"Fair Game" By Valerie Plame - Based On A True Story
I am paging through Valerie Plame's bio, which hit the bookstores today. Time does not permit a full assessment, but a few points have caught my eye so far:
1. Was Valerie at the fateful breakfast in May 2003 when Joe discussed his classified trip with Nick Kristof? Don't ask, and she won't tell.
2. Was Joe working for the Kerry campaign in the summer of 2003 when he penned his NY Times op-ed? The Boston Globe said so, and Joe admitted as much on NBC News, but that factoid eluded Ms. Plame and her publisher.
3. Didn't the State Dept. and the Pentagon chime in asking for the CIA stance on the Feb 12 2002 Pentagon report that caught Cheney's eye and eventually led to a fateful phone call to Ms. Plame's unit of the CIA? Weren't the wheels set in motion for the Wilson trip even before Cheney was briefed on the new DIA report on Niger and yellowcake? Again, don't ask - in Ms. Plame's telling, the only interest in Niger and yellowcake was coming from the Vice President's office, and she is standing by her "Walking-By Guy" story - some underling nominated Joe to her as a candidate for the Niger trip, she and the underling then suggested Joe to her boss, and therefore she was not involved in suggesting Joe. I have no doubt that explanation will work for her audience.
4. Trouble In Paradise - apparently, Valerie forgot to mention to Old Joe that she had written a memo promoting him for the trip; when the Senate Intel report panned Wilson in July 2004 he was furious and felt (somewhat understandably) that the memo undercut his claim that his wife had no involvement in his Niger trip. Oops!
The skimming continues! Among other trivia points I very much want to see how she explains her leave of absence in June 2004, and I can't wait to learn whether Joe, never affiliated with the Kerry campaign in her telling, somehow becomes unaffiliated.

Looks like TM got a remaindered copy early.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 02:23 PM
Hmm, somehow I think "OJ: How I woulda done it" is a more truthful book than anything written by the wonder twins of duplicity, Valerie and Joe.
Posted by: Matthew Crandall | October 22, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 02:31 PM
It still bugs me when Joe and Val ignore Armitage. There is a reason they do that, but other than keeping the story on Cheney/Rove/Libby, I can't figure it out. Was he the man they sent to start it all?
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 02:33 PM
The problem with lying is people forget not only what lies they told but also what lies their allies told that they are supposed to support. This sounds like the case. She doesn't sound too terribly smart. The question is was she a bimbo because she was CIA or was she CIA because she was a bimbo?
Posted by: BarbaraS | October 22, 2007 at 02:45 PM
NYT's Blog not all that impressed.
this is pretty funny:
Well DUH!
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 02:59 PM
Isn't there some kind of copyright infringement with the title of her book?
Fair Game The movie.
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 03:10 PM
Here's a question Couric missed:
"Was your counter-proliferation unit involved with the coordination of the 2002 Iraq NIE and if so, did you, as chief of your unit, note any of your concerns about its analytical assessments prior to its final publication?"
Posted by: MaidMarion | October 22, 2007 at 03:25 PM
1. Was Valerie at the fateful breakfast in May 2003 when Joe discussed his classified trip with Nick Kristof? Don't ask, and she won't tell.
This is a good point because I believe at the Congressional hearing earlier this year she did admit she was present and didn't see anything wrong with it. One would think she'd take the opportunity in her book to explain why dining with journos while husband discusses classified was accepted CIA protocol.(tongue in check)
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 03:27 PM
How dirty did the tricks get? Ms. Wilson describes being denied protection by the C.I.A., fearing for her children’s safety, finding out that her tax returns were being audited and having been lucky enough to discover that some bolts holding the Wilsons’ outdoor deck, high above the ground, had disappeared.
Sheesh
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 03:28 PM
I seriously give up. My post at 3:28 is a quote from the NYT's review of her book.
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Why would the CIA deny her protection if she was unfairly "outed"?
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Speaking of bolts, I thought they were bolting to East Africa not long before they decamped to New Mexico. Now it comes out that it was New Zealand they were looking at. Well, there is a poorly protected border for him, still.
=================================
Posted by: kim | October 22, 2007 at 03:39 PM
1. Was Valerie at the fateful breakfast in May 2003 when Joe discussed his classified trip with Nick Kristof? Don't ask, and she won't tell.
Hearing Transcript - YARGB
Plames book may make me think I am reading Pravda!
4. Trouble In Paradise - apparently, Valerie forgot to mention to Old Joe that she had written a memo promoting him for the trip; when the Senate Intel report panned Wilson in July 2004 he was furious and felt (somewhat understandably) that the memo undercut his claim that his wife had no involvement in his Niger trip.
and from the TM wayback machine on Plames hearing
She is a strange bird.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 03:41 PM
"Why would the CIA deny her protection if she was unfairly "outed"?"
