home

Valerie Plame Wilson's "Fair Game" Released

Valerie Plame Wilson's book on her career with the CIA and PlameGate, "Fair Game" is officially released today and available for purchase. From Amazon:

Valerie Plame Wilson's cover as a top CIA agent was blown when Bush Administration officials leaked her name to the media; the ensuing investigation resulted in Vice-President Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, being convicted of a felony. But it almost destroyed Valerie Wilson's life, too. Now, for the first time, she tells her story of a life as a spy, the career of a undercover agent and mother of twins and the sudden object of the White House's wrath. It is a remarkable woman's story, a political story, a tale of betrayal and courage.

Valerie has a new blog post on Huffington Post, Finally Telling My Story. She writes: [More...]

I've written honestly about my life: why I went to work for the CIA, my paramilitary training, the sort of operations we developed and ran to find intelligence on Iraq's alleged WMD programs in the run up to the war, as well as personal information, such as my battle with postpartum depression and the difficulties I had going from a private to a public persona literally overnight. My publisher, Simon and Schuster, decided to print the blacked out redactions demanded by the CIA and hopefully those passages (or lack thereof) speak for themselves and the extent to which the CIA thought the material in the book was classified.

She describes her book:

It's a story about the consequences of speaking truth to power and the critical importance of holding our government to account for its words and deeds.

Valerie is also starting a book tour this week. If you're in one of the cities on her tour, I highly recommend attending. We need more like Valerie.

It's #57 on Amazon right now, let's see if we can get it to #1.

Update: Firedoglake hosted a book salon today with Valerie Plame Wilson. John Dean and Joseph Wilson were on hand and Sydney Blumenthal moderated. There were over 300 comments and Valerie answered questions throughout the thread.

For some reason, Simon and Schuster did not mail us copies of the book before the publishing date, so none of us have read it yet. I was told blogger copies are going out today.

Also curious is that Simon & Schuster have not, as yet, taken out blogads to promote the book. They should do that.

< World Series: Rockies vs. Red Sox | Obama and Donny McClurkin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Larry Johnson has a few words to say (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 09:12:45 AM EST
    on the subject of his friend Valerie and George Tenant and well... go read for youself

    To expose the identity... (none / 0) (#4)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 12:13:46 PM EST

    of a secret soldier of the Republic...

    ... IS TREASON!

    How much harder will it be for people to risk their lives as agents under Non-Official-Cover (NOC's), the blackest of the black, knowing that their cover will be blown for ANY political purpose or gain, no matter how insignificant?

    Impeachment, trial, and execution is what they deserve, but it will never happen in my lifetime, sad to say.

    Parent

    Well, if that is a problem (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 05:10:27 PM EST
    The agent's spouse should never be sent on a mission that he isn't sworn to secrecy on.

    The agent's spouse should never write an article and have it published in the NYT.

    The CIA should tell columnists inquiring about her status to NOT write about her.

    The agent shouldn't make political contributions in her real name.

    The agent shouldn't come to work at Langley every day.

    And the CIA should have a professional work/office that she supposedly works at.

    Other than that she was very much under cover. (sarcasm alert)

    Oh yeah. She should actually meet the requirements for being NOC.

    Parent

    You've lost this argument a 1000 times already (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:33:53 PM EST
    but keep flogging that dead horse, its good exercise.

    Parent
    Paramilitary training? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:56:03 AM EST
    PPJ better be careful...

    Parent
    Had a bit of that myself (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    oh wait.... that was "military training."

    And your point is???

    I just wonder why the Left always goes to the attack...the physical attack so eagerly and quickly.

    Parent

    humor impaired? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    Nope (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    Just the facts, Mam.

    Parent
    What argument are you speaking of? (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    Per usual you toss out (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:32:29 AM EST
    a lot of "information" that looks great, but has no significant to the points in debate.

    To be more exact, I have not claimed that she was anything but a smart, intelligent employee. Indeed, it is that fact that makes one wonder about her status as an NOC. She was no dummy wandering through the world. So why did she allow her husband to go to Niger? Why did she agree for him to write the infamous NYT editorial? Why did she contribute money ...etc.

