Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Republicans LOVE Treason!
What else can one say, to judge from the number of right-wing talking-points spewers frothing all over the net right now? They're even trying to revive the old "Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent" lie. Sorry, Republican treason-lovers, but the NYT debunked that lie of yours nearly three years ago (original link located here):
Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government. That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover. But that changed over the summer, when her identity as a C.I.A. officer was reported in a syndicated column by Robert Novak.For those treason-loving Republicans too stupid to figure out what "nonofficial cover" is, here's the definition:
Nonofficial cover. NOCs (the word rhymes with "rocks") are the most covert CIA operatives. They typically work abroad without diplomatic protection (often they pretend to work for some commercial enterprise). If these spies are caught, there's no guarantee that the United States would admit their true identities. When using official cover could put a spy's life and work at risk, NOC is the only alternative.
I can read the NYT or LAT also, doesn't mean I believe them.
If that makes me STUPID as you so deftly jumped out with, then so be it. I'd rather do more searching than jump onto a name calling bandwagon.
I do appreciate the fact you allow comments from both sides on your blog, unlike most others who moderate their comments.
In MEC's thread, you claimed -- spewing long-discredited Republican talking points -- that Plame wasn't a NOC. Sorry, but anyone who actually has been following the situation -- or who isn't determined to lie -- knows that she was. As the NYT piece demonstrates, this has been a fact not in dispute since September of 2003.
And it is also a fact not in dispute that several persons in the Bush White House -- most likely at Cheney's orders, not Rove's (remember the clipping of Wilson's July 6, 2003 Op-Ed with Cheney's handwritten notes on how best to attack Wilson on it? Oh, and since when is taking a dangerous trip to one of the poorest nations on earth a "junket"? Did Cheney think Wilson went to Vegas?) -- ran around telling several of their favorite media stooges about "Wilson's wife" and her real job as a CIA operative.
First, you get points for actually engaging. There's a simple rule about truth: it always wins if human beings just give it a chance.
First, let's dispose of the NRO article.
The problem with the National Review article is that it's from 2005. That's while it was still possible to spin and deny.
The claim is that "the media think Plame was previously compromised by a disclosure from the intelligence community itself — although it may be questionable whether there was anything of her covert status left to salvage."
And the key piece of evidence thatMcCarthy uses is that the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed.
And thanks to Andrew McCarthy showing us the light, we are now going to let free every ten cent hood, every murderer and con man who says he's innocent. Now, it would be really nice to read that brief, but you know what? It's on 404 leave. Any guesses as to why?
Well, let's not guess. Let's try to follow McCarthy's argument to its bitter end. The media in this absent-without-leave filing informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. And so, according to McCarthy, no crime has been committed because the media were just reporting what our enemies already knew.
And that's where you have to pay attention to who is saying what. Baker Law may have said this. They weren't under oath. They're free to argue any theory they like to defend their client.
The fact that the CIA requested the investigation and that the Ashcroft Justice Department agreed is evidence enough that their lawyers concluded that a crime had been committed. When Patrick Fitzgerald said, as an officer of the court, that Plame was a covert agent, that was effectively under oath.
Now, we don't know exactly what got exposed in the disclosure to the Cubans. There were "references" to Plame, but we don't know if those compromised her identity or not. Whatever the case, the CIA-- and Plame-- believed that her identity was secure. They were betting her life on it. So, there's lots we don't know.
What we do know is that this disclosure occurred under George Bush. For all we know, it was ordered by him. Indeed, the very fact that Baker Law knew of this defense suggests that someone in the Administration was further breaking the law by disclosing the leak to the newspapers. Or maybe Baker Law just has very good friends in Cuba.
It was Larry Johnson, former covert CIA agent and Valerie Plame's classmate, who said just a few days ago: "I don't see how any self-respecting conservative can stand by as this Administration commits cold-blooded treason."
Simple, Larry. So-called "conservatives" have no honor anymore.
As for the rest of it, McCarthy is simply ignorant or disingenuous. The CIA does not exclude NOCs from CIA headquarters. Posing in Vanity Fair happened after Plame's identity had been blown. Joe Wilson, like any American citizen, was free to write whatever he wanted-- that he did simply enhanced Plame's cover.
So, you see, it's not that I don't read NatRev. It's that every time I do, I find they're lying.
Attacking me for lying.
And for being an expert... which I don't claim to be.
Guess I might read the rest of your post... but then I might get attacked for trying to understand your position.
Oh, and by the way, strange how though I typo'd and spelled Karl wrong, you felt it necessary to jump my case about it.
Maybe if I get time today I'll read through your comments. I just have serious doubts that when someone is reviewed for prosecution that all involved are 'dirty' or 'in on the scandal' so that they get off without a hitch. Funny how we feel our judicial system is that corrupt.
Sorry, F., but we don't play that game here. Nice try, though.
On addressing the issues, though, I have to award a zero. I took the time to read your NRO article closely enough to be able to show you why it doesn't support your claim that no crime was committed in exposing Valerie Plame's cover.
The excuse of not enough time doesn't wash. If you have enough time to make a post whose facts are disputed, you have the time to defend those facts-- or admit that you were wrong.
More blogs about politics.