Alien abduction was the only identifiable threat involved, according to the CIA risk analysis. They sent her a case of Reynolds Wrap, what more does she want?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 22, 2007 at 03:42 PM
Sue -- the tax business? Sounds like Plame was a subject of a counter-intelligence investigation if you ask me, and the whole episode - outing ect. etc. - was to create a big giant cloud to get out that.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 03:44 PM
Rick,
::grin:: I was thinking if they didn't provide her protection they weren't too concerned with the outing, which is how they treated it until Tenet got involved. Payback by Tenet against Cheney? That is my guess.
Top,
I can't imagine what those 2 were up to. With their connections to Scary and others of his ilk, anything is possible.
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 03:47 PM
Tops,
$100 says no "audit" was involved. The IRS is getting better and better at sending NHI dunning letters claiming taxes due for simple errors. If you want to avoid them - do your taxes in crayon. At least an actual human being will read them.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 22, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Maybe the IRS wanted to see if Mr. Wilson claimed those expenses to Niger that the CIA supposedly reimbursed him for.
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 03:59 PM
"She is a strange bird"
....and a liar--but that doesn't seem to mean anything any longer.
Posted by: glasater | October 22, 2007 at 04:01 PM
I believe Joe tried to cozy up to Richardson, but ended up signing up with Hillary. Surely there must be someone from the Kerry campaign around, to remember the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That was one honorable thing Kerry did; of course I believe he was so prescient because he'd been at the early May Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting of much interest and secrecy.
If the 'Bush Lied, People Died' meme weren't both so necessary and so powerful, the Joe and Val Show would have gone poof years ago. But the meme is false, the Iraqi War was just and is now nearly won. Surely these two will get their comeuppance.
============================
Posted by: kim | October 22, 2007 at 04:04 PM
We use the term 'strange' because despite all we know, and the perspicacity of the viewers, we still don't know much about what she or he did, and what motivated them.
I'm still expecting her to leave him and run off with Larry.
=======================
Posted by: kim | October 22, 2007 at 04:06 PM
A genuine laugh out loud! However, I have expected Joe to leave her and run off with Larry.
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 04:09 PM
"My husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
Why wasn't "Counterproliferation Woman" able to do this? After all she had that huge network of agents at her beck and call.
Perhaps the book should stare,"Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.Once upon a time there was a beautiful young blonde princess who was the last bastion of Western civilisation..."
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 04:27 PM
So she is going with version 2.0 of walking by guy? The upset colleague in the office after the mysterious person from the VP office called brings the attention of walking by guy?
Or did she go with version 1.0, where only walking by guy exists?
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 04:51 PM
ps. At Firedoglake, it was Sidney Blumenthal that introduced the Wilsons to the book salon today.
Mrs. Wilson also mentions that they hosted Marcy, Jane, et al at their house for dinner during the trial.
I wish Jerry was here, so we could talk about independence of bloggers again.
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 04:54 PM
Tom, Tom, Tom:
Enough with Plame!
I want to know what you think of this "Albus is gay" business.
Posted by: Sligobob | October 22, 2007 at 04:57 PM
So, what's the best color crayon to use when doing your return?
Posted by: PMII | October 22, 2007 at 05:08 PM
Anyone:
A matter of curiosity. Are there any interesting nuggets in the Plame book at all? Everything I see suggests a production remarkably free of content, except the book continues the unfortunate tren of the hearings of making the woman sound like an utter dim bulb.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | October 22, 2007 at 05:33 PM
AM-
I haven't read the book and I certainly won't pay for it. I know the WaPo said it was obviously not ghost written, and suffered from that.
Tom Maguire-
Jeff was gamely asking Valerie questions like this at FDL:
But she didn't answer that or any of his (somewhat challenging) questions.
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 05:45 PM
And speaking of Plame, it seems my rather pathatic attempt at live blogging the 60 Minutes piece wasn't necessary. CBS has a transcript up
Posted by: RichatUF | October 22, 2007 at 06:11 PM
"Just to be precise, Fitzgerald determined you were a “covert agent” according to the IIPA, meaning you had done covert work overseas in the five years prior to having your cover blown by the Bush administration."
It is my understanding that Mr Fitzgerald did no such thing,nor did he charge anyone with a violation of the IIPA.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 06:12 PM
...At Firedoglake, it was Sidney Blumenthal that introduced the Wilsons to the book salon today...
I suppose that is what one gets when you drag a hundred dollar bill around Chinatown.
Why am I not surprised that Sid Vicious is stalking the edges of this...
Posted by: RichatUF | October 22, 2007 at 06:23 PM
She said this at FDL -
"And I did sit in one meeting - timeframe unclear to me - with Mr. Libby. I was just a “backbencher” though, with no speaking role. How ironic, huh?"
---
Time frame unlcear?
Come ON! Miss brilliant can't pinpoint a meeting?
But Scooter Libby is supposed to remember every second of every waking day years ago?
This get even more stupid by the minute.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 06:26 PM
Sid was circling Isikoff and Hamsher at the trial.
