From the New York Times...
One of the most puzzling aspects of the C.I.A. leak case has had to do with the name of the exposed officer. Why did the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak identify her as Valerie Plame in exposing her link to the C.I.A. in July 2003 when she had been known for years both at the agency and in her personal life by her married name, Valerie Wilson?
Mr. Novak offered a possible explanation for the disconnect on Monday, suggesting in his column that he could have obtained Ms. Wilson's maiden name from the directory Who's Who in America, which used that name in identifying her as the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador....
A State Department memorandum drafted in 2003 and taken on board Air Force One the week before Mr. Novak's column ran identifies Ms. Wilson by her married name rather than Ms. Plame. The prosecutor has taken an interest in the memorandum - which outlines Ms. Wilson's role in suggesting her husband for a fact-finding trip to Niger - and has shown it to numerous witnesses in the case in an apparent effort to determine whether it was a source for Mr. Novak or the officials who leaked the information to him.
If not for Who's Who, it is not clear how Mr. Novak would have decided to identify Ms. Wilson as Ms. Plame rather than the name she commonly used.
Do you ever get the feeling that some people tend to get really involved in trivialities to the point of making them sound as if the world revolves around them? I'm still trying to figure out what in the world is the whole point of this mess. It's obvious that Valerie Wilson doesn't fit the legal parameters of the law the Liberals are whining about. It's obvious that the whole investigation is just partisan window dressing, just like Mr. Wilson's bogus trip to Niger (pronounce nee-ZHAIR if you want to sound pretentious, NIGH-jer for the rest of us). It's obvious that were the sources really in the White House, these reporters would be climbing over each other to tell the world. It's also obvious that Rove was not Cooper's initial source, and Cooper's email was dragged out simply to a) get him out of jail and b) give the administration a black eye. Meanwhile Judith Miller remains in jail because she won't reveal her source.
Article comments
1 - billy
are you serious?
"It's obvious that Valerie Wilson doesn't fit the legal parameters of the law the Liberals are whining about. It's obvious that the whole investigation is just partisan window dressing"
and i think you better tell that to the REPUBLICAN special prosecutor.
whats next?
there really is no criminal grand jury, it was all made up be howar dean.
keep dreaming, your boy is going to get frog marched.
2 - Nancy
This has been hashed over pretty thoroughly on a previous thread or two. Having people repeat the same old arguments is counterproductive.
3 - Dave Nalle
I would have read the article, but it had a link to Ann Coulter's book, so I realized there was no point.
Dave
4 - Ayana, The PROUD Liberal
Surprise surprise, yet another Bush critic attacked for telling the truth (Joe Wilson was right by the way, a point few Repugnants have yet to make). Well at least we're not debating the true meaning of "fix facts". Are Bush loyalist so blinded by their love for this country....oops...I mean love for Georgie...that they're oblivious to the fact that every critic who opposes this war or corporate friendly agenda is attacked in a weak pathetic attempt to divert from the real issue? Ahhh, this reminds me of the "Don't listen to Michael Moore because he's a fat slob" argument. Equally stupid once any self-thinking individual gives it a moment's thought.
5 - Dave Nalle
I'd say don't listen to Michael Moore because 80% of what comes out of his mouth is a lie.
Dave
6 - Ayana, The PROUD Liberal
"I'd say don't listen to Michael Moore because 80% of what comes out of his mouth is a lie".
Well I'm sure we can delete Michael Moore and insert Richard Clark, Paul O'Neil, the French, the UN, liberals, the Downing Street Memo, Joe Wilson, John Kerry, or any of the many who have become personal targets of Bush and his loyalist. Of course during an election year even Republicans such as John McClain and Ann Richards aren't safe!
So much for the "Moral" Majority!
7 - Ayana, The PROUD Liberal
BTW guys, check out this
If you criticize Bush it won't take your survey. If you profess undying love for Bush, you can continue the survey. Repugnants make me laugh my azz off.
