Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson

I've just finished reading every article, and the Chronology, in the Boston Globe concerning Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of an aide to an aide of the President; literally, with 5 minutes of preparation, I'm ready to rebut the hate-Bush spin universally reflected.

Before I start, it is my goal to make this space "smarter" than the hate-Bush garbage we have to read on the editorial page of the Boston Globe. I intend this space to be smarter than the garbage non-intellectuals traffic in, on both sides of the argument, on shows like Hannity & Colmes. I hope this space is smarter than each side's claims of hypocrisy (while at the same time choosing convenient references) with the impeachment of President Clinton (see my reference from yesterday!).

First, conceding the most damaging charge against the aide, if the aide told the grand jury that he did not know Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, then he truly appears to have made a false statement. That someone as smart as the aide would make such a statement knowing the overwhelming proof that existed to the contrary is extraordinary; actually, it's almost unbelievable. If, however, it is proved, the aide should be convicted and punished accordingly.

Second, I have read the Globe's Chronology of events from February 2002 through the indictments. That the outrageous acts of Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, are not being investigated is utterly amazing. For the purpose of this post, I'll accept all dates in the Globe Chronology as accurate. Further, I'll accept, as the Chronology accepts, that all things "said" damaging to the aide are true and all things "said" helpful to the aide are false or are to be questioned; even with this ridiculous acceptance, the observation's below are sobering.

Vice President Dick Cheney, based on a Defense Intelligence Agency report, asked for an analysis of a claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger. Apparently, Valerie Plame orchestrated her husband's assignment to Niger to satisfy the Vice President's request.

On May 6 2003, Joseph Wilson leaked information from his CIA report to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who published Mr. Wilson's claims. Again for emphasis, Mr. Wilson leaked actual CIA information to a reporter and the reporter published the information.

In early June, 2003, the aide began researching the human assets the CIA sent to Niger. This action is exactly the correct response by the aide. The aide is trying to determine if classified CIA information that the Vice President requested was accurate, valid and . . . still classified (which it was not!). To have not tried to determine the validity of the source would have been a betrayal of the oath to protect and defend the United States. Is the liberal media really suggesting with its Chronology of the aide asking questions about the CIA resources providing THE information on THE foreign policy event of the century that the aide is somehow misbehaving? Suppose Wilson was completely wrong and Los Angeles was lost in a smoke plume in 2005. Would the Country and liberal media accept, "Well, Joseph Wilson provided the information Los Angeles was safe so we didn't need to follow-up on it" as an explanation. Nope, don't need to question Joe Wilson's work, he's the best.

On June 12, 2003, the aide meets with Vice President Cheney and Cheney tells the aide that Valerie Plame is a CIA employee. Apparently, this is supposed to contradict a statement the aide made to the grand jury that he learned of Plame's name from a reporter. Well, we know that at least one reporter may have known her name as early as May 6; is it really not possible that the aide learned this in the month from May 6 - June 12 from a reporter?

Robert Novak puts Plame's name in an article on July 14, 2003 and a Special Counsel is named on December 30, 2003 to investigate if the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (the Act) has been violated.

On February 10, 2004, only forty days after the Counsel is named, the aide signs a waiver to all reporters requesting that none assert any privilege to protect his identity. Forty days later! This is light-speed for this kind of action; how could this investigation have lasted two years given the aide's cooperation and waiver?

Two years into an investigation and there is no evidence that the Act has been violated. If there was no investigation into the non-crime, there would have been no indictments (ah, Martha Stewart knows what this is all about). Discussing Valerie Plame's job, apparently, was no more a crime than discussing if Manny Ramirez wants to be traded from the Boston Red Sox. I think I learned of Manny's trade request from the Boston Globe. I'd tell a grand jury that that is where I learned the information. If a Special Counsel could prove I had a conversation about a Manny trade prior to the Globe article, yes, he could indict me for making false statements. But, my false statements and the aide's alleged false statements involve a subject that was not a crime to discuss. If anyone thinks otherwise, I hope you are as deeply concerned with Mr. Wilson sharing government secrets with the New York Times as he did prior to May 6. President Bush is the elected official; he conducts U.S. foreign policy based on an infrastructure that answers to him and Congress. The foreign policy of the United States should not be conducted by a rogue CIA employee and her spouse. As I asked October 23, who has "oversight" responsibility for the Wilson's?

According to the Globe chronology, the aide met with reporters almost three weeks before Mr. Wilson went public with his criticism of the Bush Administration. As I have already asked, how do you retaliate against someone BEFORE they've committed the act that you're retaliating against? Of course, the liberal media won't stop using the word "retaliation"; the ugly suggestion fits in nicely with their agenda.

I found the words "leak" and "outing" a zillion times in the Globe articles this morning. THERE WAS NO LEAK! Well, other than Joe Wilson's leak of classified CIA information prior to May 6. THERE WAS NO OUTING! No matter how many times the liberal media and Congressional Democrats say it, it simply is not true according to the Special Counsel. Is the Counsel only right when he's indicting Republicans?

And just one more word on the Special Counsel, notice how he has not been vilified by the White House, Congressional Republicans or conservative thinkers and writers? If only Judge Ken Starr, supervised every single step of the way by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, was treated with such civility. Wow, almost the whole post with no cheap Clinton references. Oh, well.

Finally, searching down below, in my list of Accomplishments of President Bush, please refer to #8, the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I know my liberal readers get greatly agitated when I remind them of this, but the vote was 77 - 23. Sens. John F. Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, among many others, voted for the war on terror in Iraq. Can someone please provide the explanation for their vote that makes them intelligent and noble at the same time making President Bush a liar? The British Government, headed by President Clinton's closest ally during his Presidency, stands by its intelligence Iraq was pursuing yellowcake in Niger. Joe Wilson was in Niger for no more than 8 days and he was able to learn enough to conclude the British government was "unequivocally wrong"? Eight days! If you want to hate President Bush, you will believe what you need to believe no matter how ridiculous it makes you look (don't say anything; it will make you sound ridiculous, too!).