« Culture and Prosperity | Main | Immigration news from Bizarroworld »

Selective Security Outrage

From Bat One at Pennywit:

A review of the liberal blogs today, compliments of PW's new "roundup" sidebars on the right, shows that the leftist natives are positively frothing at the mouth over Karl Rove, demanding that the President fire him immediately for revealing classified information.

If only they were half so incensed at UBL and the Islamic terrorists who kill innocent civilians with bombs. After all, that's a national security issued too, isn't it? Still, the idea that those on the left may not be genetically incapable of addressing questions of national security is a good thing. Those of us on/in the Right, have always maintained that national security is the very first responsibility of the federal government... especially when there are people out there who are sworn to kill us all, merely because we are "infidels." So it should come as no surprise to our liberal brethren that we take matters of national security very seriously indeed.

So much so, that we were highly incensed when Senate Democratic leader Harry "Sunstroke" Reid was making public accusations against Judge Henry Saad, an appeals court nominee, based on classified FBI information to which Reid had no legal, authorized access.

So much so, also, that some of us are pretty incensed at the idea of a supposedly undercover CIA operative sending her own husband to Niger to dredge up fake facts in an attempt to smear a sitting President.

Read the whole thing.

Background on the Harry Reid/FBI files thing here.

Rob Port is the owner and operator of Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Selective Security Outrage:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with I dont get it....

» Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis) linked with Around the Blogosphere

» Pennywit.Com linked with Do Republicans Stand With Bigots?

Comments (40)

I'm hoping to document some... (Below threshold)
Sean:

I'm hoping to document some of those fake facts - could someone help list them?

Thanks.

Not to mention their lack o... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Not to mention their lack of frothing at Clinton's aide actually stealing Top Secret matieral from the archives...

That's the attitude! Chang... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

That's the attitude! Change the subject! Terrorism! Sandy Berger!!!

I agree, it's stupid to be angrier about Plame than Islamism. But we've been here before -- Republicans sure weren't talking about terrorism back when they were frothing at the mouth over Monicagate. Why was that excusable but this isn't?

Um, when was 9/11, Jesse? ... (Below threshold)
joe:

Um, when was 9/11, Jesse? After Monica, and pre-Rove kerfuffle.

You guys are joking, right?... (Below threshold)

You guys are joking, right? Outing a covert CIA agent for pure political payback, and therefore compromising her work on wmd non-proliferation and jeopardizing not only her person and her job, but her contacts as well, is NO BIG DEAL, a "fake" story, and in fact is less important than Bill Clinton getting a BJ? Really?

Don't worry about them Reid... (Below threshold)
whocares:

Don't worry about them Reidblog. These guys have shown so consistently that they are hypocritical assholes that it's just redundant to point them out. They all know that Rove is guilty, so instead of reflecting on the repurcussions of that, we get this lovely curve ball up above. You know that those cute and loveable righties love their ""'s. "Sunstroke" Reid. So cute it makes me want to hug a repug. Can I be Joser "The Bull"?

Well fuck you. Like I need... (Below threshold)
Joser "The Bull":

Well fuck you. Like I need your permission.

Plume hasn't been covert fo... (Below threshold)
Lin:

Plume hasn't been covert for 9 years and as far as the information we have now, outing her does not constitute a crime. An agent needs to be covert, in another country currently or in the last 5 years for it to constitute a crime. That is the way the law reads.

Maybe if liberals would wait until investigations were completed and more information were known they wouldn't continue to look like fools like they did over Gannon and DSM. Believe me, you and others like you do more to hurt your cause, than your hysterical yammering hurts the Republican Party.

At this point there isn't anything to prove Rove outed a CIA agent. And we won't know until more information is known.

I've read that "it's not th... (Below threshold)
Sean:

I've read that "it's not the revealing of the CIA agents identity, it's the lying about it" where the writer seems to be drawing an historical parallel.

Can someone help clarify this thought process?

As well, still hoping with some help identifing the fact fakes from Wilson as mentioned in this post.

Thanks.

The really, really funny pa... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The really, really funny part is going to be when we find out that the true original source for the leak was someone on the Democratic side of the fence, using the Plame connection as a way to boost Wilson's reputation, and all of the folks who are out for blood will start talking about "understanding" and "whistle blowers."

"How else can Saad defend h... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"How else can Saad defend himself other than to request that a confidential FBI file be made public?"

Gee, where have I that heard that tactic being used before ... oh right .. the Swill Boat losers who made baseless accusations against Kerry and demanded that he open up his confidential personnel files to defend himself. You guys better save your false indignation. You're going to need it.

As to this:
"Plume hasn't been covert for 9 years and as far as the information we have now, outing her does not constitute a crime ... Maybe if liberals would wait until investigations were completed"

Um, Lin, if Plame wasn't covert at the time of the leak why is there an investigation in the first place? Don't you think that would have been the first thing Fitzgerald looked into?

Don't try to make them thin... (Below threshold)
Joser "The Bull":

Don't try to make them think too hard frameone. You're hurting their spin. You're killing their high. So says "The Bull" PS. Repugs, please feel free to insert anything that you'd like after "The Bull" that will help you're little sore self-esteem. I'll help you out a little. How about, Jose "The Bull" Shitter. That was an easy one, but I can't wait for what you folks can think of. Don't let me down like you all did with Joser to Loser and whocares to Joser aka whocares. Try to think outside the box this time, thanks.

I will have to presume that... (Below threshold)
JD:

I will have to presume that frameone was trying to be intentionally dense, or just criminally uninformed when it comes to the system of justice in this country. The investigation exists to determine IF a crime has been committed. The existence of the investigation is not proof of a crime, but you knew that.

The above quoted material w... (Below threshold)

The above quoted material was written not by me, but by regular Pennywit.com contributor Bat One.

--|PW|--

"Those Swill Boat liars." W... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

"Those Swill Boat liars." Would that be those 250+ men who served our country honorably? And would those "his confidential personnel files" be those opened by the Form 180 he repeatedly promised to sign, and has yet to do so? Would they document his "covert arms-smuggling trip into Cambodia during Christmas for the CIA?" Or describe how one of his Purple Hearts was for firing a grenade too close to himself and wounding himself in the ass?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. That whole argument became irrelevant 8 months ago when Kerry LOST. But it's understandable; quite often it seems HE forgets the American people looked at him and said "forget you!" last November.

I don't give a faded fart about Rove, but 1) I don't like ANYBODY getting railroaded, which it's really starting to look like, and B) anyone who drives dips like Joser, frameone, and whocares into THIS level of frothing hysteria ought to be kept around just for the entertainment value.

J.

1. Rove stated that he did ... (Below threshold)
TheEnigma:

1. Rove stated that he did not know the "agent's" name or status, which I have no reason to not believe.
2. He did NOT name the agent, only stated that wilson's wife was responsible for wilson being sent to Niger.
3. Rove was answering a question about how wilson's assignement to niger came about.
4. Rove was talking "off the record" on this situation.
5. There has yet to be any proof offered that this conversation is the reason wilson's wife was named in other articles.
6. Rove was talking to a journalist.
7. Any comments by Rove or others on his behalf have been to journalists.
8. Unlike SICK WILLIE, who went on national tv and BLATANTLY LIED to the American public and then BLATANTLY LIED to federal investigators, Rove has, to this point, been shown to have broken no laws.
9. SICK WILLIE had attacks launched against several sites for the sole purpose of removing the public interest from his numerous scandals.
10. democrats rallied to support SICK WILLIE no matter how many LIES he told, when he told them.
11. democrats have been clamoring for the jailing of Tom Delay even though he has not been charged, indicted or convicted.
12. It would appear that democrats have a double standard. If a democrat LIES, commits perjury, etc, he should be forgiven, but, should anyone even suspect a Republican of a misdeed, forget about due process, it's "off with his head".

