Third Party & Independents Archives

The Drama Queen

‘It was over.”, says Plame.
She was minding her own business.
She was surprised when her husband dropped the morning paper on her bed and said, ‘He did it.’, as she saw that she was ‘outed’.
It was as if her life had ended.

She was highly trained and her career ended in the blink of an eye.
She's very concerned about other covert agents not being able to take on a mission for fear of being outed.

Damn she's good.
She should play herself in her upcoming movie.

She went on about how the CIA should not be political.
Does she REALLY believe that?
She helped send her own husband on a 'mission'. A husband who is extremely political.

Where in her highly trained mind did she get the idea that NO ONE was going to question why and BY WHOM her husband was sent to Nigeria to investigate yellowcake???
What about her supervisor who asked her to talk to her husband? Did he/she not consider the possibility that people would ask questions?

If she was SO concerned...
If she really believed she, and every one else at the CIA, should NOT be political...

I do not feel sorry for her.
The rest of the agents she worked with are more important to me than she is.
She keeps saying that everyone should ASSUME her position was secret just by knowing she worked at the CIA.

It is completely dishonest to say that she and her husband had nothing to do with her own 'outing'.
Her supervisor should take some of the blame also.
Was there absolutely no one else who could have been sent on the yellowcake mission?

This whole hearing is political.
The way she talks about the 'mission' her husband was sent on , and the way it was put together, sounds political.
Plame is 'collateral damage' thanks to her own superiors, herself, her husband, and Novak - and lets not forget Libby and Rove.

IMO....Novak should not have had her name published.
Yes.
We need Freedom of the Press.
BUT... what good is it if secrets are printed that damage, and might possibly destroy, our Nation are made public???


Posted by Dawn at March 16, 2007 12:10 PM
Comments
Comment #212276

Dawn,

If she’s a drama queen, then surely you are an apologist for traitors.

Posted by: gergle at March 16, 2007 12:16 PM
Comment #212283

I watched a bit of this on c-span.

Yes, she was dramatic. I think that is a trait they teach you when your job includes being someone you aren’t.

I was intrigued by the number of vacant chairs on the Republican side on the committee tables. Many Republican Congressmen had someplace more important to be (Walter Reed?).

She said two things that were important: 1. Her chosen career is over, and 2. Someone in the administration ended it.

Posted by: Steve K at March 16, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #212287

Dawn,

What if you were to lose your job tomorrow because you refused to lie for your boss?
What if you lost it because someone else was doing something wrong and blamed you?
I don’t blame her for being upset. I’m more concerned with your lack of outrage over this matter.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 16, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #212288

Steve,

Those things are important, but we already know who, I’m not sure why you listed it as ‘someone’…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 16, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #212289

Dawn, it’s just a piece of political theater, Democrats attempting to put on a little show trial to compensate for the failure of Fitzgerald’s investigation to legally back up any of the allegations being tossed around here.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2007 12:48 PM
Comment #212290

And I remember being told that this investigation was going to ‘blow the lid’ off of the WH and Cheney, yet Fitzgerald isn’t going to be there and Plame is pretty much the only one of note showing up… *shrug*

I’m just waiting for all the evidence of wrongdoing by Cheney to come pouring in over this as I was promised it would.

Maybe next time…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 16, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #212291

Outing a CIA agent is just flat wrong and anyone involved needs to be put under the jail. But was Plame really an agent or did she just work there? I keep hearing two stories on that. Reckon maybe she was if your a Democrat, and wasn’t if your a Republican? Only the media doesn’t seem to know either. The same network will give ya two stories on that.
Also would this be a big deal if the Democrats had the White House? And don’t tell me it wouldn’t happen on their watch. Because I don’t believe in fairytales. They’re just as dirty as the Republicans.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #212293

Rhinehold,

We used information to invade Iraq. All or most of the information was nonsense.
A person leading the charge for invasion was put in charge of cherry picking and spinning the information. The CIA and other agencies asked the Bush administration not to use the information due to lack of evedence. They used the information any way. Scooter, who works for the V.P., in order to discredit critics of false information, outs the wife of a critic who reveals the administration is using false information. Scooter has been charged for lying about his role in smearing the critics who proved his bosses were lying about false information.
Results: Thousands of dead Americans, thousands of dead Iraqis, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, Middle East instability amplified, thousands of wounded, stained U.S. reputation, loss of world credibility, crushing debt and a divided America.
I guess this is no big deal.
“yawn”

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 16, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment #212297
All or most of the information was nonsense

No, most of it was not.

The CIA and other agencies asked the Bush administration not to use the information due to lack of evedence. They used the information any way.

