Valerie Plame, Patriot. Dick Cheney, . . .?

Via Cheers and Jeers, Bill Maher hits it good:

Valerie Plame was the CIA's operational officer in charge of counter-proliferation. Which means she tracked loose nukes. So, when Bush said, as he once did, that his absolute, number-one priority was preventing terrorists from getting loose nukes, okay, that's what she worked on. That's what she devoted her life to, staying undercover for 20 years, maintaining two identities every goddamn day. This is extraordinary service to your country.

. . . CIA agents are troops. This was a military assassination of one of our own, done through the press, ordered by Karl Rove. He said, of Valerie Plame, quote, "She's fair game." And then Cheney shot her.

George Bush likes to claim that he doesn't question his critics' patriotism, just their judgment. Well, let me be the first of your critics, Mr. President, to question your judgment and your patriotism. Because, let's not forget why they did it to her. Because Valerie Plame was married to this guy, Joe Wilson, who the Bush people hated because he busted them on one of their [BS] reasons for invading Iraq.

. . . Valerie Plame's husband told the truth about their lie, so they were willing to jeopardize an entire network of spies to ruin her life. Wow, even the mob doesn't go after your family.

Mark Twain said, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." And I say Valerie Plame is a patriot because she spent her life serving her country. Scooter Libby is not, because he spent his life serving Dick Cheney.

Well said Bill.

< Citizen Stengel, Concern Troll, Tells A Fib | Ocean Beach Police Indicted >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nice post... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    You know, not to generalize, but the 29% of people who still support President Bush are the ones who love to pronounce themselves more patriotic than the rest of us. But just saying you're patriotic is like saying you have a big c*ck. If you have to say it, chances are it's not true.  -  Bill Maher

    Ain't it odd. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by walt on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    "It's a strange, strange world we live in . . . ."

    Stand-up comedians, comics, entertainers offer the public more meaningful news & comment than the reporters & pundits in the lame stream muddya.

    Now that's funny.

    Maher is (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    a real journalist with a sense of humor. The rest are so bad it's not funny.

    Hey, some of the best political commentary (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:21:31 PM EST
    in dead-tree papers (both accessible to and read by Joe Sixpack) over the past few years has been Mike Lupica, sportswriter, in the NYDN.  He's often made more sense than most of the MSM stars combined.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#16)
    by walt on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:25:10 AM EST
    And it seems that Olbermann is a sportswriter too.  Also, there's a blogger at HuffPo who was and/or is a sportswriter.

    I once made the comment, 4 or 5 years ago, that those folks live in the reality based world because they'd be fired for making crap up the way lame stream muddya types do it.  Or worse yet, quoting managers & executives to play out their phony excuses for losing.


    I'll bite. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by smiley on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    Valerie Plame, Patriot. Dick Cheney,


    how about (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    Valerie Plame, patriot.
    Dick Cheney, treasonous leader of a seditious conspiracy.

    Your "cover" story (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    Part of maintaining a cover story is to not attract attention. I find it astonishing that a covert agent would agree to let her husband write an article for the NYT that would certainly do just that.

    You had to torture that thought to make it kind of work, didn't you?

    Valerie Plame used her maiden name in her CIA work, and until Novak blew the whistle, it is unlikely that anyone else made the connection.

    Remember all those people who said it was "common knowledge" what she did?  If Scooter Libby could have found ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE he would not have been convicted.

    Bottom line, UNTIL NOVAK BLEW THE WHISTLE, NOBODY KNEW.  Whatever you think about her cover, it was working.

    In order for your argument to be true, you would need to demonstrate that someone knew before Novak's article, and as I pointed out, Scooter Libby had millions to spend to find one of those people, and couldn't.

    Repack (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:32:31 PM EST
    RePack. She was going to work everyday at Langley. As soon as someone focused on her, everything was sure to fall apart.

    So no, no problem at all.

    Furthermore, Romerstein says that "Mrs. Joe Wilson also helped shred her cover when she made a contribution to the Al Gore for President campaign and listed her cover company in the Federal Election Commission filing. If she were ever posted overseas under cover, that would provide the hostiles with a lead to unravel her CIA connection

    And when Novak called the CIA, why didn't they warn him off?? Would you expect them to do so if she was really covert??

    BTW - Novak's source was Armitage..

    Anyway tou slice it, the story presented by Plame and Wilson doesn't hang together. On one hand she is super spy, on the the other she makes mistake after mistake.


    Dumbest question...ever (none / 0) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:26:32 AM EST
    And when Novak called the CIA, why didn't they warn him off?? Would you expect them to do so if she was really covert??

    I didn't hear that conversation, and there is no reason to take the word of a liar like Novak for a hearsay claim like that.  But hearsay from a known liar is good enough for you, while direct, public statements by CIA officials are not.

    Would you expect the CIA to call for an investigation of the exposure of a covert agent if she wasn't covert?

    So Michael Hayden, the Director of Central Intelligence, does not know, and is not in a position to find out, the covert status of a person who worked for the CIA and who he has described to Congress as covert.  

    According to Jim, who now claims to know more about CIA employees than the DCI.

    Ya gotta tell me, Jim, how is it that you know more about the CIA than the guy who runs it?


    RePack steps in it (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:37:39 AM EST
    Novak's claims are quite well known. Here is what I have that the CIA claimed.

    Harlow conveyed in an interview that "he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed."

    We now know that Plame did not authorize, but she was involved in him being selected. Whether or not Mr. Harlow was aware of that at the time of his statement, I do not know, but his statement was incomplete.

    Now Novak wrote about it. Evidently the DOJ decided that he violated no laws as he has not been indicted. That indicates that DOJ either did not believe the CIA, or that the CIA's warning was not clear enough.

    In fact, no one has been indicted for outing a covery agent, in fact, the SP referred to "classified."

    Ya gotta tell me, Jim, how is it that you know more about the CIA than the guy who runs it?

    I have made no such claims. I have merely written   what we know, and pointed out what has not been verfied. (If anyone can add to my knowledge re "re verified" please do so.)

    As you know, the word "covert" as applied to a CIA agent has a a definitive meaning and qualifications. Must have served outside US within 5 years...

    Neither Plame or the CIA have provided any information, beyond claims, that she met those qualifications, and we have had no legal proceedings that would clarify.

    Since she is now "outed," it is strange that we can not know the basis for Hayden's comments.

    So, you are correct. I don't know more than the guy who runs it. I know less. And therein lies the problem.

    RePack, in my comment that you respond to, and in this comment, I refer time and again to claims that Wilson, Plame and Hayden have made that have not been verified.

    Would you be willing to accept the same standard about the Gonzales flap? I think not.


    Repetitive lies become boring. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by walt on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:44:00 AM EST
    Especially when the lies are stupid.

    Ambassador Wilson did not report that an Iraqi trade delegation contacted Mayaki seeking raw yellowcake ore.  That was a fabrication attached to the SSCI report by Sen. Roberts & 2 other senators, as an addendum, that none of the other committee members would sign.  Furthermore, Baker & Hamilton make this absolutely clear:

    ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material--activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

    Furthermore, Tenet, the CIA director, & Pres. Bush's spokesperson make absolutely clear that the statement is false, a lie, bogus, etc.

    In his speech, Bush -- citing British intelligence information -- said Iraq was trying to buy uranium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons, in Africa. The White House concedes that information wasn't true.
    Link to CNN

    Once again, very slowly: Ambassador Wilson, the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission), David Kay, George Tenet (CIA Director) & the White House have all stated that any claim that Iraq attempted to obtain yellowcake from Niger is not true.  The 16 words in the State of the Union Address were false, exactly as Joe Wilson stated.

    Boring?? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    Your snarky remarks are both boring and incorrect, but what is new??

    Unlike you, my my  link will take those interestd to an actual redacted committee report. Note that I can find no disclaimer.

    My comments were not about the current status of the "tried to purchase" statment, although I note the Brits have not backed away. But no matter.

    My comment was about what Wilson told the CIA. Let us go to the link and read.

    Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home....

    ...The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002...

    Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales...

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (                    ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective.                      SENTENCE DELETED                      The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    So we now know what the ex-Pm of Nigeria said.

    We also know that the information given to the CIA , in the CIA's view, confirmed the previous story of Iraqi's attempt to purchase.

    Now. The above was in March of 02, and was dissemiated on 3/8/2002.

    Hold that date in your mind. And remember this.

    From that point on Wilson had no access to Classified information, or if he did, it has not been revealed.

    In his NYT article of 7/6/03, we have this. Remember that it is the after the 2003 SOTU speech, around 1/29/03 and about 10 months after his debrief.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

    NYT   Link

    What made him change his mind? Remember. He has had no additional information. Or has he??

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have 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 former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken"
    to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

    Shades of Libby, eh? He can't remember who told him what and may have had his memory jogged...
    And he was leaking information to a newspaper reporter...

    Now remember, the IAEA report came out in 3/2003.

    He didn't have that when he claimed to have gone to the DOS over a month before.

    So. Did he go? And if so, who did he speak with?

    And what was he basing his claim on?

    And why didn't he note that his information to the CIA led them to believe the "attempt" story. After all, that would have been an interesting article, factual and a solid indication of how confusing things were. ANSWER: It was a hit piece. Pure politcis. Plain and simple. It was written to influence, not inform.