RE: ReidBlog's post (July 1... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: ReidBlog's post (July 12, 2005 06:01 PM)

Outing a covert CIA agent
Her "covertness" is a point of contention.

for pure political payback
Speculative with lots of spin (though I certainly recognize the appeal of payback were I in his position considering her husband's report was flawed and, consequently, damaging to national security).

and therefore compromising her work on wmd non-proliferation
Hypothetically possible but we are not privy to her exact assignments which will be open for spinning long past our deaths. We'll have to wait for the book and its parsing by critics... and we'll still wonder about the compromises.

and jeopardizing not only her person and her job, but her contacts as well...
Entirely possible assuming she is one of those travelling super-secret agents out in the field and not a pencil pusher. Refer to point one above. Of note, however, is her continued public display - on the front page of Vanity Fair no less. Such is not the behavior of someone concerned about her very existence or those of contacts if her identity was exposed.

a "fake" story
The story is very real but is a misdirection. The genesis of all of this was WMD and YellowCake sources for Hussein's suspected nuke program. Wilson, at the prodding of an internal contact (supposedly Plame) went on his tea-sipping mission to investigate and reported, falsely, his "discoveries" (my quotes). His was a failed attempt to discredit the Bush administration and possibly effect the political landscape. It failed and he (along with those sympathetic to his cause) went into CYA mode, if not downright attack mode, and the grasping of straws that aren't there began.

In this whole imbroglio, which was wisely mentioned elsewhere as a "tempest in a teapot", I am most interested in Plame's involvement, i.e. was she a serial leaker (and not necessarily one in this "Rove affair"), and the Miller source(s). Conspiratorial minds might think there is something tangential to the main, hyperventilated issue that is being protected. Perhaps that is what Fitzgerald seeks. Who knows... time may tell. I confess to have some interest in those discoveries much more than the currently brewing tempest.

...is less important than Bill Clinton getting a BJ?
Do we have to go over this again? OK, I was not interested in Clinton's marital problems or any morals clauses or his chasing of skirt from subservients. While offensive to varying degrees, they did not endanger national security. However, the discovery of such shenanigans by antagonistic parties (not the Republicans or U.S. politicians) did put the sitting President in a, um, compromising position. The potential use of blackmail from who knows who to not disclose such intimate and questionable behaviors was entirely possible and supremely dangerous to the country. That was my beef with Clinton regarding his infidelity.

So, if one wants to introduce relativism into this debate, then yes, Clinton's "BJ" is more damaging (read important) to this country than Rove's disclosure of this "agent" whether legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.

"...is less important than ... (Below threshold)
Mark Flacy:

"...is less important than Bill Clinton getting a BJ?"

You must have meant to say "...is less important than Bill Clinton committing perjury?"

Thanks Jay. You're too swe... (Below threshold)
Joser "The Bull":

Thanks Jay. You're too sweet. I think you're swell too with your big ole fat head. It is funny how you are calling me quaint now in front of all your little buddies, when it wasn't too long ago you were threatening to ban me for my exhuberant comments. I was working so hard to seal the deal too. Oh, well, I guess it's playtime since you find my responses as enjoyable as I do. I'm sorry to point out that you didn't seem to get the drift that whocares and Joser are the same person. That person would be me of course, though, so I don't confuse your fragile psyche anymore, you may chose which one you would like me to go by. Bleeding heart, I know, I know.

Wow, I think that what amaz... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Wow, I think that what amazes me the most about this whole thing is that to listen to the liberals say that they actually give a damn about the outing of a CIA agent. Come on guys, just admit you don't really care about Valerie Plame, the CIA, FBI, and particularly the military, except when you can use it to try to hurt the evil Bush & Co. Hell, even Andrea Mitchell admitted on TV that she knew prior to Novak's column that Wilson's wife was CIA. Bigggggg secret! You say that others here are trying to change the subject, but if you really cared about the covert agents you would also be outraged Kerry naming an agent TWICE in the Bolton hearings. So the point is you don't really give a damn about the agents, only their use to politcally damage Bush.

joser, I never threatened t... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

joser, I never threatened to ban you. I might have said I was sorely tempted to do so, but I don't make casual threats. And when I do make that threat, I take careful note because I will NOT make that threat without being ready to follow through.

So you post under different names? Big whoop. I probably noted that at one point, but it was of such overwhelming insignificance that I didn't bother to remember it.

And I was getting ready to recap the whole Rove hullabaloo, but TheEnigma did such a stellar job, I don't feel the need.

J.