Again, that is not true. The CIA said that they weren’t 100% sure about the information but did say that the UK intelligence agencies (who still to this day stand by their intelligence on the issue) were sure enough that the 16 words were ok the way they were written.

So, are you saying that Saddam wasn’t:

Breaking his requirements to allow inspections
Torturing his own citizens
Murdering his own citizens
Supporting International Terrorist Oraganizations
Leading Terrorist campaigns
Funding Terrorist families
Attempting to aquire nuclear weapons
Harboring known terrorists
Shooting at US and UK planes on a daily basis
etc…

Yeah, those are no big deal I suppose… I mean, if you want to get off the topic and start demagoguing… Poor innocent Saddam, no reason to remove him from office at all…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 16, 2007 1:16 PM
Comment #212298

Rhinehold,

You’re referring to Armitage?

Posted by: Steve K at March 16, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #212299

Ron,

Are you interested in justice or bashing Democrats?
I’d love to see you debate this issue as an American not a partisan.

“Also would this be a big deal if the Democrats had the White House? And don’t tell me it wouldn’t happen on their watch. Because I don’t believe in fairytales. They’re just as dirty as the Republicans.”

This silly attack dimminishes alot of what you say because it’s just rhetoric. Blind, partisan rhetoric.
Sad.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 16, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #212302

gergle,

‘If she’s a drama queen, then surely you are an apologist for traitors.’

Did you miss this part?

‘Plame is ‘collateral damage’ thanks to her own superiors, herself, her husband, and Novak - and lets not forget Libby and Rove.’

and thanks Steve - Armitage.

Andre,
‘I don’t blame her for being upset. I’m more concerned with your lack of outrage over this matter.’

I am outraged. I’m outraged that all 3 sides are not being held responsible.
I’m outraged that it has turned into another political game.

I also agree that no one seems to know for sure exactly what the woman’s position was.
She wouldn’t lie to her boss?
I hadn’t heard that yet.
‘What if you lost it because someone else was doing something wrong and blamed you?’
Her superior?

Posted by: Dawn at March 16, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #212303

Rhinehold,

“Breaking his requirements to allow inspections
Torturing his own citizens
Murdering his own citizens
Supporting International Terrorist Oraganizations
Leading Terrorist campaigns
Funding Terrorist families
Attempting to aquire nuclear weapons
Harboring known terrorists
Shooting at US and UK planes on a daily basis
etc…”

Why were inspectors there and asking for more time if he was so uncooperative.
He was torturing his own people. Why is it O.K. for us to torture?
Murdering his own citizens is not our business. Or should we attack everyone who does this?
Supporting terrorists, probably. Ask Bush how much he just donated to terrorists willing to do our bidding against Iran.
Leading and funding terrorists is true but we’re creating them daily. What’s worse?
Nukes? No
Harboring terrorists? Proof.
We were told we were invading Iraq because of WMD. We were sold a bill of goods that was false.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 16, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #212305

It’s a game to these people, the republicans and the democrats. Neither of these sides care about the truth any longer.

Posted by: Mike at March 16, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #212307

Andre
Did I touch a nerve or something? All I did was ask a few questions. I’d ask the same things if happened with a Democrat President. But then I reckon I’d get the same answer from a Republican accusing me of ‘blind partisan rhetoric’ I got from you.
And how many times do I have to tell y’all? I don’t belong to or identify with any political party. That leave me free to go after them all and be accused by them of partisanship by them all.
I most likely believe stronger than you that there’s some sort of cover up here. But I’m not going to be lured into believing that these hearing are anything more than partisanship. Or that they will bring any new light to the issue.
And believe me, if this happened under a Democrat President the Republicans would be doing the same thing the Democrats are doing now. Wasting valuable money and time that could be used to solve the real problems facing this country.
BTW, I don’t think Libby will spend a day in jail. I might be wrong, and hope I am.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #212309

It’s a game to these people, the republicans and the democrats. Neither of these sides care about the truth any longer.

Posted by: Mike at March 16, 2007 01:36 PM

HOW TRUE!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 1:47 PM
Comment #212314

There’s no doubt about the presence of the circular, divisive, destructive, time-wasting, distracting partisan warfare.

Perhaps Plame is exagerating the damage to her career and other things.

However, leaking secret information is a crime, and the potentially fatal consequences are real and serious.

If someone irresponsibley (or intentionally) leaked it, they should be help accountable.

Unfortunately, as …

Mike wrote:
It’s a game to these people, the republicans and the democrats. Neither of these sides care about the truth any longer.

That’s because they are more interested in fueling and wallowing in the circular partisan warfare than addressing the nation’s pressing problems, growing in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation.