    And why did the CIA not warn Novak off? Why was her fictional employer story as thin as ice?

    All of these things bring attention to her. Something that no one acting under NOC would. And certainly the CIA would provide better support.

    And then we have from your (thanks) WaPost link:

    True, the CIA recalled her from Europe in 1997, fearing that her name might have been passed to the Russians by the mole Aldrich Ames. But, she writes, she still took different routes to work each day, "traveled domestically and abroad using a variety of aliases" and continued to hope for another foreign posting.

    You have to love the "took different routes to work each day." I mean, no matter how many ways she took, they all ended at Langley. What this says is that she felt her cover was blown and the route changes for protection from attack, not for protection of her NOC status.

    Even more interesting is what is in the CIA filing as shown in the Slate link.. It says:

    prospects as a covert agent.

    Legal filings are things of great accuracy in word usage. Prospects means:

    Usually, prospects. a. an apparent probability of advancement, success, profit, etc.  
    b. the outlook for the future: good business prospects.  

    1. anticipation; expectation; a looking forward.  
    2. something in view as a source of profit.  
    3. a potential or likely customer, client, etc.  
    4. a potential or likely candidate

    Note that none the above refers to "present."

    So I again note that no one has shown me that Mrs. Wilson was a covert agent.

    The CIA's, her's and her husband's actions all point to someone who had been one in the past, but who was no longer one, and who had no prospects of returning to that status.

    The Demos seized upon a non-fact and the Bush Administration gave them the tools to ultimately convict a man who had committed no crime.

    Parent

    Even if the CIA Sent General Hayden (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    himself to knock on your door and tell you personally that Ms. Plame was a NOC, you would cover your ears, and chirp "LA, LA, LA ... I CAN"T HEAR YOU"

    You can lead PPJ to water, you can't make him drink.

    Parent

    I would ask him to provide some proof. (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    I would also ask him to explain why no one had been convicted of the possible crime the CIA alleges to have been convicted.

    I would also him if she had been brought home because they believed she had been outed by Aldrich Ames, and if they believed that, why did they maintain her NOC status.

    BTW - That may seem picky, but as a good spy master he should know that if you know someone is a "fake," you can learn a great deal about that person as well as the organization she has as a "cover." i.e. If the cover employer has other employees, then they are ID'd as, at least, possible NOC's...

    And I would also ask him why he thinks that Fitzgerald, who immediately knew Amritage was the person who revealed her as a CIA employee, Fitzgerald didn't drop the investigation.

    And if the FBI knew prior to interviewing Libby, why did they interview him? And if they knew, and still interviewed, did they tell Libby??

    Does the General have any preferences for lunch??
    There are several excellent Shoney's and O'Charley's nearby. Can you join us?? (My treat.)

    Parent

    thank you for proving my point (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    Having lost again (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    Molly declares victory and retreats.

    Actually you are skipping a step.

    First you have to declare the war is lost..

    Or maybe that's the Democratic Majority Leader of the United State Senate's exclusive job...

    Parent

    Do not go gently (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:33:26 AM EST
    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


    Parent
    Too funny. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 08:41:48 AM EST
    Thanks a lot, Molly. Coffee all over my monitor.

    Again!

    Parent

    Some things write themselves (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    which is good when you are busy.

    Parent
    Pancho (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:03:22 PM EST
    Ignore the insults.

    They don't answer because they have no answer.

    No one was charged because Fitzgerald could not get a Grand Jury to indict them.

    He couldn't do that because he couldn't prove that she was covert. This had nothing to do with the "intent" to out an agent, which is the gist of Deconstructionist's argument.

    Facts are that she had been outed by Ames in 1997. That's why she was brought home. Once she was outed she was no longer covert, irrespective of what she, or anyone else might believe. Think about being pregnant.

    It is also very doubtful she can meet the "served" outside the US within the past 5 years criteria.