Posted by: clarice | October 22, 2007 at 06:33 PM
Apologies for cross-posting -- but I am putting the below in this thread for futre reference... and because it fits here any way.
Would love to stay and chat, but must hit and run, if you will...
Jane and Elliott, thanks for the debate liveblogging in the other thread...you are my hero and my heroin.
Wait, is there supposed to be an 'e' on that last word?
Nah...
Posted by: hit and run | October 22, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Katie showed a little of the trademark spunk at times:
Not if he possessed classified info, he wasn't.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | October 22, 2007 at 06:54 PM
"It's called living your cover. This had nothing to do with what I was doing," Plame Wilson says"
"Living Your Cover", the Hit Song from the New Musical "OUT!!"
This is going to leave,"Paint Your Wagon and "Climb Every Mountain" in the shade.
There is a come back for Britney in this.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 07:04 PM
How is "living your cover" an answer to whether Joe Wilson outing himself as a CIA-affiliated person working in nuclear weapons and married to Valerie Plame Wilson seemed potentiallly career-threatening.
It seems to me "living your cover" would be Bob Novak calling and asking if Val worked for the CIA, and Joe saying "NO".
These two....
PUK- I believe Jeff was referring to information Fitzgerald filed in the sentencing phase, in which he mentions Plame being covered by the IIPA.
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 07:06 PM
Maybe Katie should have Chris Matthews job, she's more of a man than he, here:
And with this too:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | October 22, 2007 at 07:06 PM
Featuring the Smash Hit Love Song.
"Once I Was a Covert Spy"
"Once I was a covert spy
Who lived her cover totally
All too soon my secret self
Became impatient to be free.
So I told a diplomat
The way that schemers often do
Just how wonderful I am
And why I am so in love with me.
Now I shout it from the highest hills
Because even we have got to pay the bills
At last my heart's an open door
And my covertness's no secret anymore.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 07:16 PM
"Listen, he had information that was firsthand information that was in stark contrast to the lie, the 16 words that appeared in the president's State of the Union address. He wasn't supposed to say anything?" Plame Wilson replies.
un-beliable.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 07:19 PM
"PUK- I believe Jeff was referring to information Fitzgerald filed in the sentencing phase, in which he mentions Plame being covered by the IIPA."
Fitzgerald was often very lax with terminological inexactitudes.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 07:20 PM
At Firedoglake, Valerie also did not answer Jeff's questions about the timing of the call from the OVP to the distraught underling.
You know, I really would love to see Jeff get a chance to interview the Wilsons. He would do a decent job of it.
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 07:42 PM
clarice-
Sid was circling Isikoff and Hamsher at the trial...
I re-remember it like it was yesterday. Sid does have vulture like tendencies
Posted by: RichatUF | October 22, 2007 at 07:44 PM
I remember that too, clarice.
Apparently, all that hanging around Hamsher hasn't helped Blumenthal get the facts straight. Here's what he posted at FDL:
what a clown
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Patrick R. Sullivan-
from the 60 Minutes Transcript...
I link you decide.
Ridiculous. I'm still stunned by this story.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 22, 2007 at 08:00 PM
Maybee
anyone who needs a "What a clown Blumathal is" refresher course, look here:
The only thing I DON'T beleive about this passage is Blumenthal really was unaware Bill was a known horn dog as Bill was WANTING to "level" - but leave it to Blumenthal- Lewinsky slimer extroidinaire - to urge Bill to lie
http://www.slate.com/id/2176094/
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 08:08 PM
"Sid was circling Isikoff and Hamsher at the trial...
I re-remember it like it was yesterday. Sid does have vulture like tendencies"
More like a blow fly.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 08:09 PM
If it's true, as some say, that Larry is a repressed homosexual, then I doubt she'll be running off with him.
Posted by: Other Tom | October 22, 2007 at 08:16 PM
Major off-topic here, but with the fires swirling around I gotta seek some guidance concerning the Malibu fire: Is it morally OK to pray that the fire spares the entire Malibu Colony except for one house, Barbra Streisand's, and that that one house be turned into a smoking, putrid charnel-house? Please lemme know your thoughts before the prayer sessions begin.
Posted by: Other Tom | October 22, 2007 at 08:19 PM
"what a clown" is right..and his son at Media Matters is a chip off the paranoid propagandist's old block.
OT, My pocket prayer book says,"If you do that, she'll do what she did when she couldn't unload her old Malibu estate--donate it to charity at an inflated valuation."
Posted by: clarice | October 22, 2007 at 08:32 PM
Other Tom,
How dare you say Larry is repressed!
Posted by: PeterUK | October 22, 2007 at 08:34 PM
OtherTom-
Is it morally OK to pray that the fire spares the entire Malibu Colony except for one house, Barbra Streisand's, and that that one house be turned into a smoking, putrid charnel-house? Please lemme know your thoughts before the prayer sessions begin
Tempting but no. Seeing your house burn down is about one of the most heartbreaking things one can go through. Pray for all of Malibu-even Ms. Streisand.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 22, 2007 at 08:36 PM
I peeked over at FDL and skimmed the write up and ran across this gem...