Yet, the majority of 200 million eligible voters (78 million that don’t even bother to vote) keep rewarding them for it by repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #212320

Talk about an “investigation” that has jumped the shark. In the AP story it says:

Plame said she wasn’t a lawyer and didn’t know what her legal status was but said it shouldn’t have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.

Got that? Three years of a multi-million dollar investigation, a trial, and a million media articles later and the “victim” herself doesn’t even know her “legal status.”

She doesn’t know if a crime was committed, or if a crime COULD have been committed—but still plays fast and loose with accusations. She’s under deep cover. Cover so deep that she’s in the dark herself. Hilarious.

She does know (and I’m glad she was asked this) that she is a Democrat and that she considers herself a victim. Typical.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment #212324

Loyal Oppostition,

Thanks for defining the issue of legality. I thought Fitzgerald already had done this.

Are you stating you believe it is a healthy thing to reveal the covert status, whether defined as such under the act or not, of CIA officials who worked for a covert operation overseas, and continued relationships to this day? You really believe no one was endangered by this politically driven revealation of Ms. Plame’s identity as a former and current CIA operative?

Defending traitors to the security of our CIA operations is untypical of you. I wonder what turned you?

Posted by: gergle at March 16, 2007 2:21 PM
Comment #212325

Dawn, nope didn’t miss that. Did you not understand it or believe it?

Posted by: gergle at March 16, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #212327

Gergle, where did Fitzgerald “define” diddly? He actually refused to talk about Plame’s status in order to prevent Libby’s defense from doing so, insisting his whole case was about perjury and had nothing to do with underlying crimes.

As far as whether it’s “healthy” to reveal covert status or not, of course it’s not if there is any covert status to begin with.

What’s completely absurd here is that Plame herself says that she has no idea what her status is or was.

Hey, maybe you’re a covert agent too? Maybe I am? Let the investigations begin! How ridiculous.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #212329
Why were inspectors there and asking for more time if he was so uncooperative.

Because they were charged with doing a job and were trying to do it. The report was that while they were making it appear that they were being cooperative, that Iraq had still not given full and unfettered access as was required and were in material breach of 1441. Hans wanted to keep looking, but that was not his decision to make.

He was torturing his own people. Why is it O.K. for us to torture?

1) I never said it was and do not think we should be 2) No one is suggesting we are torturing out own people 3) I’m not sure we have any proof that we are torturing anyone either, but I do not know for sure on that suggestion 4) What do we consider torture? Sleep Deprivation and Waterboarding or the kind that Saddam implemented that involved maiming and mutilating people?

Murdering his own citizens is not our business. Or should we attack everyone who does this?
In such a widescale method that bordered on genocide, yes we should be attacking them. But since this is not a ‘single’ issue, but a combination of several, this is just one piece of the puzzle.
Nukes? No
Did he have them? No. Did he try to acquire nuclear material? Yes. No one disputes that he tried, only that the forged documents reported an actual signed deal.
Harboring terrorists? Proof.

For a start:

� Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the October 7�9, 1985, Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in which Abbas�s men shot passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year old Manhattan retiree, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Abbas briefly was in Italian custody at the time, but was released that October 12 because he possessed an Iraqi diplomatic passport. After 2000, Abbas resided in Baghdad, still under Saddam Hussein�s protection.

� Khala Khadr al Salahat, a member of the ANO. Al Salahat and Nidal furnished Libyan agents the Semtex bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

� Abu Nidal. As the Associated Press�s Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the ANO said that he entered Iraq �with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.� Nidal�s attacks in 20 countries killed 407 people and wounded 788 more, the U.S. State Department calculates. Among other atrocities, an ANO-planted bomb exploded on a TWA airliner as it flew from Israel to Greece on September 8, 1974. The jet was destroyed over the Ionian Sea, killing all 88 people on board.

� Abdul Yasin. �U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam�s hometown, which shows Iraq gave Mr. [Abdul Rahman] Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.� The Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared Yasin had been charged in August 1993 for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath One World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,042 individuals. Indicted by federal prosecutors as a conspirator in the WTC bomb plot, Yasin was on the FBI�s Most-Wanted Terrorists list. ABC News confirmed, on July 27, 1994, that Yasin had returned to Baghdad, where he traveled freely and visited his father�s home almost daily.

Do we have to get into the members of al Qaeda that came into Iraq after they left Afghanistan?

We were told we were invading Iraq because of WMD. We were sold a bill of goods that was false.

I enjoy watching a good revisionist at work…

We were told many things. One of them was that there were WMD still remaining in Iraq. This was accepted intelligence from 1998 on after the inspectors left Iraq, Clinton and many other Democrats believed the same thing. Why? Well, because that is what Saddam WANTED us to believe.