    Parent

    I gather you too missed the (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:32:11 PM EST
    Fitzgerald press conference where he said proscution was thwarted by obstruction of justice, and perjury?

    Or did you just have your fingers plugging your ears?

    Parent

    Not really. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ding7777 on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:36:38 PM EST
    The agent should live her cover, just like the hundreds of other NOCs do on a day-to-day basis.  

    Parent
    Yawn (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:51:16 PM EST
    Facts make squeaky sleepy. (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    Yes, textbooks are normally less exciting than fiction...

    Parent
    Where are the other books? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Natal on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    Isn't strange that none of the former admin officials has written a book to justify the actions they took and to set the record straight (ie. Libby, Rove, Armitage, Rumsfeld etc).

    Could it be if you were dishonest and at fault it is better to let sleep dogs lie?

    so you believe that (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    to prove your innocence you have to write a book?

    Wow.

    Are you acquainted with the "innocent until proven guilty?"

    It's an American kind of thing.

    Parent

    ::Still:: looking (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    for someone stupid enough to think you make any sense? You're really have a bad run the past few years aren't you?

    You don't think maybe the lack of stupid people has something to do with your bad luck?

    Do you?

    Parent

    You assume facts not in evidence. (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:51:41 AM EST
      The fact Armitage was a "discloser" does not beget the conclusion he must have been the only "discloser." It is entirely possible that in addition to Armitage people in the WH also disclosed her identity. As we have no verified evidence one way or the other, it is just as "wrong" for you to claim it has been established that no one  in the WH did it. The bottom line is we don't know the full story.

     

    Discloser is as discloser does. (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    I have never been able to understand the claim of multiple disclosers.

    1. Armirage made her name public, although he claimed to not have known her status.

    But in fact, he did. Her status was, at that point, an identified CIA employee. She was not "covert" and her employment was no longer "classified."

    If Armitage did not commit a crime, how can others?

    2. Further dislosers can not add or remove from what has been done, no matter what their intent.

    Because of this I still maintain that, as soon as Fitzgerald was aware of Armitage's actions he should have closed the investigation.

    Parent

    Then you are not trying very hard, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:54:28 PM EST
      Muliple people can engange in the same act either in concert or independently. Let's say I make a false statement on my income taxes concerning a transaction in which you and I engaged. You could also make the false statement on your taxes whether or not we in any way cooperated in making our respective statements.

      It would not be a plausible defense for you to claim you could not have made the statement because I had made the same statement before you.

      However, both of us could claim that although we made the statements we did not do so with knowledge it was false and an intent to evade taxes. In the absence of proof of our knowledge and intent we could not be convicted of a crime despite the falsity of our statements (although we may well owe back taxes, interest and civil penalties not contingent on criminal intent.

       It is possible Fitzgerald chose not to pursue "outing charges because Plame did not meet the definition of "coverrt" under IIPA but it is also possible he decided not to do so because he lacked proof of knowledge and intent.

      I don't know,  you don't know, and the peanut gallery in this thread does not know what was  the rationale for the decision not to charge.

       You are wrong in saying it is established she was not covert and they are wrong saying it has been established. Other than everyone being totally wrong it is a very enlightening discussion.  

    Parent

    If you are going to try to be insulting (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    at least be man enough to place your comment so that it addresses me. Otherwise I might not see and you might get the wrong idea.

    Your Plame arguments have been addressed countless times on this blog, including by me in my own words. Go use the search engine. My General Hayden remark would also apply to you.

    To answer your simple question- You must have missed the Fitzgerald's press conference where he said the prosecution had been thwarted by obstruction of justice  Maybe you had your hands over your ears and you too were chirping "La La LA I can't hear you!". I otherwise cannot account for your missing that minor little detail.

    He's just doing his job. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    He wouldn't be a very good troll or very good at wasting your time if he was to start acknowledging that his trolling had been shown up for what it is. He couldn't continue to try to endlessly re-argue the same idiocy if he ever acknowledged that it had been addressed countless times on this blog.

    Watch. His next questions will be "addressed where?". "when?".