    Now I know the above is complex, but if you will print it out and give it to a friend who has completed the middle school grades, they will probably be able to explain it to you.

    Have a nice day.


    Boring. Stupid. Repetitive. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by walt on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:17:17 PM EST
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A line in President Bush's State of the Union address alleging that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa should never have been included in the speech, CIA Director George Tenet said Friday.
    In his speech, Bush -- citing British intelligence information -- said Iraq was trying to buy uranium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons, in Africa. The White House concedes that information wasn't true.
    [my emphasis]

    Not true.
    A lie.
    From the White House. Where Bu$h works. Through his spokesman. "Wasn't true."
    Iraq was not trying to buy uranium.
    Iraq was not seeking uranium in Africa.
    Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger.

    That isn't the point. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:30:51 PM EST
    The point is that we have a litany of questions raised about the activities of Wilson.

    If he had been forth coming about what he told the CIA and what the CIA had determined from that, people could have seen the two views and believed whatever they wanted.

    We could have had a discussion, not an attack and counter attack and perhaps the government could have spent the wasted resources on somethings more productive than a political pissing contest.

    Have a nice day.

    BTW - I still recommendation you get help in reading and underwstanding.


    Reading? Comprehension? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by walt on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 10:17:16 PM EST
    The rightwingnutz talking points are boring, stupid & repetitive.

    These endless reiterations of them are boring, stupid & repetitive.

    Everything about them is false.  Ambassador Wilson was correct & truthful.  All else, the Senate report, the administration denials & the rethuglican talking points are just moronic repeats of proven, provable lies.  There are not 2 views of this.  Wilson is/was accurate; all the rest is nonsense.

    Wilson's op-ed appeared in the NYTimes 6Jul03.
    From Josh Marshall, 7Jul03: Link

    FLEISCHER: We've acknowledged that the information turned out to be bogus involving the report on the yellow cake. That is not new. You can go back. You can look it up. Dr. Rice has said it repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. It's been said from this podium on the record, in several instances. It's been said to many of you in this room, specifically.

    Also, previously in the Fleischer press briefing:

    FLEISCHER: Well, there is zero, nada, nothing new here. Ambassador Wilson, other than the fact that now people know his name, has said all this before. But the fact of the matter is in his statements about the Vice President -- the Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger. The Vice President's office was not informed of his mission and he was not aware of Mr. Wilson's mission until recent press accounts -- press reports accounted for it.

    Now to end this stupid, repetitive, boring discussion, testimony from FBI agent Deborah Bond at the Libby trial is conclusive.  [And, so far ignored by all commenters!!!]
    Zeidenberg is questioning & projects on screen some notes by Libby, both written & keystroked--following from live blog at Firedoglake (documents available elsewhere in PDF):

    Z Had you acquired Libby's notes by this time. Did you discuss note he referred to and showed you.

    New exhibit. This also is marked "Treat as TS/SCI."

    DB [reading it] 6/12/03 with line over top. T=telephone, y=VP, regarding uranium and, Q means Iraq. Kristof, NYT. [Note, 12 is darker, as if written over]

    DB next bullet point. Took place at our behest, functional office, CP, counterproliferation. Libby told us.  Just below CP, His wife works in that dvision. Was referring to Joe Wilson's wife. Debriefing took place here and was meeting in region.

    Z below that, 4 and then 1, 2, 3

    DB 1 didn't know about mission, 2 didn't get report, 3 didn't have any indication of forgery was from iAEA. 4, OVP Defense and State expressed strong interest in issue. Arrow pointing to 4, VP: agency to say that.

    Libby's notes clearly indicate that Wilson's trip "Took place at our behest, functional office, CP, counterproliferation."  But the next note develops the talking points sent out, especially to Fleischer: "1 didn't know about mission, 2 didn't get report, 3 didn't have any indication of forgery was from iAEA." Etc.

    Each talking point is a lie & a contradiction of previous data in the exhibits.  And each talking point is repeated, stupidly, even to this day by people who not only cannot read, but cannot even find WHAT to read.

    Former CIA officer Grenier in testimony, as per Firedoglake 24Jan07 live blog, describing a conversation with Libby on 11Jun03:

    Told him that it was true, CIA had sent Wilson.

    How much else I said I don't recall. I may have mentioned debrief was written up.

    Second major point I made the people had verified that not only OVP, but also requests as well from State and Defense.

    What was his response to hearing that State and Defense had also been interested.

    Asked if CIA would be willing to release that publicly.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    So, everything at the Libby trial, under oath & usually corroborated by documents or another witness absolutely contradicts the wingnutz talking points.  It also validates Ambassador Wilson.  In Libby's handwriting & Grenier's statements:  the office of the vice-president did request that someone be sent, there was a report (debriefing) & the talking points are complete contradictions of the actual facts.  Libby trial exhibits here.