8 - Bennett
Ayana, Please try to make your links "clickable" or it tends to mess up the columns.
Thanks!
9 - Bennett
I was honest with my answers to the poll, and it let me finish just fine.
I suggested firing Rove, yes to Gay marriage, not a dem or repub, no to future polls.....
10 - Dave Nalle
>Republicans such as John McClain and Ann Richards aren't safe! <<
Ann Richards is and has always been a Democrat. She was the opening speaker at the convention that nominated Clinton for the White House the first time out. Maybe you guys are trying to disown her since she has some sensible ideas and isn't an extreme leftist?
>>I was honest with my answers to the poll, and it let me finish just fine.
I suggested firing Rove, yes to Gay marriage, not a dem or repub, no to future polls.....<<
This would be because Ayana, like so many on the left, sees conspiracies behind every tree. They can't face up to the fact that the American people are just sick, once and for all, of their anti-individual, dictatorial policies and have to explain their decline by claiming their opponents are cheating and being unfair to them in some way.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
Oh and BTW, don't take the survey at polling point. The site is just a hit farm that tries to make money off of advertising. The polls mean nothing and nothing is done with them.
Dave
12 - Ayana, The PROUD Liberal
Actually Dave, the American people are tired of a president who lacks credibilty (well according to every poll). The conspiracy theories who speak of are the constant attacks on any one who dare criticize this administration. Swift Boats Vets for "Truth", anyone?
Dave: "This would be because Ayana, like so many on the left, sees conspiracies behind every tree"
Oh my Dave, this from a group of people who simultaneously had orgasims chasing after a stained blue dress.
13 - Dave Nalle
>>Oh my Dave, this from a group of people who simultaneously had orgasims chasing after a stained blue dress.<<
First, I'm not a group of people, I'm one person. Second, I found the Clinton business mildly amusing, but of no real political interest or importance. What the president does in his spare time is none of our business.
Dave
14 - Tom
Ann Coulter is so incapable of rational thought even the national review fired her…
"sloppiness of expression and thought," and "the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes." "We did not 'fire' Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."
Simply put they thought she was a b**ch.
As far as this scandal goes, I quite sure Rove is involved just as he is involved in the scandal in Ohio. The GOP has become so corrupt in its lust for power.
The bigger picture is the policies of this Administration and it Neo-cons leaders have changed a once responsible republican party into something of a fascist group of tugs. Their policies are going to bankrupt this country, and we are all going to lose.
As a former republican I’m amazed at how though spin and defamation of liberals, media and anyone else they fear makes sense, they has been able to convince the voters they have their interest at hart.
The good old days are over, how about 100 years war instead.
Bush missed the moment the world change on 9/11, by bring back the policies that allowed it to occur, History will remember him for that. History will not remember Ann.
Tom
15 - gonzo marx
remember kiddies, your humble Narrator sez..
if Coulter is the link, the Poster's a dink"
nuff said?
Excelsior!
16 - Iddybud
The only cover "Who's Who" displays is its own cover
Novak blew Valerie's Plame's cover with his column. Someone (with a human voice) told him about her and her status with the CIA. He now claims he found her name in the book of "Who's Who" - and he may have, but the point is oh-so-moot!
"Who's Who" didn't blow Valerie's cover. It may have merely supplied a name.
"Who's Who" is not a political thug or a traitor to the U.S. The only cover exposed by "Who's Who" is its own book cover.
Novak blew Valerie Plame's cover (wherever he got the info from - we still don't know), and "Who's Who" cannot possibly be responsible for the potential felony or the treason that comes with the territory.
I know this sounds harsh, but I think you'd have to be a complete jacka*s to accept Novak's latest excuse-making as anything close to truth or honesty.
Bottom line, we don't give a hoot as to why Novak identified her as "Valerie Plame" in exposing her link to the C.I.A. when she had also been known in her personal life by her married name, Valerie Wilson.
