My only comments regarding either Plame…

are ban-worthy.

Why do they have a legal defense fund? Is Soros suddenly broke?

Anton on October 25, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Bah we want LAURA INGRAHAM clips not Plaume ones !

William Amos on October 25, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Committed Treason?

Didn’t Fitzmas prove otherwise? Millions of public dollars spent persecuting a staffer with a bad memory and this woman still isn’t satisfied?

Fine. Here’s some lagniappe for the public to consider when it comes to treason vis-a-vis Plame and her fired diplomat husband.

1. How is it that Joe Wilson got the gig in Niger in the first place? What was Plames role in getting her hubby out of the house after he was fired by the DOS? What was his mission and how did he accomplish it?

2. Where’s the proof that VP Cheney had anything to do with Wilson’s Mission.

3. Why isn’t anybody investigating the CIA internal organization that would allow a bunch of Bush-hating bureaucrats hijack the agency’s mission of intelligence gathering/analysis with regime change in the U.S.? Why aren’t these traitors being dealt with (don’t care if this were to be a covert op!).

I could go on but, frankly, PlameWilson and all their supporters have had their 15 minutes. My prediction is that her book will a be complete dud- much like their claims of victimhood.

highhopes on October 25, 2007 at 8:03 PM

They? that was Rick Armatage was it not?

TheSitRep on October 25, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Isn’t she supposedly up for CIA Director under Hillary?

Probably right after sandy berger is made head of the NSA

William Amos on October 25, 2007 at 8:07 PM

I don’t think I could take watching this clip, so I won’t… but I just wanted to drop by and note something I mentioned in another thread. While some schools are have guests speaking during “Islamofascist awareness week”, down the road about a couple miles from me, this POS Plame will be speaking… Earlier I had misstated that she was speaking at UVM, but it turns out it’s some women’s speaking event. Never the less, it’s still shameful. As I said earlier, I’m tempted to go have my very own “don’t taze me, bro!” moment.

RightWinged on October 25, 2007 at 8:12 PM

She’s part of the shadow government in the CIA. Clintonista.

Kini on October 25, 2007 at 8:17 PM

what a bunch of bs.

trailortrash on October 25, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Screw Valerie and her stupid husband! What a hag, I don’t care if she is a size 0, she’s a pig!

Catie96706 on October 25, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Oh please.

ctmom on October 25, 2007 at 8:35 PM

I want a trial, dammit!

I want all the facts made public so these two weasels can go back to their stinkin’ burrow.

I want Armitage exposed and prosecuted if culpable, and Fitzgerald made to repay the millions he wasted.

fred5678 on October 25, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Dork B. on October 25, 2007 at 8:25 PM

haven’t laughed that hard since i read the biden headline!

jummy on October 25, 2007 at 8:41 PM

What does she see in Joe Wilson?

d1carter on October 25, 2007 at 8:43 PM

What does she see in Joe Wilson?

Like love, unfettered political ambition is blind. Where the rest of us see a washed up troll, Plame sees a sugar daddy for her own agenda. The same equation applies to the Bill/Hill business arrangement.

highhopes on October 25, 2007 at 8:49 PM

I want to make sure I can still chip in before her book hits the bestseller list and makes her a millionaire.

She and her husband are both already millionaires from their book and movie deals.

rokemronnie on October 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM

Fred,

A trial has already taken place.

Verdict: GUILTY on four felony counts
Sentence: 30 months in federal prison
Result: President Bush commuted “Scooter” Libby’s sentence

Have all of you forgotten what happened here?

sandman on October 25, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Somebody please . . . make that phony moron go away.

rplat on October 25, 2007 at 9:00 PM

I hate to admit it and you’ve been working at this for some time, but you are doing rather well with the parody lyrics lately.

Griz on October 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM

Truth be told, with such a wealth of material, they pretty much write themselves.

MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Call me naive, jeesh what the heck kind of fools are we training to be spooks these days. What a bunch of foolishness. I took care of the head of Project Blue-Book after he had an accident and had undercover guys there all the time. Not one of them were as unprofessional as this broad and her husband. Guess we can start looking at the Carter admin. to see where the downfall started. Why don’t Joe and Val just go away?

mjkazee on October 25, 2007 at 9:12 PM

My covert cover

I didn’t know clerical workers got a covert cover.

conservnut on October 25, 2007 at 9:17 PM

:)

jummy on October 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM

I’d out it.

Dork B. on October 25, 2007 at 8:25 PM

haha.

I don’t have that much faith in our intelligence agencies now, I’m not looking forward to Plame running one.

BadgerHawk on October 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM

Except for the fact that it was your husband who outed you, you are correct that it is treason. Good thing you have the national media backing your cover up of your husband’s treasonous tongue.

Lawrence on October 25, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Sandman - this is the trial I was talking about:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/07/13/717/88282

fred5678 on October 25, 2007 at 9:48 PM

Like Rush said, “she’s a babe.” Meanwhile let’s make sure her husband hangs by his heels.
Randy

williars on October 25, 2007 at 9:57 PM

With bimbos like this in the CIA it is little wonder that Al Qaeda sucker punched us on 9-11.

“There’s a plane flying awfully low near the Pentagon, Valerie.”

“Don’t interrupt me while I’m applying finger nail polish, a-hole.”

MaiDee on October 25, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Can we just start calling Matthews The Weasel. I can’t ever listen to what he is saying because of those beady eyes. And that laugh, that laugh, nerds of America unite.

frreal on October 25, 2007 at 10:22 PM

Well outted or not, she must have not been anything, still being alive and not on the run and all.

- The Cat

MirCat on October 25, 2007 at 10:30 PM

To sandman: Your 8:51 PM post does not do jsutice to what was a miscarriage of justice. You are misleading in what you say by being too general and not dealing in the particulars of the Libby case. The Luibby case does nothing to help Wilson’s and Plame’s false story line.

The starting point for the Libby case is the point that Valerie Plame was NOT “covert” within the meaning of the Agent Identities Protection Act. To be “covert,” you need, among other things, to have a foreign posting within the last five years and to have the C.I.A. take affirmative steps to conceal the identity. Plame had been a Washington D.C. desk bound analyst for six or seven years, and her identity was not given the special concealment required. This happens to be the opinion of Victoria Toensing, the lawyer who was a principal draftsperson of what became the 1982 Agent Identities Protection Act for the sponsorship of then Senator Barry Goldwater; and Ms. Toensing has been making this point for some time and explaining that the definition of “covert” was given the definition it was in order not to impede public discussion of public issues.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with violating the Agent Identities Protection Act — particularly one Richard Armitage, the one who revealed Victoria Plame to journalist Bob Novak — because Fitzgerald couldn’t charge anyone with violating the Agent Identities Protection Act without directly confronting the problem that he would have to prove that Valerie Plame was covert when she wasn’t. The advantage of the perjury and obstruction of justice charges for Fitzgerald was that he could intimate that Plame was covert without having to prove it. My view is that Fitzgerald played a sleazy prosecutor’s game with respect to the issue of what was the non-covert status of Plame. It was his motion the trial judge granted to keep out of the jury’s consideration the question of Plame’s status, yet in his closing talked about how revealing Plame’s identity endangered her, as if that had anything to do with the narrow charges against Libby. There are plenty of people who say that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is impressive. I don’t think so; I have said to keep one’s eye on what he does. I think that he is a low life schmuck.

Of course, we cannot tolerate perjury and obstruction of justice. But this perjury and obstruction of justice case was a poor one, based on differences in recollections between Libby and a few journalists (Matthew Cooper as to one count and Tim Russert as to three counts) as to what was said two to three years earlier in conversations in 2003 that were not documented. Such differences in recollection as to undocumented conversations years old are standard in any case. Indeed, the failures of memory on the part of prosecution witnesses at trial demonstrated the point, which I have known as a litigator for thirty years. It always is the case that there are differences of recollection as to such undocumented conversations, and it does not mean someone is lying. Also, when there is no underlying crime (and there was not here), bringing a perjury and obstruction case is questionable.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s case succeeded for wrong reasons, among them the following.

First, Fitzgerald’s case depended on keeping away from the jury the non-covert status of Plame while painting an alternative universe of painting a Bush Administration striking out at war critic Joe Wilson, instead of what was the case — an Administration trying to respond to Wilson who, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, lied in his New York Times op-ed column. Wilson did not do a written report of any kind, much less one that had denied British intelligence as to Saddam’s intentions in Africa to purchase yellow cake uranium (mentioned in Bush’s State of the Union Address in the lead up to war); what Wilson did was to give oral comments in a debriefing that Saddam was up to something in Niger, and since yellow cake uranium was the only thing of interest to Saddam in Niger, that seemed if anything to tend to support British intelligence. Also, Wilson was not sent on his trip to Africa by the Vice President, but by his wife Plame. This whole case arose because Bob Novak, an experienced Washington D.C. journalist, asked “who sent Wilson?” Wilson was a left wing Democrat. If Cheney did not send Wilson (and Cheney wouldn’t), who did? The answer was Wilson’s wife; and it was Richard Armitage, one of Secretary of State Powell’s boys at the State Department and an internal critic of the Iraq War, who answered Novak’s question. Yet, Fitzgerald was successful in creating what might be called an alternative universe in the trial courtroom with Wilson and Plame as the victims.

