|
| |
10/2/03
Another Liberal Red Herring
To coin a phrase, "There you go again."
The liberals are out in force, calling for special counsel
investigation of the leak of the name of a CIA agent (operative or analyst, that
is the question) by a "senior administration official." It is a violation
of federal law to reveal the name of a CIA operative if his or her life will be
endangered, and the official who reveals it knows of the risk.
The evidence? The wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson,
who went at the request of the CIA to investigate those famous allegations that
Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa, and returned a report
doubting that such a transaction ever took place, was named and revealed to
journalist Robert Novak as a CIA employee by unnamed administration sources.
Wilson has concluded that her name was intentionally revealed to send a message
to anyone else who might dispute the "party line." He says a reporter
called him and told him Karl Rove said his wife was "fair game."
From this liberals have drawn extravagant conclusions
about Machiavellian plots and intrigue in the White House (the sort of intrigue
that hasn't even been dreamt of since missing Rose Law Firm billing records
showed up suddenly in the White House months after they had been subpoenaed, and
no one could remember not remembering where they hadn't been all that time,
cross their hearts and hope to die). Their extravagant conclusions rest on
several casual assumptions, none of which has been confirmed:
- The unnamed administration sources went out of their way to see that
Wilson's wife's name and identity as a CIA agent were revealed. The
only evidence we have on this question indicates that the assumption is false.
Novak has said that he was seeking answers to a question. No one
contacted him looking for a way to drop Valerie Plame's name.
[7/13/05: Even the revelation that Karl Rove identified her (but not by name)
shows that he did not go out of his way to drop her name. He was
responding to a reporter's apparent intention to make it seem that Wilson had
been "Cheney's man" to try to lend color to his tainted conclusions.
Rove pointed out that, far from being "Cheney's man", Wilson was very much an
insider and had had it in for the Bush administration from day one.
Which is true, of course.]
- Valerie Plame is a CIA operative (as opposed to an analyst).
The jury is still out on this one. But Novak's sources at the CIA have
indicated their belief that she is not an operative, and thus that her
identity needs no protection. (She may have been an operative in the
past, and now only an analyst.) [12/27/03: I tried to find any new
information on this. I saw one report that tried to reconstruct what
kind of "operative" Plame was, but there is no new information of any
substance that I can find. If anyone reading this knows of any, please
send links or other information to
info@soothseeker.com.]
- Plame is in danger because of the revelation. Wilson has not
acknowledged that she is, and no one else has indicated so, either.
Novak has said that one of the officials he asked about it was a CIA
administrator, who did not seem reluctant to share her name, but asked that it
be withheld, not because she was in any danger, but because, although she was
not thought likely to be up or any future missions overseas, it might be
difficult for her when she traveled as a private person. If a
knowledgeable person at the CIA did not feel it necessary to warn Novak of any
danger to her, it certainly does not follow that she is in any danger.
[10/8/03: a Washington Post human interest story about Plame allows all
along that she might still be an "operative", but the only official position
they can come up for her is as an "analyst." It certainly appears they
want to believe she is in danger, but they can't seem to find any real
evidence to support the claim.] [7/13/05: Plame is still alive and
well, as far as I know. I suspect she's now a veritable hero among elite
liberals. What harm is there in that?]
- Karl Rove declared open season on Plame in retaliation for her
husband's break with the administration's party line. This is
hearsay initially relayed by Wilson, who needed some appearance of evidence to
back up his otherwise baseless and apparently paranoid claim that the
administration is trying to smear him. He has since been quoted
retracting the accusation that Karl Rove had anything to do with the leak.
[7/13/05: Rove had something to do with the leak, but it was not any kind
of coordinated attack. He just pointed out the clear motives of the
people involved. Wilson was a hack planted to attack the administration,
and he did so. Rove tried to point that out to a reporter who was not
interested in that angle.]
- A crime has been committed. If the officials who shared
Plame's name did not know she would be endangered, there was no crime.
If she is not in any danger, then no crime can have been committed.
Since the person who mentioned her never mentioned any danger, there is no
evidence that he or she knew she would be in danger, much less that she is in
any danger. [12/27/03: Still no evidence on this, as far as I know.]
[7/13/05: Plame is still breathing, but the heat is on Rove.]
- An independent counsel needs to be appointed for this investigation.
There is very little evidence at this point that even suggests a crime has
been committed, much less that anyone in the White House had anything to do
with it. Under the old independent counsel law, which the democrats were
only too eager to see wither on the vine, the decision rested with the
Attorney General. If Linda Reno could investigate the Clinton White
House and make a decision the Democrats were willing to trust, only partisan
politics would make them change their position today. I suppose that's
exactly what it is, then. They wanted us to keep inspecting in Iraq
while the Iraqis openly flouted the procedures and restrictions imposed on
them by the U.N. Security Council, but a couple of weeks to find out if these
inaccurate and often fanciful charges have any connection to reality is too
much to bear? Another liberal non sequitur.
Liberals are desperately in search of an issue they can
use to bludgeon the President. They had better find one with better legs
than this, or they're just going to end up with egg on their face again. They
should stick to lying about the economy (you know, the recovery that Clinton
inherited from Bush, and the slide into recession that he left us with at the
end of his second term) and the effect of tax cuts.
Modified: 07/13/2005
| |
Bye-Bye, Harriet
Plamegate? NOT
Judge Who?
Bush Knows Miers
Supreme Prognostications
D-Day for Hamas
Ethical Embryocide?
Wake Up, Democrats
Solidarity
Our Favorite Gulag
Liberals' New Clothes
Let There Be Cat
Defending Terri
Euthanize the Courts
Liberal Scorecard Q1 05
Failing History Again
Reform Social Security?
Terror and Geneva
Framing the Debate II
Framing the Debate I
Liberal Scorecard 2004
Doesn't Think Tank
Media's 'October Surprise'
Kerry's Crazy Promises
Dirty Tricks 2004
'Nightline' Lies
Factchecking FactCheck
Unborn Human Rights
Kerry Doctrine
Liberal (Republican) Myths
The New MAD
Truth Will Bury Kerry
New Democrat Math
800 Lbs. of Hooey
Kerry's Non-Defender
Swiftees Free to Speak
Democratic Fish Story
Marriage: No Middle Ground
Connecting the Dots
NY Times Tissue of Lies
Two Americas
Dirty Politics
WMD? Yes!
Liberals Fail 'History'
Liberal Myths of Iraq
Redefining Brutality
Oversimplifying Iraq
The Passion of Jesus
The New Marriage
Gay Marriage
Hypocrisy on Secrecy
Liberal Irresponsibility
Interpreting Intelligence
Yellow Journalism
Anti-Americanism
"Human Right" Support
The New Bigotry
Feminism Bankrupt
Cubs' Moment
Israel's Solution
Syria Beware
CIA Red Herring
Kosovo vs. Iraq
Politics in Academia
Remedy for Terror
Labor Day
Security in Iraq
Socialism=Death
Israel & Palestine
Defining Marriage
Bias and Incompetence
Conservative Reality Check
|