What is absolutely HILARIOU... (Below threshold)
Jill:

What is absolutely HILARIOUS is for the liberals to be pretending to care about the CIA !! And especially the COVERT agents who they all think are paid assasins!!

So next time you libbies hold a rally holding up signs about CIA being murderers and thugs, normal Americans will scratch their heads in confusion again over your complete 180.

You idiot liberals are losing AGAIN and you don't even know it.

Hilarious.

Jill, it all makes perfect ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Jill, it all makes perfect sense if you keep Rule #1 in mind: Bush is the epitome of and source of all things bad and evil and icky and wrong. The CIA is still as reprehensible as ever, but if Bush appears to be in conflict with them, the CIA instantly becomes the "lesser of two evils" and must be staunchly defended for the duration of the conflict, and then it can go back to being Big Brother.

J.

I love listening to Liberal... (Below threshold)
Jim:

I love listening to Liberal-Left Anti-Americans cry over a phony breach in national security. First, no one on this blog (Left or Right) knows if Plame is or ever was an "undercover operative." Unless of course she was a pal of B.J. Clinton, then I'm sure there was action "undercover." Second, who died and made Plame the CIA's spymaster sending her hubby (who, by the way, mentioned on his own website that his wife works for the CIA well before anyone in the press outed her) to Niger to disprove a British intelligence report on yellow-cake.

Third, Mr. Wilson claimed that he was dispatched to Niger by Vice President Cheney. Then he claimed he was dispatched by the Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. Then the story was that his wife had recommended him for the assignment. Then it's been uncovered she took it upon herself to send her hubby, Joe Wilson. There is a memo written by Plame recommending Joey Boy for the job.

A story in the NY Slimes even stated that Wilson did minimal investigation in Niger. Apparently hecame back to his wife with information they already predetermined would possibly hurt Bush during the election campaign. Mr. Wilson was a Kerry advisor and, in fact, Kerry's website bragged about his foreign affairs advisor Joe Wilson until Kerry realized Wilson was lying or -- as Wilson himself said -- misspoke. In another display of hilarity by the Kerry campaign, all references to Wilson including his pic and bio were removed.

Fourth, according to the Special Prosecutor (another Clinton hack), Rove signed a waiver allowing the reporters to divulge his identity 18 months ago. Why the hell is Judith Miller cooling her heels in the slammer is beyond me. Who is her source? Does anyone really believe the NY Slimes and Miller -- a known leftist -- would suffer incarceration and controvesy trying to protect Karl Rove? Then again, Liberal believe that the same way they believe Michael Moore is an honest film maker

Fifth, before you looney tunes on the left try to sound like shit house lawyers, I suggest you read the statute with regard to divulging information on the status of a CIA employee.

Sixth, the intellectual giant John Kerry (Mr. 4 Ds himself) outed a CIA operative on national television during his interrogation of John Bolton. It was aired on most of the news channels including CNN. Bolton was referring to a CIA guy by using the alias "Mr. Smith" while Mr. Giant Intellectual John Kerry kept saying the operative's real name. No one brought any charges against Kerry, and correctly so, since he did not violate the statute.

Seventh, I'm more interested in why the CIA is such an inadequate intelligence agency. Why are there so many eggheads there instead of real intelligence officers who are worldly and streetsmart. CIA is more like a Liberal think tank than it is an intelligence agency. It leaks information almost as much as Sen. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy.

But I know the Liberals -- as usual -- will continue their lies, half-truths, and spin. They are -- for want of a better term -- full of shit. I'm no Karl Rove lover. To me, he's not a conservative. But this whole investigation -- started in order to hurt Bush in his quest for re-election -- is bullshit.

- One of lifes joys these d... (Below threshold)

- One of lifes joys these days is watching the steady unraveling of the leftist core of the DNC, and its hell bent determination to keep escalating the underhanded politics, lies, and extremist rhetoric that gained them the position they now find themselves in. Apparently the fact that the majority of Americans have decidedly rejected their ideology seems to be more than they can grasp.

Heres a few cluebats for the moonbats, not that I would ever expect mindless ideologs to read the truth and absorb the same....