Second, Fitzgerald sought and got a Washington D.C. jury with people hostile to the Bush Administration and susceptible to accepting that Fitzgerald’s alternative universe, with a barbecue buddy of prosecution witness Tim Russert and a former employee of prosecution witness Bob Woodward on that jury. A red state America jury in the heartland would not have returned this verdict. But this Washington D.C. jury did, after asking themselves, reportedly, where were the higher ups in the Bush Administration and why were they not on trial? It was absurd given the actual case before them. The case and the conviction were based on the different recollection of Russert (the Cooper count is not supported by the evidence) about an undocumented conversation — whether Russert told Libby about Plame; and it was Russert who changed his story from his November 2003 statement to the FBI saying he might have told Libby that to his early 2007 testimony saying that e did not tell Libby that, whereas Libby was consistent in saying that Russert did tell him about Libby.

Third, Libby’s defense team, headed by my Harvard Law School classmate Ted Wells (Class of 1976), did do some good cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses but still made serious mistakes. One mistake was that the defense team did not have Libby testify after Wells seemed to say in his opening statement that Libby would testify. You don’t promise in an opening statement something you don’t later deliver on; and you needed to have had the defendant Scooter Libby speak to the jury directly so that the jury concludes and wants to conclude that if Libby misremembered any conversation, it was not a matter of intentionally lying. Another defense team mistake — a very bad mistake –was that the defense team bought into the alternative universe of Fitzgerald, calling Libby the “fall guy,” instead of taking on Fitzgerald’s case directly.

So back off of using the Libby case as meaning anything other than that miscarriages of justice do happen.

Phil Byler on October 25, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Valerie Plame’s attack on the Bush Administration is totally deceitful and irresponsible. She was not covert within the meaning of the Agent Identities Protection Act, as she was a desk bound analyst in Washington D.C. for more than than the last five years, and thus there was no violation of any law, much less treason, in revealing her identity; and in any event, it was Colin Powell’s boy Richard Armitage, not Cheney or Libby, who revealed Plame’s identity to Robert Novak. If Plame’s identity was something to be protected, then her husband Joe Wilson had no business having an op-ed column published in the New York Times falsely intimating that Cheney sent him to Niger and that his report did not support Saddam seeking to buy yellow cake uranium (his oral report was inconclusive and the contrary conclusion was adhereed to by Brit intelligence). The natural question was “who sent Wilson?” — the question asked by Novak, which Armitage answered. Plame should be told she and her husband have had their fifteen minutes of fame and that it is time for them to get lost with their sleazy deceit.

ohhhh ok. I was wondering what the right wing spin was on this. Thanks.

crr6 on October 25, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Valerie knows who outed her. You can read it for yourself or listen to it

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) “I know who’ll look at it.” Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, “oh, yeah, hubby will go.”
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

If only an investigative journalist had known about this…

AndrewsDad on October 26, 2007 at 12:14 AM

An utterly hypocritical, lying (ban-worthy epithet redacted).

JimC on October 26, 2007 at 1:39 AM

highhopes on October 25, 2007 at 8:49 PM

Wow. First a reference to “lagniappe”, then channeling me on why Ms. PrettySecretAgentGirl had Joe Wilson as a husband (the “sugar daddy” comment).

You wouldn’t be from The Parish, would you, highhopes?

/grin

Wanderlust on October 26, 2007 at 5:15 AM

Her air tight cover included her dip squat hubby referring to her as “My CIA spy wife” at parties and her name on a parking space at CIA headquarters. I guess only super spies hang out in the parking lot reading the names and reporting back to C.R.U.S.H. ?

These are two not so bright people that tried to damage the administration during a time of war with uber media Liberals like Matthews trying to give their all wet story some smoke. These two are also a good example of what today’s Liberals are all about. Rich, self-centered and damaged. The Everyman of today’s political landscape has nothing in common with these types, and the Democratic party was hijacked decades ago.

Hening on October 26, 2007 at 8:05 AM

I have lost what little faith in the CIA that I ever possessed. How could this woman fool them for so long. CBS made her out to be a vagina totting James Bond. I think I will start calling the Chris Matthews show the “The Tool Shed”….This is almost sickening….

jimwesty on October 26, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Isn’t she supposedly up for CIA Director under Hillary?

Pam on October 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Shudder.

CP on October 26, 2007 at 9:43 AM

THese two make a perfect couple! She lies, he believes it!

Gatordoug on October 26, 2007 at 10:03 AM

As Ann Coulter once remarked, the last time Mrs. Wilson was covert was when she was someone’s Secret Santa at the CIA Christmas Party…

This woman openly lied to Congress. Why is she walking around like a “free” person, and why does Matthews conveniently ignore all of that? I know, I know… but I’m still incredulous at all of this… and this bitch has the balls to say the Administration committed treason?

I’d love to bump into her someday and give her my two cents…

D2Boston on October 26, 2007 at 10:45 AM

If this is the best the CIA can do for a WMD analyst, we are all doomed. She was not covert as another poster said. CIA has very specific rules defining covert and she did not meet the criteria for several years.

Reality and facts played no part in -her- Treason and that of her husband.

They Provided material aid to the enemy by way of false and misleading statements.

dogsoldier on October 26, 2007 at 12:31 PM