    One does not compromise with Straussians, neocons, chickenhawks or clueless bastards.  People who still support George W. Bush, torture and war profiteering at this late stage of human history are beyond reason or persuasion.  There is no point whatsoever in worrying about how such people see things, what they might say, or how they might characterize our actions or arguments.  These people should not be appeased or wooed, they should be marginalized and driven back under the rocks from which they have slithered.

    They are not there to be "debated with" or legitimized by arguing with what they have to say as if it were "just another point of view as valid as any other". They are there to marginalized , treated as pariahs, and driven into the tar pits of extinction.

    Parent

    I like your sense of style (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    marginalized , treated as pariahs, and driven into the tar pits of extinction.

    You can't totally ignore them unfortunately. The simplest way to deal with it is to point out their arguements have been refuted.

    As for tar pits... they are a good place for fossils

    Parent

    Crack a couple of cold ones (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 11:20:12 AM EST
    pull up a lawn chair, get comfortable, and enjoy the show. Heh!

    Parent
    Your self congratulatory banter is (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    pathetic.

    I'm all for charging leakers of classified information. Let's get going on that.

    I'm still waiting for ANYONE to address the fact that Wilson lied about HIS OWN REPORT.

    Repack never even tried.

    Parent

    Apparently you're having the same difficulties (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    that ppj has. He's had a really tough time of it the past few years trying to finding anyone stupid enough to think he makes any sense. It's probably not going to help you to be associated with him, or to try his tactics. They don't work for him. But maybe you think you're a better troll than he is? No one expects him to get it.

    Parent
    Use the search function on this blog (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:29:17 PM EST
    Been through it, already. Its been debunked. Not going down the rabbit hole just because you want to.

    Parent
    It absolutely has not been debunked. (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:39:52 PM EST
    That is not possible, becuase he DID lie about HIS OWN REPORT. What an idiot!

    The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

    "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.



    Parent
    Your standard is low (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:07:58 AM EST
    Lie: A statement intended to deceive, even if literally true.

    Your standard is low and all things considered one I doubt you will apply across the board.

    Let me give you some examples of false statements with intent to decieve:

    Statement: In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, Vice President Cheney attempted to rebut claims that the administration misled the American public by citing an intelligence report that Iraq, if left unchecked, "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
    Intent to deceive: Cheney failed to read the following sentence of the report which noted that evidence for this claim was inadequate.

    Statement: On the Sunday before the war, Vice President Cheney claimed "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
    Intent to deceive: In February 2001, the CIA warned the White House "we do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [the first Gulf War] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." The report was so definitive that it led Colin Powell to state in a subsequent press conference that Iraq had "not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

    Get the difference? I would remind you, Bush "missepeaks" all the time. As did Reagan  (Trees cause air pollution), back in the day. Somehow I don't think you would want to use your standard in criticising them. But I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:27:21 AM EST
     one has to accept Wilson's explanation for his "misstatement" of the facts to conclude it was not intended to deceive. I don't think it is unreasonable for anyone to find his explanation implausible considering his misstatement completely supported his agenda and he made no similar mistakes that did not support his agenda.

      That many if not most other politicians also make false statements  is beyond question. I just don't believe in the whitewashing of "my guy's lies." It's unrealistic perhaps but I'd just prefer having fewer liars than endless debates on how best to rationalize the lies on one side or the other.

    Parent

    I don't think you want that standard Decon (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 07:55:09 AM EST
    considering his misstatement completely supported his agenda and he made no similar mistakes that did not support his agenda.

    Any time a misstatment supports your "agenda" means it was made with intent to decieve?

    I don't think that is standad you want to use. Yesterday you misspoke, choosing your words poorly. Based upon your standard here, because your misstatements supported your agenda, you had intent to decieve and therefore you are a liar. I don't think you want to use this standard.

    2ndly you speak of Ambassador Wilson's agenda, as though he were some wild eyed revolutionary (e.g. Grover Norquist). He was a career diplomat who support GHWB in his re-election and gave money to George II (if I recall correctly).

