Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. She was and is a CIA analyst stationed in Washington that apparently has (had) extraordinary connections within the CIA hierarchy. Ms. Plame is not "secret agent woman"; she's a CIA employee. But, let's wait for the Special Counsel to tell us this.
In order for a crime to have been committed per the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Act) of 1982, Valerie Plame would have had to have been stationed overseas and operating undercover. Ms. Plame has not been stationed overseas since 1997. There are other requirements necessary to violate the Act but I don't think it's necessary to list those that have also not been violated when the foremost aspect of the Act was not violated.
Just recently, the 1917 Espionage Act is now being mentioned by the liberal media as a law that was broken during the Plame affair. They can hope, I guess. The Espionage Act prohibits the sharing of military secrets during war time. Well, even if no "military secret" was shared (confirming a CIA employee is a CIA employee?), it is good to know that the liberal media at least accepts that the United States is at war (somebody please let Ms. Cindy Sheehan know; she's still not taking my calls).
I don't think it is possible for me to laugh anymore (I'm simply laughed out) if I have to read one more time in the Boston Globe that the motive for confirming Ms. Plame's job was to "discredit her husband, (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Joseph Wilson." How can those two dots possibly get connected? "I don't like what you're saying about foreign affairs, in order to discredited you I'm going to tell everyone that your spouse is a covert CIA agent." Wouldn't it give hate-Bush Mr. Wilson more credibility if, in fact, his wife really was a covert CIA agent? Do I have more credibility talking about football if my wife is an NFL scout or if she is not an NFL scout? If you hate President Bush, I guess you will twist anything into a justification to hate him.
I'm quoting directly from yesterday's Boston Globe, "The evidence of that meeting (between a high ranking White House official and a New York Times reporter) has become important to the investigation because it indicates that (a high ranking White House official) was passing information to reporters about Plame WELL BEFORE (all caps mine for emphasis) her husband, (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Joseph Wilson, went public with his accusations" against the Bush Administration. Further, the Special Counsel is investigating whether "presidential aides violated a law prohibiting the intentional disclosure of covert CIA officers, and had tried to punish (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Wilson for his criticism . . . ." Well, I don't know how you can be accused of a crime of retaliation when you retaliate BEFORE the event that you are retaliating against has occurred. Read the two Boston Globe quotes above. Again, if you hate President Bush, I guess you will twist anything as justification to hate him even if it means lying to yourself.
Finally, I'm assuming that someone in the liberal media is eventually going to ask how loud-mouth Wilson got his Niger assignment. It looks more and more like Ms. Plame used her CIA contacts to get Clinton appointee, and yes, Bush retainee, (my goodness, what a huge mistake at trying to be a "uniter") CIA Director, George "Slam Dunk" Tenet to recommend Wilson for the job. Do Americans really want U.S. foreign policy conducted by rogue employees operating in secrecy and with a personal agenda? I hope not and I hope someone besides me is asking the tough questions. The President's foreign policy decisions are the subject of many oversight committees in the House and Senate. Who has oversight over Ms. Plame's agenda? I'm more comfortable with the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, 19 years as a former prosecutor and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (certainly he can ask a tough question, oops, okay, so he never has, but he could if he had the courage), reviewing everything the President sees than I am with the possibility that no one is reviewing what Ms. Plame orchestrates.
In order for a crime to have been committed per the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Act) of 1982, Valerie Plame would have had to have been stationed overseas and operating undercover. Ms. Plame has not been stationed overseas since 1997. There are other requirements necessary to violate the Act but I don't think it's necessary to list those that have also not been violated when the foremost aspect of the Act was not violated.
Just recently, the 1917 Espionage Act is now being mentioned by the liberal media as a law that was broken during the Plame affair. They can hope, I guess. The Espionage Act prohibits the sharing of military secrets during war time. Well, even if no "military secret" was shared (confirming a CIA employee is a CIA employee?), it is good to know that the liberal media at least accepts that the United States is at war (somebody please let Ms. Cindy Sheehan know; she's still not taking my calls).
I don't think it is possible for me to laugh anymore (I'm simply laughed out) if I have to read one more time in the Boston Globe that the motive for confirming Ms. Plame's job was to "discredit her husband, (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Joseph Wilson." How can those two dots possibly get connected? "I don't like what you're saying about foreign affairs, in order to discredited you I'm going to tell everyone that your spouse is a covert CIA agent." Wouldn't it give hate-Bush Mr. Wilson more credibility if, in fact, his wife really was a covert CIA agent? Do I have more credibility talking about football if my wife is an NFL scout or if she is not an NFL scout? If you hate President Bush, I guess you will twist anything into a justification to hate him.
I'm quoting directly from yesterday's Boston Globe, "The evidence of that meeting (between a high ranking White House official and a New York Times reporter) has become important to the investigation because it indicates that (a high ranking White House official) was passing information to reporters about Plame WELL BEFORE (all caps mine for emphasis) her husband, (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Joseph Wilson, went public with his accusations" against the Bush Administration. Further, the Special Counsel is investigating whether "presidential aides violated a law prohibiting the intentional disclosure of covert CIA officers, and had tried to punish (hate-Bush, loud-mouth) Wilson for his criticism . . . ." Well, I don't know how you can be accused of a crime of retaliation when you retaliate BEFORE the event that you are retaliating against has occurred. Read the two Boston Globe quotes above. Again, if you hate President Bush, I guess you will twist anything as justification to hate him even if it means lying to yourself.
Finally, I'm assuming that someone in the liberal media is eventually going to ask how loud-mouth Wilson got his Niger assignment. It looks more and more like Ms. Plame used her CIA contacts to get Clinton appointee, and yes, Bush retainee, (my goodness, what a huge mistake at trying to be a "uniter") CIA Director, George "Slam Dunk" Tenet to recommend Wilson for the job. Do Americans really want U.S. foreign policy conducted by rogue employees operating in secrecy and with a personal agenda? I hope not and I hope someone besides me is asking the tough questions. The President's foreign policy decisions are the subject of many oversight committees in the House and Senate. Who has oversight over Ms. Plame's agenda? I'm more comfortable with the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, 19 years as a former prosecutor and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (certainly he can ask a tough question, oops, okay, so he never has, but he could if he had the courage), reviewing everything the President sees than I am with the possibility that no one is reviewing what Ms. Plame orchestrates.
2 Comments:
If perjury was committed during the "Plame" investigation what do you believe should happen to those that committed same?
Thanks for the info.
I am going to link you to a bunch of sites via comments because I have yet to see this side of the argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home