The main issue at the time, as I pointed out then, was that because of Saddam’s actions, and the fact that we knew he *HAD* WMD at one point in time, and the fact that he refused to follow the UN procedures that he agreed to in order to remain in power in Iraq, meant that we would never have any way to ensure that they were all gone (if they were all gone, we still don’t know what happened to a significant list of WMD that are unaccounted for) because he was purposely trying to prevent us from finding out.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 16, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #212339

Loyal Opposition,

Since you’ve apparently not seen the hearings on C-span, it is only in the narrowest legal definition of covert agent that she was not. Since neither, I, you, nor Ms. Plame are experts in this legal field, it doesn’t suprise me that we are unaware of her legal status.

Perhaps that is your field. I don’t know you.

That senior CIA staff refered to her covert status is a matter of public record, and for those of us with common sense, that is sufficient to understand the problems associated with outing her. Perhaps you are a CIA operative with more expertise than senior CIA staff.

Again, Why are you defending people who betrayed her covert status and U. S. security ?

Posted by: gergle at March 16, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #212341

Rhinehold,

The main argument the Bush administration was throwing around the U.N. and Washington is that they had WMD, they did not. We have proof that they are trying to acquire Uranium from Niger, they did not. They tried to tie Saddam to Al qaeda, they could not. (I meant they couldn’t convince people who informed themselves and could read) They tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. The only people they convinced are the same sheep who still believe it even after the facts.
We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. We as a nation wanted justice, what we got was lies, smear, secrecy and the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.
This is not a game to me. It’s not a matter of politics. It’s a matter of getting justice for the soldiers killed, the Iraqi civilians killed and displaced and a nation that was lied to by the most incompetent administration in recent history.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 16, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #212342

Dawn, I love how you do this, if it is a left-leaner that is accusing the right of something then such testimony is a “drama”. If it is a right-winger that is accusing the left in such a way—my Gawwwwd it’s a travesty of justice—hwaaaaa hang ‘em all (sob sniff).

QUESTION: Dawn, why are you posting as an independent or libertarian when it’s quite apparent you aren’t, atleast from the outset.

The libertarian in some cases would say the press has the right to report anything it finds out. But would the mere pettiness of the “drama” upstage the nature of the argument with a true libertarian? I question your indy and libertarian/Ayn Rand leanings. I smell elephant! Pounds of it.

Posted by: Gleep the monkey at March 16, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #212344

Can we please, PLEASE put this tiresome question of Plame’s covert status behind us?

Plame says she was a “covert operations officer”. Former CIA officers say she was a “NOC”, or non-official cover. According to the Washington Post,

When Novak’s column unmasking her as a CIA operative was published on July 14, 2003, the CIA general counsel’s office automatically sent a routine report to the Justice Department that there had been an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
One retired former senior CIA officer, who was aware of Plame’s work overseas, described her as “very competent but not great.” Another, who was familiar with her work in a Mediterranean country, said, “It doesn’t matter if she was not a great spy… . She did her job, and it was difficult.”… Novak’s initial column sparked anger inside the CIA, according to one of her superiors at the time. “She was still undercover and there was concern that political people were being very cavalier with a serious issue,” this former senior clandestine officer said.

Can we get this silly argument behind us? I know people ask why no one was charged with the leak, but that in no way implies that she wasn’t covert. Just because no one was charged in a murder case doesn’t mean the victim is alive!

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 16, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #212347

Andre:

The main argument the Bush administration was throwing around the U.N. and Washington is that they had WMD, they did not.

Actually, they did. There was a huge list we had from the inventory we created after the Gulf War. Now, much of that was destroyed but some wasn’t. What happened to the remaining is troublesome, hopefully it was destroyed without UN supervision, and not sold or carted off before we knew about it. Either way it would have been a violation of UN resolutions.

And yes, the Bush administration focused their PR campaign on WMD way too much. However, that doesn’t mean that it was the only reason we SHOULD have gone into Iraq, a course of action that I support.

We have proof that they are trying to acquire Uranium from Niger, they did not.

They did. Even Joe Wilson in his report testified that the Nigeran official said that Iraq was attempting to purchase Uranium from them, but they refused because of the UN sanctions.

They tried to tie Saddam to Al qaeda, they could not. (I meant they couldn’t convince people who informed themselves and could read)

There is a grey area between a working relationship and ties between the two. Iraq did furnish funds to Al Qaeda over the years, but that isn’t the same as having organizational ties. Both sides are wrong in their extremeties on this one and refuse to admit that the truth lies somewhere in between.

They tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. The only people they convinced are the same sheep who still believe it even after the facts.

Really? Where did the administration try to tie Saddam to 9/11? Well, other than the court case where Iraq was found guilty of complicity, but that was hardly the ‘administration’.

We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. We as a nation wanted justice, what we got was lies, smear, secrecy and the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.

Actually, many of us wanted a bit of security, making sure that rouge leaders who had vowed to destory America and were using international terrorism to accomplish their goals to be removed from positions of power that they held. And that is what we got when we removed Saddam from power.

This is not a game to me. It’s not a matter of politics. It’s a matter of getting justice for the soldiers killed, the Iraqi civilians killed and displaced and a nation that was lied to by the most incompetent administration in recent history.

And we go from debate to rhetoric. Too bad it had to end so soon. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 16, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #212350

Rhinehold
It always ends to soon when you use facts and they use opinions and assumptions.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #212353

Seems I remember hearing Wilson admit one time that he was the one that leaked Plame’s name. And Plame herself told Congress that Wilson came into the bedroom with the paper with the story of her being a CIA agent and said he did it.
Why aint he being charged? And why aint the Democrats going after him? Could it be because he’s critical of the Bush administration?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #212354

I’m with gergle’s short, concise comment right out of the gate in this thread. Other good points made by SteveK, Andre, Woody and Gleep.
Dawn, your continual disdain for left and your favoritism of the right is very apparent in this post.

Rhinehold:
“Where did the administration try to tie Saddam to 9/11?”
They did so numerous times, in sometimes very clear, and sometimes subtle ways, and we all know this. Here’s just one example of many that could be offered:

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #212358

“This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda,” Bush said. “We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.”

Are all of the examples as clear as that one Adrienne?

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #212359

If Bushco’s guilt wasn’t as plain on the nose on your face to you before, maybe you should read this:White House official: No probe launched into Plame leak

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #212360

kctim, there are many other instances — why don’t you go search for them? I’m through with feeling as though I should go searching in order to post the many untruthful things that this administration has said. These are things that people should have been reading in their daily newspapers.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 16, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #212364

Adrienne
I have searched and I have not found one where Bush tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. Now, I am well aware that its quit possible that I just haven’t found it yet, so when somebody says they have “proof” of it, I like to see it. Especially when somebody says they have “very clear” proof.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #212372

Bush himself said it was wrong and that he would deal with the people responsible.

By outing an agent that worked undercover abroad you put anyone she ever worked with in danger. Isn’t that common sense? And yeah, just like anyone else who had a career that was ruined because of someone else’s actions, she’s entitled to reparations. Dramatic? Nope, same rules apply to everyone.

As far as arguing whether or not Bush was trying to suggest there were ties between Al Qaeda and 9/11, I won’t bother getting into that. I lived through the period. I know what I heard. Be a wacko if you want. This country sees right through you.

Posted by: Max at March 16, 2007 6:13 PM
Comment #212373

Dawn-
First, this is Plame’s story on “sending here own husband”:

Plame Wilson also said Friday that it was not her idea for her husband to travel to Niger to investigate an allegation that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium. That allegation was used to help justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

“I did not suggest him. I did not recommend him. There was no nepotism involved,” she said, adding, “I did not have the authority.”

It was the suggestion of another CIA officer who knew that Joe Wilson had previously gone on other CIA missions “to deal with some other nuclear matters,” she said.

She said she had later been asked to write an e-mail summarizing the discussion that included the possibility of her husband making the journey. A portion of that e-mail was later taken out of context to make it seem that she had suggested her husband for the assignment, she said.

Why should the CIA not be political? Look at the whole damn war. Because intelligence was politicized, we did not get a clear picture of what was really going on. We simply got a grab bag of reports that supported the President’s position. That’s going to get us into trouble every time.

Would people ask questions? Why would they know to ask them, if nobody knew she was CIA? She had a reasonable expectation that if Wilson and her kept their mouths shut, that simply doing her job would not put her in danger of exposure by her own people.

The trouble here is that you’re buying into the rhetoric of those who are trying to claim that this was no big thing, nothing to be outraged about. Consider, though, that these people are trying to claim that the politicizing of intelligence and the outing of agents who get in the way of political games should be considered justified.

This kind of behavior should not set precedent, and uncritical acceptance of rationalizations for this outing and the intelligence failure this contributed to will only encourage those who are willing to take these kinds of actions to repeat their outrages.

Reserve the blame for those whose actions were careless at the least, and a betrayal of our national security by most reasonable standards.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #212387

Dawn it doesn’t make a difference if she is a drama queen for congress or not. It does matter that someone(Cheney most likely), broke the law and outed her to the public. Bush said whoever did it would be fired, but the Special Pros, never did say who did it. Libby was a scape goat that was thrown to the general public to take their minds off what was really suppose to be going on, that someone broke the law. Instead he was tried and convicted for prejury, which he should of but the true reason for the SP is now lost.

Posted by: KT at March 16, 2007 7:15 PM
Comment #212411
We need Freedom of the Press. BUT… what good is it if secrets are printed that damage, and might possibly destroy, our Nation are made public???

I agree, Dawn. That’s why I don’t understand your attack on Plame. You oughta be mad at the guys who leaked her name (Scooter and Armitage) and the guy who ordered it done (Cheney).

Posted by: American Pundit at March 16, 2007 10:00 PM
Comment #212416

What I would really like to know is why on Yahoo the first day this came out about Plame years ago … it said for one day before they pulled the article and never mentioned it again… what she was doing :

Undercover oil executive investigating weapons smuggling.

Is it any wonder she was leaked?
We thought Ollie was doing some shifty stuff back during the Reagan years… I can guarantee you at least 10 times as much is going on as we speak/type.

Posted by: whattheydontsay at March 16, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment #212427

Whattheydontsay,

I searched yahoo news archives and found no such document.

The first day “it” came out was in Novak’s column.

That was July 14, 2003. How could they have outed her a day after this because of a yahoo article? You seem quite confused.

Posted by: gergle at March 16, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #212429

whattheydon’tsay-
Libby outed her to Judith Miller on the twenty-third of the previous month. The timeline goes much further back than that incident.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2007 11:11 PM
Comment #212430

Adrienne & gergle,
‘Dawn, your continual disdain for left and your favoritism of the right is very apparent in this post.’

From previous posts I was led to believe that those that are in power are always targeted. :) Has that changed?

Stephen,
‘First, this is Plame’s story on “sending here own husband”:’

This is what I said:
‘She helped send her own husband on a ‘mission’.’

She said that she was asked to go home and talk to her husband - she did - she brought him to the meeting room then left because she had ‘100’s of other things to do’.

AP,
‘I agree, Dawn. That’s why I don’t understand your attack on Plame. You oughta be mad at the guys who leaked her name (Scooter and Armitage) and the guy who ordered it done (Cheney).’

Plame was involved in getting her husband the job. Her husband is a diehard dem who was on his ‘own’ mission.
Her supervisor should never have asked her to go home and ask her husband if he’d be interested in the mission.
Didn’t Wilson also state that he was sent by Cheney or someone who worked for him? - or was that another lie put out to help the administration?
Even if it wasn’t nepotism - it stinks of it.
It also stinks of politics in the CIA - if they didn’t want it to ‘appear’ that way they could have sent a NON diehard dem.
Someone should have known that it was a bad idea.

Is EVERYONE on capital hill and in the CIA and the press related somehow? OR if they aren’t related they went to school together or something.
It sure seems like it.

For the second time ——- I have a problem with the way the CIA - the Republicans AND the Democrats are ‘handling’ this.

Posted by: Dawn at March 16, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #212437

That was July 14, 2003. How could they have outed her a day after this because of a yahoo article? You seem quite confused.

…. I wasn’t saying she was outed because of a yahoo article. I was saying that as soon as the case began to get pursued that article went up, and was immediately removed.

Let me know when you find out the actual case she was working on other then that because I have not seen it mentioned anywhere what she was working on when she got uncovered.

Which is why i used the name - whattheydontsay

I am by far not confused. Thanks.

Posted by: whattheydontsay at March 16, 2007 11:28 PM
Comment #212463

kctim:
“Adrienne
I have searched and I have not found one where Bush tried to tie Saddam to 9/11. Now, I am well aware that its quit possible that I just haven’t found it yet, so when somebody says they have “proof” of it, I like to see it. Especially when somebody says they have “very clear” proof.”

You must not be very good at doing internet searches, Tim.
Fine, I’ll do another search for you.

Here you go:

Patsy Wilson, Reuters.

Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That’s a — that is an interesting question. I’m trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can’t when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They’re both risks, they’re both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

He can’t distinguish between them. Pretty clear proof of attempting to tie the two together, no?

Just to bolster my argument, here’s a few more quotes, this time from Cheney:

Sept. 14th, 2003 on Meet the Press he said: [that in invading Iraq we had]

“struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

National Public Radio, “Morning Edition” Jan. 22, 2004:

“There’s overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there.”

Geographic base of the terrorists. Overwhelming evidence. Established relationship. Of course this was all proven to be as wrong as wrong could be — and the worse thing is, they KNEW it.

But let’s leave statements aside and zero in on the most relevant fact of all: on March 19th, 2003, President Bush sent a letter to Congress stating that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against nations or organizations, or people who planned, or who authorized, or who aided, or who committed, the terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11.
If those of us on the left who are always arguing with you can grasp this fact as clear proof, why haven’t you? Or maybe a better question is, why CAN’T you? That fact, above all the other dishonest things they’ve ever said is a crystal clear statement of the administration tying Saddam directly to the Al Qaeda hijackers and Bin Laden.

So Tim, were these quotes clear enough proof for you? Or do you still want me to go try to find some more?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 17, 2007 4:15 AM
Comment #212464

“Rhinehold
It always ends to soon when you use facts and they use opinions and assumptions.

Posted by: kctim at March 16, 2007 04:15 PM”

First time I ever saw the GOP use “Facts”. Truthiness, anyone?

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at March 17, 2007 5:06 AM
Comment #212466

Whattheydontsay,

It has been repeated many, many times that her cover story was that she was an employee of Brewster Jennings,an energy company, and was involved there in energy issues. As to what she was specifically assigned to, I, nor anyone without security clearances would know. Michael Isikoff described her as a WMD specialist.

What is your point here? Yahoo is free to edit it’s content. She had publicly worked for the phoney Brewster Jennings. What wasn’t public was her CIA function. Sorry if I sound obtuse, but I just don’t get what you are trying to say.

You seem to be confused with her cover job and her actual job.

Posted by: gergle at March 17, 2007 5:59 AM
Comment #212467

Dawn,

You still haven’t explained why you are being an apologist for traitors.

Your post kind of reminds me of those that blame rape victims for bringing it on themselves.

Plame did her job. She did not choose her husband to go to Niger. Cheney’s office requested the CIA to investigate. Wilson did his job. Bushco lied to justify their invasion of Iraq. Then a few days after Wilson took them to task for the lies they were propogating, Plame’s cover was blown, in a false attempt to discredit Wilson.

Lying to justify war, sadly, is not a crime, and as Fitzgerald pointed out, prosecuting Cheney or any of the leakers for their offense is virtually impossible. It’s a issue of policy, and political viability, not criminal law.

What is politically inconvenient for you to admit is that you are supporting a group of people who think that it’s O.K. to compromise a CIA agent and her contacts and methods, to cover their collective political asses. Frankly, they are a bunch of incompetent and morally bankrupt group of chicken hawks responsible for more American deaths and casualties than Bin Laden, himself. Lies and smears are their modus operandi. They may hide behind our legal system, but they have not been able to hide the slow march of truth that outs them for the traitors they are. History will judge them harshly.

Apologize for them, if you will. Blaming the victims of their deceit and duplicity makes you equally cavalier and traitorous, in my opinion. You seem to care more about preserving your political roots than preserving American values.

Posted by: gergle at March 17, 2007 6:25 AM
Comment #212472

dawn-
Diehard Dem is what the right-wing pundits call him, with their usual regard for the facts. He’s a centrist, in all actuality. He didn’t like the 2000 result, but attended the inauguration ball despite that. A diehard Dem wouldn’t do that, now would he?

He has said that he will never vote for another Republican again, but given what happened with Bush and his wife, who can blame him, now?

This allegation gets trotted out with every administration critic. Richard A. Clarke, author of Against All Enemies is a prime example. Like Wilson, both supported the Gulf War. Like Wilson, both served in the Reagan and Bush (41) White Houses without blowing a fuse. Both believed in being tough with Saddam.

Fitzgerald is another example. This guy was a US Attorney, which meant he was essentially hired by this president. He’s known to be a Republican, and had no problem in going after corrupt Democrats, in addition to his own colleagues.

But of course, once these people start doing or saying things that don’t agree with the President’s opinion, they suddenly join us here on the left! The current leaders can’t be wrong, so these folks can’t possibly lean towards the right, now can they? Because then they would have to face the fact that people who have relatively little bias against Republicans are dissenting.

Admitting that means admitting, especially now, that genuinely bad things happened or were done.

As for her being involved with her husband’s being sent? I get the sense that this a way to hold on to that point about her sending her husband without having to hold on to the exact wording. The thing is, do you honestly think that the CIA would have endangered its own source to conspire against Bush? I don’t believe that. I think they organized things so that nobody would suspect. I don’t think they put her out there in such a way that it would blow her cover.

If nothing on the trip blew her cover, (and it would have about a year and half, from February 2002 to do this) then we have to look to other circumstances to explain this.

Patrick Fitzgerald did not find that either of the Wilsons had blown their respective covers. If he eliminated them as sources for the information, we’re narrowed down to the only sources we know of up top.

If they were careless with that information, I submit to you that this was serious enough that, regardless of whatever other behavior the Wilsons engaged in, the leakers should have been fired.

It’s that simple. What complicates it is the injection of political chicanery into nearly every facet of policy and judgment by the GOP and Bush in particular. With this injection of politics, simple matters like getting more armor and more healthcare to our troops becomes and exercise in ass-covering. You see, if they do much to solve all the problems they’ve inherited and allowed to linger, or caused themselves, they might end up implicitly implicating themselves as responsible for these problems.

And that of course, in their minds, would hurt their election chances. Modern Republican politics is about projecting an image of perfection. People aren’t that gullible, and their control of information, no matter what they do, is not absolute.

So what they do? They encourage people like you to distrust information that doesn’t come from them. That’s what claiming liberal bias is all about: perpetual damage control.

If every opponent they face is claimed to be a member of the far left, then they get to treat it like a political battle, and dismiss evidence of substance as partisan propaganda and investigations into their conduct as partisan witchhunts. Convenient isn’t it?

I guess Ockham’s razor is useful here. The simpler of two explanations, all things being equal, is the best.

So what’s more likely: That George Bush has been successfully smeared by a vast left wing conspiracy that’s managed to coordinate the failures of a war, of his tax policy, of his homeland security policy, and implicated colleagues and members in corruption and abuses of power, or…

That Bush is a poor leader.

It’s easier for most people to believe that Bush is a poor leader, and to take the facts arrayed against him at face value. You should try it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #212501

Waxman said, “The CIA has assured me that the things I say here today are indeed facts, and the information about Ms Plame is accurate”.

Was Plame covert? Read Waxman’s introduction to her testimony.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 17, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #212502

I should have included this with my last post…

During committee chairman Henry Waxman’s opening statement, Wilson heightened the sense of expectation with just a nod here and there: At the time Novak disclosed her identity to the world, “Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert.” (Emphatic nod.) “She took on serious risk on behalf of our country.” (Slight nod.) Compared to the American heroes mistreated at Walter Reed, “she faces much more favorable circumstances now than some of the soldiers we met last week.” (Nod, nod, nod.) “But she, too, had been one of those anonymous people fighting to preserve our freedom.” Until, of course, she wasn’t.

Waxman took pains to explain that the CIA had cleared every word he spoke, and confirmed every word of this statement: “Ms. Wilson was undercover…Ms. Wilson’s employment status was covert…Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA…Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA…It is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States.”

Posted by: Marysdude at March 17, 2007 1:41 PM
Comment #212561

Aren’t we going to hear about this in her book?

The movie really never is as good as the book. I’d rather read about it first. Then see if the movie folk can really portray what was in the book.

We have to read the book first.

I’d really like to know how you write a book about something that’s not yet finished. Is the “To be Continued…” ending a very profitable ending to a movie?… Or a book?…

It works in sitcoms but I don’t think any star in this soap opera is in it for the long haul.
“To Be Continued…” is not going to be a blockbuster. It’s going to be a “Fart in Church”

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 17, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #212568

She didn’t take her cloths off. Give her credit for that.

Posted by: catastropyhinprogress at March 18, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #212570

catastrophyinprogress,

Good to see cynicism hasn’t ruined your perspective.

Posted by: gergle at March 18, 2007 1:35 AM
Comment #212585

CIP-
Is everybody who opposes the GOP a moral degenerate, or only those who make serious points you can’t disregard?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2007 10:58 AM
Comment #212616

She said herself she is not a lawyer and she could not confirm if she was or wasn’t covert. How can someone who is supposedly a vital tool in the operation and preservation of so many supposed lives not even know her own status?

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 18, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #212634

What bothered me most about the Fitz trial was the revelation of how the white house, Rove and Cheney in particular, works on a level as juvenile as a middle school locker room. Someone disagrees with you? Go after his wife.

Are their jobs that empty, that boring, that they have oodles of time to cook up puerile retaliatory schemes like this one?

Posted by: pianofan at March 18, 2007 8:27 PM
Comment #212645

CIP-
Perhaps she’s too busy doing her work, raising her family, and preparing for her next assignment to worry about legally parsing her own status.

The question of whether her identity was classified or covert could have been settled quickly, and without a leak. We cannot have our government officials being so cavilier with information that pertains to our national security, regardless of what former ambassador got them angry.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #212646

CIP-
Perhaps she’s too busy doing her work, raising her family, and preparing for her next assignment to worry about legally parsing her own status.

The question of whether her identity was classified or covert could have been settled quickly, and without a leak. We cannot have our government officials being so cavilier with information that pertains to our national security, regardless of what former ambassador got them angry.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2007 11:11 PM
Comment #212788

Check out this research from The Pew Research Center. Looks like Americans wanted to hear more about Walter Reed … but Libby’s verdict was given the playing time in the media.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=310

Posted by: Honest at March 19, 2007 9:57 PM
Post a comment