After her outing, Plame enters a bewildering world. The spymaster becomes the prey. Her government degrades the valued agent. The lies come so fast they are impossible to rebut. Detailed explanations exploding the falsehoods are ignored by a complicit press.
Didn't plow into the comments yet. Maybe I'll just breakdown and get the book tomorrow-why should Tom have all the fun?
Posted by: RichatUF | October 22, 2007 at 08:42 PM
We don't want her precious Stickley furniture to burn up.
Posted by: Ralph L | October 22, 2007 at 08:43 PM
Yeah, it's okay OT.
Posted by: Jane | October 22, 2007 at 09:13 PM
About the Vanity Fair shoot: Does Valerie mean her boss reacted poorly? She must mean her boss reacted properly, and her actions were poorly received.
Tops, she is fooling herself if she thinks she is unrecognizable in that picture.
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 09:20 PM
OT-
It is ok to wish for that, but not pray for it.
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 09:25 PM
@RichatUF:
Thanx for the Nicole Kidman photo links.
Oh... wait...
Posted by: DubiousD | October 22, 2007 at 09:34 PM
Here is a nugget from the fdl comment thread by VPW:
Posted by: RichatUF | October 22, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Nothing new on Hannity and Colmes. Just a replay of Hannity's piece and an interview with Robert Novak.
Posted by: Elliott | October 22, 2007 at 09:43 PM
Of course, Larry King is swallowing the Plame line hook line and sinker; buying
the denial that she had nothing to do with
sending her husband to Niger. Colmes is of
course buying the 'media spin' on the HLF
verdict. This of a contrast with the Libby
case; where despite the fact that the jury
sympathized with Libby; they had to find find him guilty of something. Then again;
Libby can't hunt you down and kill your family like Hamas, ICASP and the HLF. On a more serious note. Rowling seems be taking on the coloration of Rita Skeeter the tabloid reporter (played by EmmaThompson in the films)who savages Dumbledore's reputation in the last book.
Posted by: narciso | October 22, 2007 at 09:53 PM
Colmes is of
course buying the 'media spin' on the HLF
verdict.
Which is odd, because it's -a walk on water Fitzgerald- loss.
The Italian Papers (at least I think that’s the title)
The "I'm Partially stupid" bit is nauseating." I wholeheartedly enodrse the "thorough" book, but I just don't know what it's titled!" Uh huh.
"The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq"
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
The "I'm Partially stupid" bit is nauseating.
Agreed. It was interesting the way she slipped the Mossad in there as a possible source, but golly she just doesn't know anything. Joe is one that has said this war is for the Lukid party (the WaPo chat).
Posted by: MayBee | October 22, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I wonder if Val and Joe sit around and laugh at the people who are posting at the swamp? The fawning over them and their lies is nauseating.
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Valerie Plame is a poster girl for all that's wrong with the CIA - too many liberals who put the interests of their party above the interests of their country.
Posted by: Terry Gain | October 22, 2007 at 11:19 PM
On a positive note... It looks like Gen. Hayden is moving to shut down the leak machine in the (former work place of she of the initials MOM).
Posted by: Ranger | October 22, 2007 at 11:21 PM
I see Jeff is still pounding his points that were never clear to him. Like why Armitage was never charged. Uh, possibly because she wasn't covert!
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 11:29 PM
OK. Re Streisand, I'm wishing but not praying.
So we go up to the Brigantine, across the street from the Hotel del Coronado, for a couple of rammers and a salad, and the place is jammed with evacuees. I don't know if the hotel has space for them, and if not we're wondering where they'll sleep--and of course they're wondering if they'll have houses to go back to.
I'm informed that in L.A. the Four Seasons and the Beverly Wilshire are overloaded with them. Weird variant on the Grapes of Wrath.
Best I can tell from our vantage point is that the next 24 hours are going to be very ugly.
And I've decided that the best defense re Val and Joe is to let them fade into oblivion. There's nothing for them to kick anymore, and both are radioactive for jobs in Hillary's admin. Comical footnotes to history.
Posted by: Other Tom | October 22, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Mr. Libby should give the 'thinly veiled fiction' genre a spin. I would suggest Fairly Gamey, A Covert DNC Operative's Undercovers Life in the CIA, as a working (and perhaps actual) title.
Ranger,
Thanks for the link - at a certain point it' cheaper to burn down the house to get rid of the termites. The CIA reached that point some time ago.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 22, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Yes.OT. It sounds horrid on the coast and I think in time Val and Joe will get what they deserve. In the meantime a decent man's life has been ruined, and the credibility of the most honest President we've had in decades and belief in this govt were seriously undermined by these clowns and their media echoes.
Posted by: clarice | October 22, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Unfortunely, I was hoping UBL would make an appearance with that ghastly beard just in time for Holoween, but instead we get an audio tape with some washed up guy mumbling about his disunited group on hard times. His (and the Wilson's) "fifteen minutes" are about up.
Posted by: Neo | October 22, 2007 at 11:47 PM
She answered no serious questions. No one acknowledged Jeff's smackdown of Blumenthall's 'facts'. She goes out of her way to distance herself from Rozen, why, she hasn't "had time yet to look at it too closely." But gosh darn it, she is "pleased with her work, however." She sounded like a beauty contestant. "How exciting it would be to see the Los Alamos scientists be put to work on developing clean, alternative fuel technologies, for example." If she is an example of our human intelligence, we are in deep shit people!
Posted by: Sue | October 22, 2007 at 11:50 PM
My absolute favorite though...
But, we are told...
But she never saw the forgeries. Otherwise, she would not have used the word "apparently". And we are to believe this?
And whoever did the forgeries just did them for a lark? Never considered the "trouble they would ultimately cause"?
As I said, I hope the Wilsons enjoyed the slobber fest they got at the swamp. Only those who have less intelligence than a peanut would buy their sack of shit.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 12:03 AM
As I think about it, the best thing that could happen to get the truth out is for Val to start talking. It wasn't until after Joe started talking that we actually learned the truth about his lies. She isn't smart enough to pull it off. Just as she screwed up in the hearings, she'll screw up again. The only way their story still works is for people like Blumenthall to lie about the facts of the leak.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Has anyone else besides me really got tried of this Dog and Pony show where Joe is the Dog, and Valerie the Pony.
I think that after they (mainly Joe, with Valerie "standing by her man") screwed everything up, in that Op-Ed piece, they just tried to salvage their careers and future monies by appeasing the Democrats and Progressive Bloggers at every step. The rest is as they say history, or as the bard would say "A Tempest in a Teapot."
Posted by: Jodi | October 23, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Sue-
She answered no serious questions.
I noticed that too. Really wasn't expecting much, but the fawning was something of a surprise, coming as it was from the "progressive community". We have come a long way from the good old days of the Cold War where the CIA was the root of all evil.
From your clip above, "she continues to believe that it is highly likely that Saddam indeed has WMDs and is hiding them", remember when she was "looking" she believed the WMD was hidden. Given the sanctions, embargo, bombings, failed coup plots, and inspections all during the 1990's-and they didn't, within VPW's thinking, dissuade Hussein from giving up his WMD, what did VPW think the next step was going to be?
I'm curious of their Iran angle as well. I mean, VPW was forced to retire [and though she still has allies in the place] I don't see what sort of leverage she would have in whether the US goes ahead and bombs Iran. What are they going to say-Iran isn't tied to terrorism and they aren't developing nuclear weapons? Oops-that is exacty the "reality based position" the noble opposition has rehabilitated 1990's Iraq into.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 12:26 AM
--Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 12:03 AM--
Before i read on, but you go html queen!
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 23, 2007 at 12:34 AM
The progressives also forgot they don't like prosecutors in order to crown Fitzgerald. They (progressives) could care less about the Wilsons. They don't care about outing operatives, as the case with the 3 operatives who were flying airplanes for the rendition program will attest. Nary a word about them from any progressive. Good leaks. Bad leaks. A good leak is anything that harms national security. A bad leak is anything that might tarnish Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 12:37 AM
I'm tired. I think I said that wrong. It doesn't make sense to me. A good leak to a progressive is anything that harms national security. A bad leak is anything they can spin to make it a leak of national security, i.e, Plame.
Or something like that.
Night y'all.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Sue-
I suppose this story [the Plame's] is about mined out-haven't seen Rocco in a while-but, it just really is a head scratcher. For all the ink that has been spent on it, all the details that have been mined on the net, we still really don't know anything more. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!
I'm be curious if Plame illuminates Joe's other trip to Niger [1999?]?
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I'm be curious if Plame illuminates Joe's other trip to Niger [1999?]?
I doubt it. Plame did, however, imply that her husband's 1999 and 2002 trips were not the only ones. From the "60 Minutes" transcript:
Posted by: Elliott | October 23, 2007 at 01:00 AM
Sue --
I liked your HTML - it was a depart and it was fun...unless it was your Sue stalker?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 23, 2007 at 01:17 AM
Agreed. It was interesting the way she slipped the Mossad in there as a possible source, but golly she just doesn't know anything.
Golly is a damn sure embarrassing note for the CIA's prime time talent...she sounds like lower level then Joe in the pretend department - stand in for Grover on Sesame Street? Something like
"Golly, I can't remember the classified (or the names of books I read, or the date of important meetings") but there is no way Scooter could forget!"
She's got an ego -- is her ego at the center of all this, Scoter didn't love the blonde in the back of the room like all they other guys?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 23, 2007 at 02:07 AM
I wonder how the Clintonistas can wrap their heads around that Sandy Berger who stole and destroyed highly classified documents critical to the work of the 9/11 Commission is to be regarded so highly as to be a trusted advisor while at the same time lauding Wilson-Plame as victims of a horrid plot to disclose national secrets for partisan purposes.