1) The majority of Americans do not think its ok for the left fems to use the abortion laws as an excuse to have a doctor drive a drill through their unborns head just so her "progressive" boyfriend won't dump her....

2) The majority of Americans think judges should adjudicate, not legislate....

3) Running a candidate who has such an embarrissing and checkered past he can't even allow his record to be made public is probably not a good recipe to a win....

4) When you attack your appoinents the very least you should do is make sure you have some chance of winning. A good start is to base your attacks on truthful facts. Times have changed. Seeing something in print day after day has almost become the butt of a joke with the electorate these days, particularly with the drop in importance of the MSM through the newer forms of instant communication....

5) Once the other guy has beat you brains in 30 or 40 times in a "Rove", it might be time to think of a different approach....

6) The majority of Americans have no problem with the concept that our countries constitution, bill of rights, and jurisprudence/laws were based on Jadeo Christian morality and Greko/Roman precepts. In fact they kind of like the idea. Calling them idiots for their point of view is not good....

- The good news is I have no doubt you will ignore your own freight train to oblivion. I'm looking forward more and more to 2006 and 2008....

- On a final note, its interesting that your beloved Jahidists have pissed in the cornflakes, miss-reading the loud bleating voices of the moonbat minority as some sort of true wide spread support. They had at least achieved a sort of temporary stalemate as things stood. It had become a race to see if the Iraqi's could build to a sufficient strength to be self capable before Bush and Blairs popularity and support wained to a low enough point. That would have given the Islamo fascists a win in the propaganda war. Now with the attacks in the UK, even that edge is probably lost for good....

- But please, by all means.... keep up the good work.... The RNC is counting on you.....

Hmmm.@ frameone</p... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ frameone

"Gee, where have I that heard that tactic being used before ... oh right .. the Swill Boat losers who made baseless accusations against Kerry and demanded that he open up his confidential personnel files to defend himself. You guys better save your false indignation. You're going to need it."

You've been spanked hard before on this issue, I'd suggest you drop it immediately.

RE: Sean's post (July 12, 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Sean's post (July 12, 2005 06:48 PM)

...still hoping with some help identifing the fact fakes from Wilson as mentioned in this post.


If you want to draw your own conclusions, try these very abbreviated and selected highlights:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the pre-war intelligence efforts on Iraq - announcement of release
Transcript: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Released
[Friday, July 9, 2004]

Excerpts from the WaPo
Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

[Saturday, July 10, 2004]

Source documentation
Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the
U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

[Wednesday, July 7, 2004]


I hope this helps. It's probably best if you scan them yourself so that you escape the spin. You will bring into it only your own bias if you read the source and not rely on my misleading commentary.

Wow,Big Bang Hunte... (Below threshold)
Karmafish:

Wow,

Big Bang Hunter represents everything that is filthy in our country’s political discussion.

He just drips with contempt as he misrepresents the ideas of people that he disagrees with.

But this is NOT discussion of issues.

Sarcasm and hatred may gratify extreme partisans, but it is not an exchange of ideas.

Here's what former CIA anal... (Below threshold)
melior:

Here's what former CIA analyst Larry Johnson said in an interview:

Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
[...]
I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

Anyone else here a former CIA analyst, and care to disagree with that? Don't let that interrupt y'all from pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it. You seem to be really enjoying the paranoia rush.

RE: melior's post (July 13,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: melior's post (July 13, 2005 03:11 AM)

Some things intrigue me about this and they seem curious.

LARRY JOHNSON: "I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it."

LJ: "So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised..."


Now, just because one's own employment in the CIA may have terminated does not make disclosure of that employment post-termination a particularly wise move. Think of everyone it endangers, particularly if one is a covert operative or "CIA analyst" as Johnson emphasizes. This analyst states that disclosure could endanger others. OK and I've conceded that possibility, but operatives do not operate in a vacuum. Perhaps others in their history are still associated elsewhere and in vulnerable situations. What if foreign counterintelligence discovers that one of their local contacts was observed dealing with Johnson, for example, yet he is now freely disclosing his history even though it's legal to do it. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to mention that employment, especially in a PBS interview? Isn't it irresponsible to disclose any covert positions at any time? I won't dwell on this any more, and Johnson's old contacts are likely safe given the passage of time since his covert activity. Still...