    It is amazing that there are still people posting drivel about Ambassador Wilson & his statements.  Such folks simple-mindedly repeat the stupid and endlessly boring falsehoods of I. Lewis Libby, Karl Rove & Ari Fleischer.


    liked it better in the original german (2.00 / 1) (#6)
    by the rainnn on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:06:55 PM EST
    i run hot and cold on
    bill maher, but he got
    this one absolutely right. . .

    so much so, in fact,
    that i posted the whole clip,
    courtesy of youtube,
    right here. . .

    do go watch it.  it is
    even more funny, and truly
    poinant, when heard in his
    own voice, than just read
    as mostly-lifeless text. . .

    [small disclosure:

    firedoglake also had a
    feed of the maher clip,
    over the weekend, as
    did i, shortly after
    it appeared on youtube.]


    Fair and balanced (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    Maher only gets to those who are willing to pay for him. Faux speaks to the masses. 24 hours a day. 7 days a week.

    Fair and Balanced...... (none / 0) (#5)
    by wlgriffi on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    Delusion. LOL!!! And I thought only George W. Bush was delusional.

    BTD You're wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    Because Valerie Plame was married to this guy, Joe Wilson, who the Bush people hated because he busted them on one of their [BS] reasons for invading Iraq.

    Nope. Not even close.

    Wilson went to Niger to determine if Iraq had purchased yellowcake, or had tried to purchase yellowcake.

    He told the CIA in his debrief that Iraq had not purchased, but Niger believed that they had tried to purchase. The latter, of course, supported Bush's statement based on the information obtained from the Brits.

    He wrote about the "no purchase" in his NYT article of 7/6/03.

    He did not mention the attempt to purchase. That was, at best, disingenuous.

    He claims to have gone to the DOS the day after Bush's '03 SOTU and said it was not accurate. To my knowledge this has not been independently verified.

    How he knew it was questionable is not known since the IAEA report was not then available and the information he gave the CIA said the opposite. This was pointed out by the CIA and he had no reason to have seen any classified information regarding this matter. Regarding the same claim, which he made in June '03 to a WaPost reporter he claimed confusion to the CIA.

    So if he did go, when and where did he obtain what was classified information??

    We now know how he was dispatched to Niger. His wife has claimed that an underling just happened to drop by and was discussing the VP's request with her when a third party just happened to wander by overhear the conversation and suggested she send her husband.

    If we are to believe this we have a situation in which classified information is being discussed in an open area in front of a third party that has "no need to know." This, at best, appears to be very poor tradecraft, and possibly a violation of procedures.

    The identity of the underling and the "wanderer" is not known. I think there is also a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

    Part of maintaining a cover story is to not attract attention. I find it astonishing that a covert agent would agree to let her husband write an article for the NYT that would certainly do just that. Plainer. That is like playing in middle of I10 at 5PM.

    Whether she met the requirements of being covert has not been independently verified.

    The SP knew that a third party had confessed three months before he had come on board. Yet he continued, evidently looking for multiple criminals. None were found.

    I wonder if the DOJ and DOS advised the FBI immedately upon being told by Armitage??

    All in this whole thing is strange, very strange. To me it appears to be politics all the way around.

    I have posted links for the above time and again. I will be happy to do so again should you dispute my claims.

    "Novak blew the whistle" (none / 0) (#12)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:39:57 PM EST
    If Novak blew the whistle, then why wasn't Armitage charged with any crime?  

    Trolling (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:21:57 PM EST
    At this point that question can only be considered trolling at worst and disingenuous at best.

    Shall I remind you of your standards?? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    Yes, I shall.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:02:14 AM EST
    and a boring ly repetitive personal attack from a commenter who has called for the deaths of American political leaders.

    Armitage hasn't been charged (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:56:14 PM EST

    trolling (none / 0) (#20)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    Accusations of trolling are ad hominem attacks which substitute for weak arguments.  If Plame were indeed a patriotic covert agent, as this thread states, then someone should have been charged with outing her, and who more than Armitage?

    Libby trial! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by walt on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    Armitage was not charged for a couple of reasons according to the FBI & the Libby defense team, as testifed at the Libby trial.  1) Armitage went to all of the right people at State, the FBI & the Justice Dept. immediately after Novak's column & 2) he established for them that he did not know that Plame's name, employer & job assignments were "classified."

    The quotation at the trial was (paraphrased)<<in 28 years, I'd never seen a CIA officer's name embedded in a classified document.>>

    He did it & said he did it.  But prosecution under the IIPA requires that the person acts "knowingly."


    Hard (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 11:08:00 PM EST
    Not to make ad hominim attacks when you present no content, but only repetitive stupidity.  We get it that you are plugged into the echo chamber from wingnuttia.