    Finally here is a copy of the original article and here is the so called lie:

    (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

    Sounds to me like he originally stated he never saw the memorandum.  I am not certain of the source of the statements referred to previously, but they would have been after the original statement, and I am pretty certain they came out of the Senate majority  report (read GOP spinned report). Now that was a report with an agenda. Clearly Ambassador Wilson misspoke. Had he an agenda, he would have claimed to have seen the memorandum in his original editorial. As you see, he did not.

    This whole episode shows why trolls need to be countered. People like you- otherwise sane-  forget facts, fine points and context.


    Parent

    You are mischaracterizing what I said (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:25:40 AM EST
     I said I don't find it unreasonable for people to find Wilson's explanations implausible because his misstatements always seem to support his agenda. I did not say that fact proves he intended to deceive. The issue with wilson on this particular point is not whether he ever said he saw the CIA report but that he claimed something about it that was not true. Taken together twith his extreme shadings of his very own findings he is subject to doubts about his credibility and I'm not sure how prior fealty to those in power at the time enhances his credibility. I view that as more enhancing his status as an opportunist with flexible principles.

      As for me, when you pointed out how my poorly worded statement was subject to misinterpretation I agreed with you and promptly provided a better phrased statement to clarify what I meant. I did not misstate  "facts" but merely poorly articulated a general observation ( that trading one set of subsidies for another does not ensure increased employment in the short or long term).

      And, if you or anyone else want to be skeptical of me because of that I won't complain, although I can think of a lot of better reasons to be skeptical of me or anyone else.

    Parent

    talk about mischaracterization! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 08:55:39 AM EST
    Prior fealty? I think I was pointing out that he wasn't a wildeyed partisan. But you cna characterize it as you wish.

    Extreme shadings? He said he went to Niger, interviewed officials, and came to the same conclusions as the two previous investigators did. There was no evidence that Iraq recently was trying to buy yellowcake (and why should they, they have their own supply in Iraq).

    It may be my extreme shading, but it appears to me you are determined to  to find flaws in Wilson, justified or not,  (I am not claiming he is perfect) to be able to show sort of balance between left and right.  

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#81)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 09:13:52 AM EST

      A great amount of determination is required to find flaws in Wilson. I have many times wondered aloud about the desire to deify him when it is totally unnecessary to make all the very valid points about the Administration. I think attempting to gloss over his apparent flaws is counter-productive because it allows those so inclined to divert attention to the far more easily won argument-- that Wilson is not the world's most trustoworthy or appealing character--instead of keeping the focus on the lies, duplicity and cover-ups of the Bush Administration. The only person who benefits from placing focus on Joe Wilson is, surprise, surprise, Joe Wilson and perhaps the thing it takes the least determintation to conclude is that his protestations to the contrary are "misstatements."

    *

    "It may be my extreme shading, but it appears to me you are determined to  to find flaws in Wilson, justified or not,  (I am not claiming he is perfect) to be able to show sort of balance between left and right."

      I do think balance is a good thing and that one of the fundamental problems with most debates here and elsewhere in blog world is the lack of balance and perspective. I will also admit that at times I deliberately interject a little balance into arguments for the rhetorical purpose of emphasizing the need for balance and perspective even when my personal opinion on a particular issue may not be actually be between the polar views being expressed.

       

    Parent

    Pancho (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 12:35:58 AM EST
    is about to get banned. Lose the insults and name calling and personal attacks please. I've deleted some of your insults and the responses to them in this thread but you are warned that continued attacks will result in your being banned.

    It is quite comical to see (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Pancho on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    the left embracing the sanctity of the CIA.

    I must have missed that (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:18:55 PM EST
    When did it happen?

    Apparently you have this thread confused with another. This one is about the well-supported allegations that Valerie Plame's identity was released to intimidate her husband, whose patriotism, courage and honorable service to the country are beyond question.

    Ms. Plame has now addressed these allegations, and if you have a problem with what she says, please quote from her work and identify the problem.

    Wait.  You won't do that, because you're just trolling and you have no real information to work with.