She was under cover - she went by "Val P" - even her fellow agents didn't have access to her name. She was known as "an energy consultant married to Joe Wilson and the mother of twins."
What we are concerned about was that the snake-like Novak BLEW HER COVER - and that someone told him. The White House involvement was subsequently covered-up, and that's what is at the core of this Fitzgerald investigation.
Let's not play games and accept poor and lame excuses. There are too many intelligent people out here to swallow such horsecrap.
17 - Lumpy
This article made me dumber, for reading it.
"No law was broken. The media screamed for an investigation until two of their own were threatened with jail for not revealing sources."
FYI, the media did not have anything to do with launching the investigation into Plame's outing; the CIA filed a crime report with the US Department of Justice. The CIA would not have done that, if Plame was just a low level paper pusher. The DOJ (under John Ashcroft) found it the CIA report credible enough to appoint an independant investigator.
The sad thing is that the dope who wrote this article seems to think that if no crime was committed, then leaking Plame's name is okay. That's sad.
However, keep an eye out for perjury or obstruction of justice charges.
18 - Steve S
what just happened on Inside Politics? Did anybody see it? Pissy Bob Novak said 'bullshit' on the air and walked off the set.
Carville must have loved it. He didn't even miss a beat.
19 - Steve S
somebody's goin down!
20 - billy
i heard about it on air anerica radio like 10 minutes ago. yes it still exists, despite what the righties say.
it will likely be dwarfed by a denny hastert criminal scandal that is just coming up soon.
21 - Steve S
CNN just suspended Novak indefinitely according to foxnews.
22 - fred
when reality sets in the koo koo birds..the looney lefties.....and they actually realize what happened here, and they wont get their 'frog marching'.....all i can say is fitzgerald better get someone else to start his car, and taste his food. they dont handle reality well, are much better suited for fantasies created in their minds, and this jolt of the true plain of existence isnt going to be stomached well.
23 - fred
FYI, the media did not have anything to do with launching the investigation into Plame's outing; the CIA filed a crime report with the US Department of Justice. The CIA would not have done that, if Plame was just a low level paper pusher. The DOJ (under John Ashcroft) found it the CIA report credible enough to appoint an independant investigator.
=======================
dude, the CIA was the soruce of the leak. and the drumbeat for the investigation was started by the looney dems. see this:
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/iraq/documents.html
and the CIA would not have had her walking into langley every day if she was anything more than an analyst. and by the way, just to keep this flow of reality going, when an investigation is initiated, does it mean that a crime HAS been committed or that someone wants to know IF one was? and if someone is a whacked out screaming liberal, maybe an investigation is just what they need, to get their heads screwed on straight. god knows, facts and truth never do. jeez, man. your ilk is the reason for the investigation so the obvious can be PROVEN to you. and you cant see it. and imagine if the CIA had sent the memo and ashcroft had NOT sent it up to special procestor? would you have said "ok, guess theres nothing there". of course not. you demaned this, you got it, and when its over, please for your own sake be ready for reality. it probably will not jive with your fanatasies. its ok, i am not attacking you. i feel sorry for you. but hold the phone, relax, do some breathing exercises, or yoga, and you will be told the obvious soon.
look, man, listen to novak. he keeps saying he cant wait to talk when this is over. do you honestly think he is going to belt out what you WANT to hear?? the truth is not what you want. but you did demand it, so here it comes...soon....
pray for fitgerald.
24 - fred
Comment 20 posted by billy on August 4, 2005 08:30 PM:
i heard about it on air anerica radio like 10 minutes ago. yes it still exists, despite what the righties say.
===================================
did they say anything about the laws they broke, stealing money from underpriveledged kids there??
didnt think so.
25 - RogerMDillon
"Plame's role in arranging the mission for her husband is solid proof that she was not concerned about having her "cover" blown because she was not truly under cover."
Feel free to update your incorrect statements:
According to Newsweek, "special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done 'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA 'was making specific efforts to conceal' her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."