Mar 16 2007

Plame Silliness

Published by at 3:44 pm under All General Discussions,Plame Game

I have to admit the Plame Game is getting a bit boring. And the duplicity of the attack on Libby and the administration over forgotten details verses the out and out lying by the Wilson’s and Fitzgerald is just mind boggling. What would be interesting is if ANYONE would take on the Wilson’s for all their lies and get them under oath. It seems Valerie Wilson dropped some whoppers this morning, and from what I heard of her testimony she needs acting lessons because ‘the poor injured agent’ act came off like amatuer night at the elementary school play. Tom Maguire notes we have REAL conflicting statements under oath now, but so what – if no one does anything about it? A headline “The Wilsons Lied” is about as shocking as Bill Clinton parsing words to twist his fibs. Want to get my attention? Someone make a case and show how Valerie lied (or Joe did in his book, etc.).

I mean she is up there saying Richard Armitage was politically motivated to leak her identity to the media as retribution against Joe (OK, she is saying the administration did, but we all know who leaked her name!). Some newspapers seem to enjoy being lied to, they find it admirable. At least that is all I can figure when they do not call Plame on her inconsistencies under oath.

22 responses so far

22 Responses to “Plame Silliness”

  1. BarbaraS says:

    Why are we still talking about this?

    Because the left won’t let it go. They think they can still get Bush with this thing. And that trumps reason, sanity and truth.

  2. Seixon says:

    Since Larry Johnson has banned me from his blog once again for asking uncomfortable questions, I’ll post here the questions that Larry seemingly is unable or unwilling to answer:

    1. Why was Plame’s name and position divulged to INR at the meeting, while another CIA analyst was not named?

    2. Why would a paragraph containing Plame’s details indicate that it was marked Secret due to her, while you say yourself that all of the information in the paragraph is classified?

    3. Why would the OVP contact a specific junior officer at the CIA? Why wouldn’t they, as evidence at the Libby trial showed, go through their CIA briefer for making such inquiries? Does Plame have any evidence that such a phone call took place?

    4. You made the following statement in July 2005: “Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.”

    Is that not directly opposite of this one from Plame: “No. I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved — I didn’t have the authority.”

    5. Can you provide evidence of your claim that “the CIA will only admit Valerie was at the CIA since 2002”? What is the basis of this claim? The statement Hayden cleared does not contain any references to any years or a time period.

    6. Is it or is it not so that the SSCI report was signed off by both Democrats and Republicans, and that no information was published in the report that the Democrats did not allow? Is so, why do you continue to claim the opposite?