    My bad.  Everyone else can ignore this and everything else Pancho has to say.

    Parent

    You have got to be kidding (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Pancho on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    ...her husband, whose patriotism, courage and honorable service to the country are beyond question.

    The guy was completely busted lying about his "mission" to Niger. What a freaking joke.

    Joseph Wilson on CNN: "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."


    Parent

    Pancho (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    Impugns the courage of a man far better than he.

    Joe Wilson was the last ambassador to Iraq, serving GHW Bush.  When Saddam threatened his life, he took to wearing a noose instead of a necktie, saying, "If Saddam wants to hang me, I'll supply the rope."

    What a coward.

    The guy was completely busted lying about his "mission" to Niger. What a freaking joke.

    Wait.  You mean the DID ship yellowcake?  No, they didn't.  Mr. Wilson was correct.

    Joseph Wilson on CNN: "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

    Add two plus two for me.  You seem to be having a hard time with simple math.  It's pretty hard to remain "clandestine" when your identity and profession have been published int he newspapers.

    Despite all the claims that "everyone knew" what she did, no one has PRODUCED someone who knew what she did before Novak exposed her.

    We need better trolls here.

    Parent

    Who said they shipped yellowcake? (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Pancho on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:31:56 AM EST
    Wilson himself in his report to the CIA said they tried to buy it and then lied about HIS OWN REPORT! What a moron! (not withstanding his macho noose bravado) Liberals just love that macho stuff!Yeah, he's a huge liar

    Parent
    Laughable article (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:29:11 AM EST
    From your link:

    "Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame..."

    Who ya gonna believe, the anonymous smear artist from the White House who won't even give his name, or the CIA, who say different and on the record?

    Wait.  I think I know.  If it's anonymous and a smear, you go with that.

    Please, this one has been debunked now for what, three years.

    Like I said, no one would accuse you of saying something as stupid as you just did.

    Parent

    By all accounts (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Pancho on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    he was recommended by his wife.

    "...a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, `my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'"

    He is a liar.

    Parent

    He lied about his own report (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Pancho on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    What do you have to say about that?

    Parent
    From MediaMatters (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    Link

    WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

    BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

    WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

    Now the Left's claim is that Wilson was pointing out that she had been outed. Perhaps. But he may also have been parsing. Why? Because when he had a chance to accurately answer the question he dithered:

    WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about

    And why not? This was July 2005. The investigation was on. Wilson concludes by saying:

    the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

    "possible" is a qualifier. If she met the requirements for US CODE: Title 50,426. Definitions" then why the "possible?" And if anyone should have known, it was the CIA.

    I believe the answer is that Wilson and his wife had been interviewed by the CIA, and that the CIA had noted that the law had never been adjudicated.
    And that as written:

    who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    There were questions as to whether or not the law had been broken.

    Particularly as to the requirement of "served." Was that a long weekend? Or would it be a TAD for weeks??

    The secondary issue would have been:

    whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

    If the CIA, as is widely understood to be true, felt that she had been outed by Aldrich Ames, then the secret is out. (Pandora's Box, etc.)

    And it should be remembered that Libby was not convicted of "outing" a NOC. No one has been.

    Surely, if she had been one, it should have been easy to prove, and someone would have been convicted. That no one was and all the above shows us that she was not.

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    I've explained MANY times (including below in this thread) why it could be only a "possible" crime even if there was indisputable evidence she was "covert." This statute establishes a  specific intent crime (indeed a heightened specific intent crime). To be a crime under the statuter not only must the proscribed act (disclosing the identity of a "covert" agent) be done but it must be done with knowledge of the covert status and intent to disclose information known to be protected.

     

    Parent

    I have no problem with (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    that as a reason for a qualifier, just as I see the two reasons that I offer.

    "possible" is a qualifier. If she met the requirements for US CODE: Title 50,426. Definitions" then why the "possible?" And if anyone should have known, it was the CIA.

    Certainly the information you offer was, I understand, used to excuse Armitage.