Also from the same interview:
LJ: "I was in the same class with her. I was Larry J. In fact, when I first saw her last name I didn't recognize her until one of other my classmates who's out now called me up and said, hey. To realize this is a terrific woman, she's a woman of great integrity and other people that don't know her were trying to suggest that she is the one that initiated that. That is such nonsense. This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating."

Umm, Larry, did you check out her lovely scarf waving briskly in the sharp convertible... on the cover of the "Deep Throat" edition of Vanity Fair? It was quite stylish, really. And did you see her lovely blonde hair at her, I believe, hubby's book-signing/community lunch crowd at Nathan's (picture last uploaded to server Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:19 GMT), the self-proclaimed "epicenter of Georgetown’s legendary and lively bar and restaurant scene for more than three decades"? And Timothy Noah of Slate reminded us of her mugging at the Tribeca Film Festival.

And about that analyst/not-an-analyst disagreement with Novak, U.K.'s Telegraph reports Philip Sherwell's interview with Wilson at Wilson's home that she worked on weapons proliferation issues while posing as an analyst for a CIA front company. Maybe Plame is actually a triple-agent on double-secret cover and her husband still doesn't know her title. I don't know since I've never done that math. Moving on.

Well now I call BS on his analysis. He knows less about this woman than he proclaims. He states that he trained with her many years ago and made judgements about her character and behavior. OK, office activity during training is one thing, but to extrapolate that assumption over a span of 30-years when he did not work with her for the vast majority of that timeframe is mighty presumptuous. He even states that he didn't recognize her until notified by a classmate! Yes, clearly they were very tight associates and he knows her. She may be a fine individual, or she may not be... but Johnson doesn't know squat considering he left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. Maybe they traveled in the same social circles post-agency employment. I can see it now. "Hi, Valerie P. Is that your new husband?" "Why yes, it is. Honey, I'd like to introduce you to a long-time friend of mine, Larry J. Larry J, this is Joe Wilson. What a coincidence... you both share the same initial in one of your given names. My this is exciting! Now, anyone for tea?"


Next, what are the odds that PBS might find a sympathetic-to-Wilson's-cause ex-CIA agent? Let's judge from Johnson's opinion piece presented as fact:

LJ: "His [Rove's] entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war."

Wow, he knows for certain Rove's intent? He contradicts what the Bipartisan Senate Report concluded? He, editorializes with "stupid", "erroneous", and "false" policy all in one line? I think I sense a little bias here.

Of course PBS is not known for a more liberal perspective so I'm certain they combed the Earth for the best ex-insider they could find regardless of stripe. Also, since PBS is more concerned about their potentially reduced funding, I'm certain that precluded them from interviewing another agent with an alternate view. Yes, I'm sure that was their thinking.


Finally,

LJ: "I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics..."

I agree that illegal exposure of undercover agents should not ever be partisan and I applaud the position. But this whole tempest is all about politics. Who is he trying to kid? And despite his record of donations, who else has received his financial backing? Some people, particularly consultants, advisors, and lobbyists who meander in and out of governemnt are known to contribute to both/all parties. Does Johnson have any such associations? Has he contributed also to the Left side of the aisle?


I'm afraid I have serious reservations about Johnson's conclusions and motivations. He may passionately believe what he has presented. Fortunately, we are free to critique his critique and draw our own conclusions. In time we may find out about the Wilson affair as much as Bill Clinton's indiscretions or as little as LH Oswald's true connections. Conpiracies are like that. But Johnson receives no free pass from me despite his being an ex-insider of yore. He may or may not have his own axes to grind.

One amendment. I'll tone do... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

One amendment. I'll tone down the "vast majority of that timeframe" to "majority of that timeframe". I doubt they worked together in the agency for very long since it is a rather large institution, but it is possible and I'll never know. Once out of the agency, however, those close ties certainly would have been severed.

This has got to be one of t... (Below threshold)
earth:

This has got to be one of the biggest non-issues currently out there. It's fun to see the left froth at the mouth over this. At least we don't have to hear the endless twaddle about there being no Iraq/terror connection.

