Liar, Liar, Skirt On Fire?
Byron York reports that Questions Have Been Raised about Ms. Plame's recent testimony at the friendly Waxman hearing:
...[Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia] wants to know more. In a letter to committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman Friday, he submitted more questions for Mrs. Wilson and requested that Waxman ask the Senate Intelligence Committee for information that could shed light on issues left unresolved after her testimony.
As part of its investigation into pre-war intelligence, the Senate committee interviewed Mrs. Wilson, as well as some of her colleagues at the CIA. The committee also reviewed CIA documents about the Niger uranium affair. In his letter, Westmoreland asked Waxman to ask the Senate committee for the full text of Mrs. Wilson’s interview with Senate investigators. Westmoreland also asked for the “full text of Ms. Plame’s February 12, 2002 email/memo to her boss regarding sending her husband, Joseph Wilson, to Niger.”
Westmoreland is attempting to learn more about the origin of Joseph Wilson’s trip — a question that was perhaps less clear after Valerie Plame Wilson’s testimony than before.
...[Ms. Plame's] testimony seemed to offer new insight into the beginnings of the Niger mission. But soon after Mrs. Wilson’s appearance, Missouri Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told National Review Online that Mrs. Wilson, in her interview with Senate investigators, never mentioned the young junior officer, the call from the vice president’s office, or the passing CIA official who suggested Joseph Wilson’s name.
“Friday [March 16] was the first time we have ever heard that story,” Sen. Bond said in a statement. “Obviously if we had, we would have included it in the report. If Ms. Wilson’s memory of events has improved and she would now like to change her testimony, I’m sure the committee staff would be happy to re-interview her.”
Someone is pushing this because I see a similar story in The Examiner, which we will cautiously describe as a rightward leaning news outlet.
Well, Ms. Plame's memory has improved since Sen. Bond spoke on the floor of the Senate in July 2004, following the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report which was so critical of Joe Wilson (p. 3 of 5 page .pdf):
I had staff go back and see what she said when asked about this issue [of her role in Joe's trip]. Her quote was:
“I honestly do not recall if I suggested it to my boss....”
But now she remembers Walking By Guy and is sure of her non-role. Why do the rest of us fear aging when clearly memory improves with time?
Let me recycle this post from the day of the hearing when I noted that Ms. Plame's claim of non-involvement conflict with the trial testimony of senior CIA officer Robert Grenier, as well as point 7 of Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby (which was based on Grenier's grand jury testimony).
So what happens next? From Mr. York:
The question now is whether chairman Waxman will be inclined to do anything about Westmoreland’s request. Other than place it into the official record of the hearing, he doesn’t have to do anything.
Ms. Plame has nothing to worry about - If Waxman stands with her, who will stand against her? I noted last week the benefits to her of testifying before a madly sympathetic chairman who would never vex her with allegations of perjury.
My guess - this topic essentially dies for now, but chess-playing Republicans will cite Waxman's blatant and selective truth-seeking as a reason to obstruct other probes. So in that sense, Joe and Val will continue to diminish their supporters amongst the Democrats.
ERRATA: Please - the post has the Matt Cooper Tribute Question Mark - no one is calling Ms. Plame a liar.
Byron York also had an earlier article reprising the issue of Ms. Plame's covert status, which we are now calling her "covertiness". And I endorse the suggestion that in further tribute to Stephen Colbert, when describing Ms. Plame as a "covert" agent we should pronounce that "coh-vair"?
And we are thinking Patrick Sullivan for the Bond floor statement from 2004; a paragraph was inserted to include that.

"So in that sense, Joe and Val will continue to diminish their supporters amongst the Democrats."
As well they should for their venality
and disrespect for the truly* truthful.
(as per RWR's response to poverty-level
americans "Yes, they are needy, but are they
TRULY needy")
Posted by: Semanticleo | March 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
From Kit Bond on the floor of the Senate, July 20, 2004:
----------quote----------
Ambassador Wilson angrily said [to Time magazine] his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa.
....What did she say? Did she deny it? Six months after she heard her husband angrily denying it and knowing what he had been saying for months and what he wrote in his book, I had staff go back and see what she said when asked about this issue. Her quote was:
'I honestly do not recall if I suggested it to my boss...'
That is what she said. That is from the transcript. Frankly, I think that is very telling. She doesn't recall if she suggested it to her boss after 6 months, and her husband has been out there saying she had nothing to do with it. Are you kidding? Just who is the Ambassador's source for all of his denials?
--------endquote-------
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 26, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Speaking of being vexed, I am (from York's article):
What, did the Valerie Plame Wilson Speaking Covertiness to Power World Tour surprise Mr. Westmoreland? I mean, you know, it just kinda came outta nowhere with so little warning or fanfare...
Posted by: hit and run | March 26, 2007 at 01:13 PM
OT: Remember Speaker Pelosi's pledge to bring all matters to the floor of the House for votes?
NY Times story about wartime slavery by the Japanese. The US House is considering a non-binding resolution to force the Japanese to apologize.
When will the House debate the Armenian Holocaust?
The Turkish and Japanese lobbies are going to be active for rest of this Congress.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 26, 2007 at 01:16 PM
"...no one is calling Ms. Plame a liar." The Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky going to tell the king story made my bullshit meter go up in smoke. Apparently, Sen Bond is interested whether she wants to change her testimony. Ah, hell with it, I'll just call her a liar.
Posted by: Larry | March 26, 2007 at 01:22 PM
At this point hope does not spring eternal.
Posted by: Jane | March 26, 2007 at 01:22 PM
From Patrick Sullivan:
Frankly, I think that is very telling...
Well, it tells me (yet again) why the commenters here kick the rear area of the commenters elsewhere.
Byron York really ought to have that Kit Bond statement in his article, and I will be updating my post forthwith. Thanks very much.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | March 26, 2007 at 01:24 PM
You must realize that Plame is today, just as covert as she was when the Novak article was published. She can't tell the truth. People will die!
Posted by: Lew Clark | March 26, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Posted by: Jane | March 26, 2007 at 01:22 PM
::waving::
Posted by: hit and run | March 26, 2007 at 01:41 PM
Hey H&R - I missed you!
Posted by: Jane | March 26, 2007 at 01:48 PM
Too little too late
Show up or dont show up
The GOP did not show up. Westmoreland was "unprepared"? Davis was "uninterested"?
Pathetic.
Posted by: TMF | March 26, 2007 at 02:00 PM
Which coven did Val belong to?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 26, 2007 at 02:27 PM
The GOP congress is running away from the media. They don't want derogatory columns in the press and on tv about their trashing poor little Valerie. After all, too much bad press might make other GOP congressmen and senators demand their resignation. These wimps won't fight back.
Posted by: BarbaraS | March 26, 2007 at 02:28 PM
I had a coh-vair pickup truck when I was a teenager.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 26, 2007 at 02:47 PM
(as per RWR's response to poverty-level
americans "Yes, they are needy, but are they
TRULY needy")
Considering that obesity is a major problem among our "needy", that might well be asked.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 26, 2007 at 02:49 PM
Oh, by the way, Leo, your spurious additional line feeds give away that you're cut and pasting these things from another source.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 26, 2007 at 02:50 PM
"the Matt Cooper Tribute Question Mark" That is great!
I agree with Hit and Run. Would it have killed this guy to read up, and prepare, you know, like BEFORE THE #$%$%! HEARING?
Sheesh. I think I need a drink.
Posted by: Patrick | March 26, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Patrick:
I agree with Hit and Run.
...
Sheesh. I think I need a drink.
I agree with Patrick.
Posted by: hit and run | March 26, 2007 at 02:53 PM
I agree with Patrick, and H&R, and TMF.
Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 26, 2007 at 02:58 PM
What exactly is the question mark for? Either she lied under oath or Grenier did. (Though what he said was second hand.)
But it's not just what the Examiner writes: She denied recommending her husband, as Republicans have reported in their attempt to show why Bush officials discussed her occupation.
It doesn't matter what Republican reported what mattered is what Grenier testified.
Posted by: soccer dad | March 26, 2007 at 03:02 PM
'The GOP congress is running away from the media. They don't want derogatory columns in the press and on tv about their trashing poor little Valerie.'
AKA; Anita Hill Perjury Avoidance Syndrome. Ask Arlen Spector what the symptoms are.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 26, 2007 at 03:14 PM
'What exactly is the question mark for? Either she lied under oath or Grenier did.'
They both have Recovered Memories.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 26, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Posted by: cathyf | March 26, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Sampson to take the 5th at senate hearing. Interesting.
Posted by: sferris | March 26, 2007 at 03:50 PM
OOps. DOJ official and lianson to the White House, Monica Goodling, is the one going to take the 5th at upcoming congressional hearing.
Posted by: sferris | March 26, 2007 at 03:59 PM
Huh? Newsmax running a blurb: Did Clinton aide Tutor Valerie Plame?
The Clinton's are connected to this - how interesting.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 26, 2007 at 04:04 PM
"March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Monica Goodling, a counsel to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who helped coordinate the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, will invoke her constitutional right not to answer Senate questions about the firings, her lawyer said."