    Lack of prosecution could thus be based on the belief that the "discloser" did not know she was covert within the meaning of the statute even if she was in fact covert. But, even if she was not "covert" under te statute the use of leaks was still wrong -- and it still disclosed classified information.


    Parent
    You missed a step (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Pancho on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    ...it must be done with knowledge of the covert status and intent to disclose information known to be protected.


    Parent
    Pancho (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    If she was not covert, status knowledge means nothing.

    Parent
    Of course, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    but Deconstructionist's point was that even if she were covert, knowledge was a neccesary element for there to be a crime.

    Parent
    Valerie and Joe Wilson, Flight 93 passengers (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Aaron on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    As usual, you're attempting to parse the facts, and desperately backpedaling trying to defend the indefensible actions of the Bush administration.

     Valerie Plame is still being prevented from talking about any of her CIA activities before 2002, specifically at the direction of the Bush White House and not the CIA.

    It's funny Jim how you like to go on about the importance of government service and the military, yet here is a woman who comes from a family with a history of service to their country, Wilson's father an Air Force colonel, and her brother a Marine veteran wounded in Vietnam. Yet, you're willing to discount her words and continue to make excuses for the Bush administration, who violated the law when they exposed her identity.

     And they didn't do it for some high moral purpose in defense of America.  They did it to protect a tissue paper of lies that were constructed with the specific intent of deceiving the American people, in order to take this country into an unnecessary war.

    Dick Cheney and George W. Bush did this because they knew that the American people would never support an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, unless that country posed a direct threat to the United States. So what did they do?  They took it upon themselves to effectively strip us of our sovereignty when they conspired to create these fabrications as a pretext for war.

    In point of fact they did what the Constitution specifically forbids them from doing, setting the executive branch of government and the president up as de facto king, who takes it upon himself alone to make decisions that affect the future direction of this country.  It was nothing less than a hijacking of the United States of America, and the American people were reduced to nothing more than passengers along for the ride, passengers who had to be lied to and kept in the dark, in order to keep us docile and compliant.

    In fact the actions of George W. Bush and this rogue administration are entirely analogies with the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, who told the people on those planes that if they remained calm and followed instructions, everything would be all right.  They did this so that the people would not struggle and fight back, which they surely would have done if they had known they were about to be flown into buildings. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were like that people on flight 93, who found out the truth, and began telling everyone else what was really happening.  No doubt you believe that the people on that doomed flight were heroes, right Jim?

    I say there is no defense for for the actions of this administration, they constitute the very definition of the word treason, the highest form of treason that one can engage upon within the context of a democracy, the betrayal of the people by our elected representatives, the president and his cabinet.

    Until this president is held to account for his actions, then the future of the republic remains in dire jeopardy, since if he is not punished for this, the very highest of crimes, then others will surely follow in his footsteps, and perhaps Jim, you may not find yourself in agreement with the politics of other administrations who choose to subvert the Constitution.  

    So I would advise you to think long and hard about your continued support for those who didn't even stop to consider the grave ramifications of what they were doing.  You may not realize it yet, but you have been betrayed just as surely as the rest of us.

    Parent

    Roger that n/t (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 02:50:31 PM EST
    Aaron - Get some meds for BDS (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    specifically at the direction of the Bush White House and not the CIA.

    That's a new one. Would love to read up on it. Do you have a link??

    You may not realize it yet, but you have been betrayed just as surely as the rest of us.

    If you want to claim that, what was the point of Wilson's NYT editorial if it wasn't to attack the Bush administration? What purpose did it serve?

    Did it end the war sooner? No.

    And ending the war as soon as possible is important to us ex-military types.

    What I continue to see is what became a desire for attention by Wilson that led to the editorial. I can not believe that he asked his wife before he published it, because she would have known, and he should have, that such a claim would have brought a large amount of instant attention, something a NOC wouldn't want.

    That a reasonable person would believe that he surely asked her places a big question over the NOC claim.

    As I tried to point out, this, plus other actions and the being brought back in 1997, screams NOT NOC.

    Of course you won't agree with this. Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is now in its final stage, wiping out all logic and all questioning ability that you may have once had.

