Journal Concern's Journal: Still think Plame wasn't covert? 6
Lately I can't decide whether ignoring the Stafford Act and the National Response Plan and "blame gaming" locals in Louisiana, or claiming Plame wasn't covert, is my favorite forehead crease among those who bow their heads. They're both great - its like a reflex that forces the most loyal Party cheerleaders to kick themselves in the nuts whenever you trigger it.
Obviously, she was covert. And we have the permanent records of who got this wrong, and who admits it, and who'se a shameless liar.
If I got this wrong, I would apologize now. It's bad enough to have bowed your head for this for any amount of time, but just look at it... this isn't tax policy we're talking about here. This is deliberately outing a covert officer working WMD proliferation, for petty political revenge. And revenge over what? It was to threaten someone for doing the brave, patriotic thing, standing up to power, and blowing the whistle on a conspiracy to endanger American troops and intelligence agents, to justify a war with lies that can't be justified by telling the plain truth.
Of course, I relish the alternative almost as much. If you still don't admit Plame was covert, you're showing your new opinion of Bush's white house, which opened itself up to obstruction charges to conceal their not actually having committed a crime. Or perhaps you suddenly have a new opinion about special prosecutors. These are even funnier poles to skewer yourself on, in my book.
I don;t see how the link supports this claim (Score:1)
Of course Wilson says this. And the CIA [csmonitor.com] ain't saying of course, but WaPo has reported [washingtonpost.com] that there was minimal damage to the outing. When Wilson went public (why wasn't his work classified?) after his trip to Niger, he must have known this would place his wife's flimsy cover [washingtonpost.com] in jeopardy.
I don't think anyone gets off clean in this affair. Libby is a very smart guy, but his loyalty to Cheney apparently clouded his reason. Or, he's innocent.
Open Eyes, Turn Towards Screen (Score:2)
If they falsely suggested they were undercover, there would be no harm in embarrassing them both with the documented truth. No one has done so, and we are seeing exactly what we would see, down to the Special Prosecutor and the apparent attempts by the White House to obstruct the investigation, if he's telling the truth.
That's leaving aside the extra details, such as the confirmed outing, through Pla
Re:Open Eyes, Turn Towards Screen (Score:1)
I don't have a problem with Fitzgerald - I think he's pretty much doing his job. Strictly spekaing Plame WAS undercover, but only just. The article speaks for itself - the firm she was ostensibly employed by didn't exist, and only took a reporter a short time to discover this. How long would it have taken an intelligence professional to work this out? My main problem is with the CIA - I think they mishandled the whole business.
Re:Open Eyes, Turn Towards Screen (Score:2)
Re:Open Eyes, Turn Towards Screen (Score:1)
No, they shouldn't have. It seems that incompetence has become inculcated at the CIA. Goss is accused of disrupting things and running off the CIA brain trust, but they need to be disrupted, even if done badly.
Re:Open Eyes, Turn Towards Screen (Score:2)
He's had a distinguished career...
In 1990, while sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the U.S. Embassy and diplomatic residences, he briefed reporters while wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie -- a symbol of defiance after Hussein threatened to execute anyone who didn't turn over foreigners.
The message, Wilson said: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."
This toug