Posted by: clarice | October 23, 2007 at 02:08 AM
The mission Valerie Plame thinks she's immune to
Mission
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers.
Is Congress her boss? Is the Agency an independent brach?
When your boss comes sniffing around and asks you to tell him what you are doing, do you tell him he's a bully and he has NO right to know more than you and no right to ask you to justify your work and do better? No right too question your incompetence, your lackluster productivity, your proclivity to help out your spouse on the company's dime?
Ahem...Plame is too dim to realize that bright lights in America realize WE - the taxpayers - were paying her way, and BABY you wouldn't get to one if your weren't government employed.
I told my "old" boss he was a bone head on a daily basis, because he is when it comes to like putting air in a tire or accidentally hitting mute on his computer speakers and thinking they were defective speakers --(I love him to pieces and work with him on a weekly basis now) -- but he is brilliant at art and art direction and if I told him he was a bully and he was forcing me to design something I knew was wrong?
SO WHAT, DO IT! DO WHAT I SAY! I PAY YOU! was essentially the directive
Sometimes I was right and we lost clients, many time he was right and that is why HE got the clients
Happens everyday lady Plame...you narcissistic idiot.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 23, 2007 at 02:33 AM
It would be interesting to be in Jeff's head right now. He knows his questions haven't been addressed.
======================================
Posted by: kim | October 23, 2007 at 06:26 AM
What needs to be addressed is the central contradiction in the Plame fairy tale.If Plame was the highly important covert agent with vast networks of agents who were all compromised by the "outing" of Counterproliferation Woman,why had it been necessary to send Joe Wilson,a rank amateur,to obtain information that Plame's department should have had as a matter of course?
The more inflated Valerie Plame's importance becomes,the more illogical and irrational becomes Wilson's role in this affair
Posted by: PeterUK | October 23, 2007 at 07:14 AM
I nominate Jeff to write the definitive account. Imagine his passion when he figures it out.
=============================
Posted by: kim | October 23, 2007 at 07:49 AM
From what I read at the swamp yesterday, Val is claiming they were threatened by AQ. Why would AQ threaten them? According to Val, there was no connection between Iraq and AQ. Why would they (AQ) care about them?
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 09:33 AM
Thanks, Top. It was me, not my stalker.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 09:35 AM
OT
Need a big push today, so thanks for a click through for Jess. The Illinois candidate went up like 8% yesterday, so we really need some vote strength today.
Time to Vote!
Posted by: Gmax | October 23, 2007 at 09:36 AM
Clinton legacy is that you can lie about anything & everything. You just have to keep it up & get mad at anyone you confronts you. The rest of the Dims have learned this well..............
Posted by: PMII | October 23, 2007 at 09:49 AM
GMax,
She's on top at the moment.
Can someone do me a favor? I'm arguing with someone who says Val was covert because the head of the CIA said so.
I vaguely remember this whole brouhaha. What's the rest of the story?
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Covert by casual, nay jargon, use within the CIA, not covert by any legally prosecutable definition. Outed by husband and self, of course.
But, we still don't know her true role.
===========================
Posted by: kim | October 23, 2007 at 10:53 AM
the head of the CIA said so
IIRC his actual words were spun as meaning that but he specifically disavowed that interpretation.
Posted by: boris | October 23, 2007 at 11:04 AM
To my knowledge the CIA GC still hasn't responded to Hoekstra's question as to whther she was withinthe definition of the IIPA."Covert" by archaic in house def only.
Posted by: clarice | October 23, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Jane,
The letter that Hayden sent to Waxman during the hearing where Plame appeared is where they are getting he said that.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Thanks guys. I knew it would be on the top of your heads.
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2007 at 11:15 AM
She's got an ego -- is her ego at the center of all this, Scoter didn't love the blonde in the back of the room like all they other guys?
Got to be a big part of it, as reflected in the title of the book. The "fair" Valerie, put upon by all these BushCo meanies, nobly defended by hubby Joe, etc. etc. She's got princess issues for sure.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 23, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Waxman's interpretation of Hayden's letter, to be pedantic.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 23, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Jane,
Here is Novak discussing it.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 11:20 AM
It's actually worse than this. Apparently, Val was implicated in the whole dustup with the Iranians that became the rather infamous failure known as Operation MERLIN
That's right. Valerie's division was wrapped up in Operation MERLIN. I'll let you folks read the article, then google Operation Merlin. You will begin to understand that there are reasons the CIA wants to peddle disinformation stories about Joe Wilson and Niger.
Tom, you're missing the point. The whole Joe Wilson thing is a front. This entire story is a scam. It's designed to distract the Congress and the Press (and, ergo, the American people) from what happened back in the last year of the Clinton Administration with Merlin.
Valerie was a part of this; the American people do not know that the CIA gave plans for a working tactical nuclear warhead to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and that people like Plame thought it up.
Yet another reason to abolish the CIA.