    Parent

    the ruined life (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by diogenes on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 09:46:44 PM EST
    If getting large sums to write books and being toasted as a heroine be large numbers of people is a ruined life, then sign me up.
    If someone really committed a crime in "leaking" her name to the media, then where is the indictment?

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:35:56 PM EST
    If someone really committed a crime in "leaking" her name to the media, then where is the indictment?

    Are you saying that the public DIDN'T find out her name and what she does?

    If a bank gets robbed, but no one gets arrested or charged, is the money still there?

    The troll talking points must be seen to be believed.  No one would ever make up stuff this dumb and accuse you of saying it.

    Parent

    That isn't the issue. (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:01:43 PM EST
    The issue is, did the crime actually occur.

    A very important point.

    And so far, I see no proof that she was covert.

    Parent

    PPJ hides from reality (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:55:15 PM EST
    did the crime actually occur.

    Her name and former occupation are public knowledge.

    Prima facie evidence that someone talked about it.

    How difficult can this concept be for you?

    Parent

    What don't you understand about... (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    no one has been convicted of outing her as a covert agent.

    No one has been indicted.

    No crime has been specified, much less tried and/or convicted.

    It has been my experience that such actions are normally required.

    Parent

    Still haven't (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:33:37 AM EST
    upgraded, diog?

    Parent
    Okay, here it is (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    Yawn. You can't read now? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 05:45:32 PM EST
    I just told you I've already read them all. None made sense.

    Parent
    Info on Book Tour (none / 0) (#1)
    by msobel on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    where can we get information on the book tour ?

    WOW ! ! (none / 0) (#3)
    by garyb50 on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    9:39 CST, #36 on Amazon.

    Blogads (none / 0) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    I just read thru the FDL hosted book salon and thought the multiple posts to Valerie about the blogads were extremely rude.

    A private email to Valerie or Joe would have shown more class.

    I've never grasped the desire (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:36:10 AM EST
     to deify Joe Wilson and I see no need to do so in order to make the point that matters-- it was wrong to disclose publicly his wife's identity in an effort to discredit him. All the other means available to discredit Wilson -- including the fact he lied about his own mission-- would have been fair game but it was wrong to leak her status in the CIA -- whether or not she was technically "cover" under IIPA. Things don't have to be crimes to be wrong.

      Contrary to jim's repeated assertions the lack of prosecutions under IIPA does not establish her status because to criminally liable under the statute the "discloser" must have known she was covert within meaning of the statute and then disclosed the classified information. Lack of prosecution could thus be based on the belief that the "discloser" did not know she was covert within the meaning of the statute even if she was in fact covert. But, even if she was not "covert" under te statute the use of leaks was still wrong -- and it still disclosed classified information.  

    That's a very reasonable argument (none / 0) (#53)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    unfortuantely no one in the Bush administration leaked the name unless you count Richard Armitage as that person.

    So even if one was to grant you your point the second challenge to her story is that the Bush whitehouse didn't leak her name.  They simply discussed it as many other people did, those people being reporters, Armitage etc...

    The fact that Fitz took over a year to not charge anyone for this supposed crime is not enough to deter the left on this simple fact.   Armitage was the leaker.   That she wasn't really covert and her husband wrote an OpEd in the NYT's is why her name was leaked.   Her status was public knowledge inside the beltway so her name got out.   If you want to play politics you need to be prepared for the consequences.  

    That the left continues to dream about a grand conspiracy is more evidence that Bush derangement syndrome knows no bounds.

    Parent

    What I'm talking about (none / 0) (#54)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:48:50 AM EST
    Valerie Plame Wilson's cover as a top CIA agent was blown when Bush Administration officials leaked her name to the media;

    This is not true.   Richard Armitage was the leaker.  Is he a "Bush Administration Official".  If he is that's a reach at best and what's so silly in that statement is what the left really believes is that Karl Rove or Dick Cheney leaked the name and we all "should" know they didn't.

    Some dreams never die not matter how many facts and special investigations prove otherwise.

    Parent