"``The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous; more accurately the environment can be described as legally perilous for Ms. Goodling,'' Dowd said in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the panel. Dowd cited statements by senators accusing the Justice Department of misleading Congress."
Posted by: sferris | March 26, 2007 at 04:04 PM
****Her Constitutional Right****
In case you missed that.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 26, 2007 at 04:08 PM
On that Clinton "tutoring" and a auction for lunch to boot!
here
Posted by: Jack Moss | March 26, 2007 at 04:26 PM
This is really a hilarious idea - pay pal for Steyn and TM!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 26, 2007 at 04:34 PM
Ahhhhaaaaa! Plame meets with Blumenthal at a dinner with the Clintons before her congressional testimony......
You know, everyone was wondering about Joe angling for Sec of State in a Kerry administration.
Well, those hopes were dashed.
BUT!!!
Valerie Plame Wilson as CIA Director in a Hillary administration!
Posted by: hit and run | March 26, 2007 at 04:35 PM
Interesting how the Wilson/Plame I was for WMD in Iraq before I was against it - so eerily resembles Billary's -
Posted by: Enlightened | March 26, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Tops:
This is really a hilarious idea - pay pal for Steyn and TM!
Who gets the proceeds? I won't contribute if it enriches the Wilsons. Unless Tom tells me to.
Posted by: hit and run | March 26, 2007 at 04:45 PM
Apparently a Mr Kim Il Hit Man and a abu Hedhaqr al Tikriti have bought tickets,so it won't be a complete wipe.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 26, 2007 at 04:58 PM
LIFETIME Series on Outed CIA Agent Plames Out...
Who knew it was ever even in?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | March 26, 2007 at 05:08 PM
"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.
Unintended consequences of going after Libby. No one will talk again. And I, for one, don't blame them.
Posted by: Sue | March 26, 2007 at 05:19 PM
I linked AJ's comment on Goodling on the other thread:
What
The Plame Game Has Wrought
Posted by: azaghal | March 26, 2007 at 05:24 PM
sferris left out Goodling's lawyer's comments:
Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.
“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.
He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.
Posted by: azaghal | March 26, 2007 at 05:25 PM
Yeah, I should have bolded:
“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.
He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.
Libby lesson learned.
Posted by: azaghal | March 26, 2007 at 05:29 PM
This whole story will go away if all Justice employees take the Fifth and the White House employees proceed as planned. There are more important issues to deal with, like a war. Everyone said the Democrats would devote their time to investigations. Just ignore them.
Posted by: Davis | March 26, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Harris was unavailable to comment, but according to sources at Lifetime and Fox Television Studios, which was slated to produce the series, the show never got beyond the script stage.
Apparently, it never got beyond a partial script, and, according to a Fox source, the studio was unaware of the Plame connection.
No partisan funny business is suspected, of course. But we’re certain Karl Rove had something to do with it.
Who knew, really? The odd cryptic commenter left many comments alluding to a Lifetime movie - how weird is that?
(I'll see if I can find one)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 26, 2007 at 05:31 PM
Linky thing I left off
Posted by: Sue | March 26, 2007 at 05:32 PM
Gosh I thought it was a good thing to exercise your constitutional rights? What Republicans dont get any rights?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | March 26, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from metro Atlanta -- seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. "If I seem a little nervous," he began, "I've never questioned a spy before."
Hmmmm, maybe we should see a few reports from "other" news organizations before throwing a party. As of today, everything is coming from the far right.
Posted by: Dalton | March 26, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Why does Goodling have to take the 5th??
Anybody want to take a wild guess?
Posted by: Dalton | March 26, 2007 at 05:53 PM
OK gosh its a wild guess and only after totally discounted everything her legal counsel said UHH, ummmm well could it be she fears another perjury trap?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | March 26, 2007 at 05:57 PM
'Libby lesson learned.'
And The Martha too. Don't forget the other legacy of the SDNY prosecutors.
Just say 'no', to federal investigators.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | March 26, 2007 at 05:58 PM
It's pretty damned obvious that "walking by guy" and "upset underling" would have been asked to give testimony to the SSCI if someone hadn't thrown sand in the committee's eyes.
Posted by: MikeS | March 26, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Gary,
"Perjury traps" as you call them...only turn into "convictions" if one is lying.
What is it she doesn't want to say...under oath?
And why don't YOU care???
Posted by: Dalton | March 26, 2007 at 06:04 PM
"Why does Goodling have to take the 5th??
Anybody want to take a wild guess?"
Same reason you swap your cat for a dog if you are interviewed by the Witch Finder General.....and hey,take scuba gear if they throw you in the pond.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 26, 2007 at 06:05 PM