Posted by: section9 | October 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Merlin is where we gave altered nuclear technology plans to someone to sell to Iran and they were able to make a few adjustments and had our nuclear plans. Correct?
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Merlin
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Her twins were born in January 2000.
From you link, #9:
She had the twins in January 2000 and in February 2000, the date sources give for the delivery of "Merlin" to the Russian, she is on a plane headed to Tehran? With PPD? I find that totally unbelievable.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I'm sorry, I think I read that too fast. It doesn't claim she went to Tehran, just that she was involved. So, maybe she was.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 11:45 AM
The Guardian story on Merlin also states an unnamed female agent at the CIA messed up and sent the entire list of our agents to a man in Iran who was a double agent.
Whether it was Plame or not and whether or not she was involved in Merlin, she seems to be a habitual liar and a dope.
Posted by: clarice | October 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM
If Plame's comments regarding how Wilson found out about her recommendation is true, why was Wilson so compliant at the Congressional hearings. I would suggest that a little indignation is warranted if you are accused of lying.
Posted by: davod | October 23, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Jane-
American Thinker article that discusses this
And a quick dig through the archives yields this thread that is sort of related
I was looking for the clarification that Hayden issued
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Clarice, the first link doesn't work for me - The American Thinker one.
And thanks to everyone.
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2007 at 12:04 PM
And a better search of the JOM archives yields this
here is my goofed up AT link
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Jane,
Where are you arguing with someone? If you don't want to say, I'll understand.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 12:08 PM
"On a positive note... It looks like Gen. Hayden is moving to shut down the leak machine in the (former work place of she of the initials MOM)."
I'll believe that after the trial.
Posted by: danking70 | October 23, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I find the Merlin angle and the seperate issue of sending the asset list a bit difficult to support. First the source-RS is hardly credible. Second-Plame had twins in Jan 2000. Third, if the Vanity Fair article is to be believed, Plame didn't have the technical background.
One possibility is that putting the Iran screw-ups on Plame it throws of the trail of who was really involved [MOM was deputy director, then director, of Programs on the National Security Council in the relevant timeframe. And low and behold, her role is coming up again in the leak war that Gen. Hayden is looking into].
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM
It would be so sweet if true, section9. The Bifecta would be Joe's involvement in illicit yellowcake transfer.
==========================
Posted by: kim | October 23, 2007 at 12:28 PM
section 9-
The Plame story is a scam, yes, but it is more of an incindiary attack. The press is willingly complicit-the Kristof articles, the Pincus articles, the Cooper article, and the disgraceful actions of NBC-after Miller cooled her heels fearless journalists bought the VIPS version lock-stock-and-barrel. Again, the Clinton Administration was about as bad as one could get with regards to foreign policy [their failures stretch around from Haiti, to West Africa, up into the Middle East, and into the Pacific-Clinton was a big believer in delivering his feckless globally] but Merlin as described really seems like an agency screw up and cover up.
I doubt that Valarie was a part of this unless the Iraqi's were trafficking WMD technology to Iran. Also Iran was involved heavily in the AQ Khan Network, with Russia, China, and North Korea-a good rule of thumb is that when Pakistan detonated their bombs [May 1998], Iran and North Korea had working copies of a bomb.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 12:42 PM
From the LATimes review of Fair game.
And her own lazy tradecraft didn't lead to her own? At least their spouses weren't writing op-eds in the largest newspaper in the country attacking the Bush administration.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 01:06 PM
I haven't listened to it all yet, but Larry interviews Val at his website.
So far she says she worked the Georgetown Party circuit.
Her retelling of the walking by guy is interesting. "Someone" from the OVP called a jr reports officer, and "you just don't do that".
She also restates her incorrect assertion that evidence came out in the INR memo in the Libby trial that Joe didn't want to go. And that"so much" documentary evidence came out in the Libby trial that she didn't recommend or suggest Joe.
The funny thing for me is that I have emails from Larry Johnson swearing that Valerie spoke to Joe as a result of the request to the CIA briefer on the morning of the briefing. He says it was definitely the result of a request from OVP. That was before all the details were made clear during the trial.
Now, that explanation has gone away, even in this interview.
And even her followers that know the facts don't call her on it-- or are ignored when they ask her about it.
Posted by: MayBee | October 23, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Sue,
This is where the argument is taking place: http://www.openmiccafe.com/cgi-bin/motet/motet.cgi?directory+-upwpCe
+-cMetaCafe+-la+-plist
It's a small group of misfits I've belonged to for several years. Fell free to join if you are inclined.
Posted by: Jane | October 23, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Posted by: cathyf | October 23, 2007 at 02:04 PM
Thanks, Cathy. Much better.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 02:13 PM
How about this:
"At least their spouses weren't writing op-eds in the largest newspaper in the country revealing themselves as CIA operatives in the same field and with the same actors."
Posted by: MayBee | October 23, 2007 at 02:16 PM
I do not believe the AQ target claim, not just because as Sue points out, there were never any ties between Iraq and AQ, but because Larry Johnson says there is no terror threat and that AQ is a joke. What? Are they a bunch of terrorism bedwetters or something? Or do they just get their narratives so twisted they can't keep them straight?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 23, 2007 at 02:34 PM
Val should have read Ollie North's book. Being threatened by a Middle Eastern terror group just doesn't cut it with Congress, DOJ, or an independent prosecutor. The only thing that North did get in trouble for was that security system for his family that he paid for out of the proceeds from the arms sales, everything else was water under the bridge.
Posted by: Neo | October 23, 2007 at 02:39 PM
AQ assassination squads flew to the US and loosened the bolts on the Wilson's deck, Tops.
I don't know how you can treat that like it's funny.
Posted by: MayBee | October 23, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Maybee,
LOL.
Posted by: Sue | October 23, 2007 at 02:41 PM
I remember (no link) there was this idea by the Clinton Administration to give the Iranians bomb plans that wouldn't work to see if they were really interested in making a bomb. When the Iranians got the plans, they showed them to their Soviet bomb expert who immediately recognized the flaw that had been incorporated into the plans and told them how to fix it.
Posted by: Neo | October 23, 2007 at 02:46 PM
Another intelligence community clown show Dog bites man story...
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 23, 2007 at 02:58 PM
I recall that story; when North's family was being threatened by Abu Nidal; whose
address at the time was anyone, anyone...
Baghdad. Besides the Milan crew who were
rather sloppy with their mission to nab
Mullah Umar Nasr;(there's an ironic incident in Stephen Johnson's (the New Statesman's reporter who was my guess for
the doomed Guardian reporter in Ultimatum)
Ghost Plane where the Italian investigators
had to stop their investigation of the CIA
snatch team by news of the London bombing.
Newsweek just continues to provide evidence
of it's intellectual bankruptcy; Last week in their story of Iraqi war brides/husbands
they put lurid jihadi allegations of incitement to justify the barbarity of Fallujah. This week; they score a complete
quinella. Starting with their report on
'the coverup' of fewer casualties in Iraq; I'm not making this up. They have a piece by
Christopher Dickey; son of the writer of Deliverance; making some 25th anniversary allusion to Cheney and one of the characters
therein. When he was at the Washington Post in the early 80s; he was their Central America is another quagmire reporter; highlighting the acts of one rogue contra
official "Comandante Suicida" who was put down like he deserved as representative of
the movement. He was also a reporter in Beirut at the time of the Embassy bombingd were he relayed the story of "Capt. Crunch" aka; Keith Hall, a fmr. Marine turned CIA official who through aggressiveinterrogation
was able to discover the nature of who allowed the bombers to penetrate the compound. Because the subject died subsequently, he was dismissed and the leads left up in the air. As were Rob Baer's
subsequent leads that ended up in the high ranks of the IRGC.
The cover story by Moreau and Michael Hirsh;
the penpal of Iranian 'diplomat' Mohzen Rezai; is on Pakistan. It does shed some new
light on the Taliban's plans; however the familiarity with the various leaders; makes
me doubt how true the story is; Around 5 years ago; there was a similar tale told by
Richard Wolfe; the British Olberguest and
Sami Yousufsai; which nonchalantly described
the Taliban's plans for the coming year. It's not as bad as Time reporter Michael Ware's coffeeclatches with fmr Rep. Guardsman turned jihadist Tariq or Bobby
Ghosh's heart to heart with 20 something
IED maker Seif Abdullah; but it's awfully
close
Posted by: narciso | October 23, 2007 at 03:11 PM
If anyone needs a good laugh just go on over to the huff and puff posting and read the comments on Val's blog for today.
They are hysterical - Charlie Rose - mouthpiece for the neocons - PBS also. He was being roasted for cancelling her appearance to get ready for General Hayden's interview.
Some of them on the other hand sound a little scary - perhaps mentally unbalanced even.
Posted by: TexasIsHeaven | October 23, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Neo-
Ledeen has a version of it and Risen has a version of it [his book and the extract at the Guardian]
Knowing that Plame is a representitive of the CIA makes me sleep well at night!
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 03:43 PM
Remember, too, J. Walton having seen the classified material--including the referral letter--said he could not ascertain her status. Thus, nothing in the official material established that she was.
Re Michael Hirsch:He's a dope. Put a NOT in front of everyone of his assertions or ignore him altogether.
Posted by: clarice | October 23, 2007 at 03:45 PM
FDL has an informative post on a big US attorney's scandal coming down the pike, They have special tea leave reading powers lefty WAPO reporters don't have.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 23, 2007 at 03:52 PM
TSK9-
from the WaPo article-
Didn't we have a thread a while back with a really strange thread at T?P??, or one of the usual suspects, about a bunch of things merging. IIRC one of the comments said something about the USA firings and the DC Madam case. Slimguy was the one who pointed it out-
Posted by: RichatUF | October 23, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Off topic...I'm usually anti-conflationist, but make an excep