- 7) When you can't deal wi... (Below threshold)

- 7) When you can't deal with the issues, resorting to "projection" and personal attacks stops working past the age of 16....

- So now we can take it Karmafish that because they don't buy your ideology, "the majority of Americans are dripping with contempt and gaining gratification through sarcasm and hatred of your misguided thinking because they are all extreme partisans"....

- And then the left whines that no one takes them seriously....

- Tell you what.... When the day comes that I hear a moonbat say "seriously".... Yes its true. Our ideology, and our "attack" approach to political debate, "name-calling", and arrogant elitist attitudes are the root of our problems and decent in political power, and not the American electorate, Bush, Rove, the cost of gas, or the ozone layer"....

- Then I will take what you have to say seriously....

Hmmmm.For all you ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

For all you people out there who think Rove should go to jail, or at least get fired.

What about that recent in the NYT that outed several covert CIA operatives that were operating a civilian front company that flew for the CIA? You remember the article right?

So is your outrage merely selective gesturing? Or is it real? Are YOU willing to see the NYT go under the prosecutor's hammer for that attack on national security?

So. Which is worse? Outing a former covert operative that hasn't been undercover in years? Or outing several covert operatives that were in a secret operation?

Money where your mouth is time folks. Flame ON!

Aero Contractors

She has been undercover ... (Below threshold)

She has been undercover for three decades...

Oh, yes -- I remember when this quote was first put forth to present Ms. Plame as a covert agent. And I remember someone pointing out that she would have had to have started working covertly WHEN SHE WAS TEN YEARS OLD.

Please, Melior, give us more like this one. I'm loving it.

Oh, Larry Johnson vouches f... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Oh, Larry Johnson vouches for Valerie Plame. That's different. Now, who the hell is Larry Johnson? He's probably a Republican the way Anita Hill was a Republican.

A story in the NY Slimes ev... (Below threshold)
Dan:

A story in the NY Slimes even stated that Wilson did minimal investigation in Niger. Apparently hecame back to his wife with information they already predetermined would possibly hurt Bush during the election campaign. Mr. Wilson was a Kerry advisor and, flag in fact, Kerry's website bragged about his foreign affairs advisor Joe Wilson until Kerry realized Wilson was lying or -- as Wilson himself said -- misspoke. In another display of hilarity by the Kerry campaign, all references to Wilson including his pic and bio were removed.

RE: McGehee's post July 13,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: McGehee's post July 13, 2005 05:13 PM

About that time warping...

Don't you know that a) women lie about their age, and b) covert agents lie about everything?

So, sticking 30 years into the transmogrifier and accounting for X-factor delta, concealing function 007, and wind-resistance, the answer comes up:

"ERROR, ERROR - Does not compute - Replace burned out vacuum tube you dunderhead what were you thinking."

Dont forget the CIA itself ... (Below threshold)
negonerv:

Dont forget the CIA itself wanted an investigation to see who outed her. Other points are in an earlier post of mine on another thread.

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006433.php#081277

NYT has a story today that ... (Below threshold)
Bat One:

NYT has a story today that Novak and Rove spoke on the phone regarding Wilson just prior to Novak's article "outing" Plame. AT lleast that's their headline. But buried deeper in the article is the fact that Rove's grand jury testimony is that he learned Plame/Wilson's name from Novak!

So, given all this, why is Judith Miller still in jail? Can't be to protect Rove as her source, can it? He signed a blanket waiver long ago, as well as a specific one for Cooper. So who is Miller protecting sitting in the slammer? Who is Ms. Miller protecting from the prosecutor?

Strange as it seems, the most likely individual, the "source" for all this foolishness, may well turn out to be Joe Wilson himself

And if I'm correct, both Miller and Wilson himself had better hope and pray that Fitzgerald concludes that no crime was committed here.

Meanwhile, the NYT, which was all over this story demanding a special prosecutor, now has its reporter sitting in jail, her source in potentially serious legal jeopardy, and yet the times itself is back to "business as usual" publishing exactly the sort of secret information (grand jury testimony leaked from the prosecutor's office) that started all this in the first place.

How much more hypocrisy is the NYT capable of?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy