and our security?
RUSTMANN: Well, actually, no, because it isn’t a big deal. It was a light non-official cover. There was, you know, a phone. There was very little backstopping to that company. It wasn’t like she was working for a major multi-national American company or foreign company where there could be some severe blowback if that were to come to...
COLMES: Are you saying there are no repercussions of this? There’s no repercussions of her having been exposed as a covert CIA agent, even though she was non-covert at one point?
RUSTMANN: There are no major repercussions to the cover mechanism, no. To her — the question again gets down to whether somebody did this with malice or forethought. Then it’s a crime, and that person goes to jail.
COLMES: But isn’t the question whether any damage was done because of the revelation? Whether lives were harmed, whether anyone was harmed, or security was harmed?
RUSTMANN: Yes, I don’t think so. I think, if she were out there in that capacity, in that non-official capacity, and if she was handling agents — she was handling agents in another alias — we have different layers of cover that work.
Just saw a commercial for this piece of BDS (remember when we had to deal with that instead of PDS?). Pleased to see it is bombing, and hope this is the end of that loser Penn’s career. If it tanks Watts’ too, oh well.
BTW, anyone want some more info on what really happened, lokk here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/05/another_suggestion_who_outed_p.html
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.