Thursday, July 14, 2005

 

CIA Confirmed Valerie Plame Was Undercover

One of the GOP talking points about the outing of Valerie Plame is that she was never really an undercover agent, so mentioning her name was no big deal. How do we refute such egregious lies? We refute this one by citing the CIA response to the outing:

The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.
The CIA did file the criminal referral that resulted in Peter Fitzgerald's investigation. Q.E.D. Pass the word.
# posted by MEC @ 7/14/2005 10:03:00 AM
Comments:
A-yep.

Speaking of debunking pro-Rovian spin, one of the spin points pushed is that Plame's Brewster-Jennings cover job was "too flimsy to be believable".

The Knight-Ridder article cited by DailyKos diarist Sherlock Google in this diary blows big holes in that myth.
# posted by Blogger Phoenix Woman : 7/14/2005 10:35:00 AM
 
Larry Johnson has stated that the outing of Valerie Plame did, without question, endanger lives.
# posted by Blogger Charles : 7/14/2005 03:26:00 PM
 
The outing of a CIA officer is a federal crime. Some are saying that the only thing to expect anyone to possibly prosecuted for is perjury, or obstruction of justice. And not guilty of an actual outing of the officer's name to the press. Since today's reports that the officer was under official cover, there will a big problem for the Bush administration. Which means that we can expect the persons responsible for out the officer will be facing some serious legal trouble. Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17;and John 3:19-20.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 7/21/2005 10:25:00 AM
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder