Say Anything Blog

Valerie who?

Steve,

Valerie Wilson, ne Plame.  You know, the poor woman married to the pathological lier.  I seem to recall she had 15 minutes of fame for some lame reason or other…

Out Here
Rodney Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

jumping-off-bridges depressed

I am laughing to hard at the “nice summary”.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame manipulated the
Whitehouse, that’s a power couple.

Who ate those 16 words?

Your telling me to stay away from drugs.
I’m telling you:

Now if you’re tired or a bit run down,
Can’t seem to getcha feet off the ground,
Maybe you oughta try a little bit of LSD.
Only if you want to

First ones free.

WOOF,

Take another hit man.  It’ll make the discrepancies between what Joe says in the press, and what he says under oath, shrink down to the size of the next dot.

.

Whoah.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Joe Wilson, noted leftie liar.

WOOF:

Who ate those 16 words?

Damn, WOOF.  Do you ever get anything right???

I’m just wondering what passes as truth for people like you.

Carrick,

In answer to your question to/of woof:

Damn, WOOF. Do you ever get anything right???

I’d say at about the same frequency as a stopped clock.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Rodney Graves:

I’d say at about the same frequency as a stopped clock.

Would that be analog or digital?

Carrick,

Analog.  Every once in a great while our blind squirrel does indeed find a nut.  Sadly for him, the matching bolt is seldom attached, and the washer is just right out.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

On a more serious note, I thought the comment, as reported by Drudge, that Novak got Plame’s name from Who’s Who the most interesting (see here for context).

That certainly short circuits a lot of liberal conspiracy theories…

One small correction to the broken clock: it’s digital, set to military time. Hence woof’s right once a day.

J.

Someone please alert me when that once a day occurence happens next. For some reason I’ve never once witnessed it. If anyone can actually remember the last time please put up the link. I won’t hold my breath.

Novak—-and the far-right in general—-has been lying about the Plame affair since day one.

Novak suddenly spits out the same old lies—-doesn’t even have the decency to sell you a new set of lies—-and you lap it up like alleycats with a fresh saucer of milk.

Why do you believe every single word these serial liars tell you?

(That’s a rhetorical question. I know you’re intellectuially incapable of seeing past the bullshit)

Don,

I’ve seen this very same sort of argument before… same structure, same rhetorical arrogance, same angry diatribe, same petty insistence that the other party to the disagreement was lying, lying, lying.  Even the same invective and insults, the same reckless lashing out at anything and anybody with the temerity to disagree.

In that particular case, the idiot making your very same argument was insisting that the earth was flat.  Have a nice day.

I’ve seen this very same sort of argument before… same structure, same rhetorical arrogance, same angry diatribe, same petty insistence that the other party to the disagreement was lying, lying, lying. Even the same invective and insults, the same reckless lashing out at anything and anybody with the temerity to disagree.

I see it too, bat—-in almost everything you post.

Well, Novak doesn’t help the left’s case by implicating Rove or Cheney as the leaker - therefore he must be lying!

That is what passes for ‘logical argument’ with Don Myers and his leftist ilk.

That is what passes for ‘logical argument’ with Don Myers and his leftist ilk.

Well, Ken… when you have a scared animal cornered, it does tend to hiss and scratch a bit.

The “scream liar, liar until it sticks” meme is nothing new, either.

Don,

”...so’s yer old man!” is not exactly the most mature or the most cogent argument you could have made.  But then you probably know that already, don’t you?  Don’t you?

How about instead of a rhetorical display of your biceps, you specify which lies you are alluding to, and offer some sort of tangible proof that Novak, and by extenstion the rest of us, are lying.

For example, if you could demonstrate that Joe Wilson’s bio entry in Who’s Who doesn’t refer to his wife Valerie and her former name, Plame, then clearly Novak would be lying about that.  (Of course, Wilson’s own website refers to her as “the former Valerie Plame” but we’re talking here about Novak’s lies and those of the Right… not those of the Left.)

It’s one thing to throw insults and accusations about, like some indignant adolescent who has had her allowance and her cell phone taken away, don.  It’s quite another thing to demonstrate that you actually know what you’re talking about and that your accusations are based on something more substantive than childish pique.

It’s simple, Bat1.  Clearly the 2002 Who’s Who is also lying when it said her name was Valerie Plame.

And I haven’t seen a single thing that Novak says that is inconsistent with the record, including the fact that Wilson is a proven liar.

Commonly called cognitive dissonance.

contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs

They sang:

Some day he’ll come along

The man I love.

and he’ll be big and strong

The man I love

The man came and he brought the House and Senate
with him.

They wanted smaller gov’t, the man went big.

They wanted a balanced budget , they got runaway spending.

They wanted Milton Freidman , they got John Maynard Keynes.

They wanted individual liberties, privacy, they got the Patriot Act, warantless secret searches and spying on everything all the time.

They wanted immigration controlled , they got plans for Amnesty.

They wanted protection of property rights, they got emminent domain.

They wanted transparent gov’t, they got darkness.

They wanted a Republic , they got a monarchy.

They longed for climax. They got an aborted massage. Now forgotten lovers, they
tell themselves “He really loves me, he’s a good man “, and still become moist at any message they receive.

They sing

No, No, No, it just can’t be.

Are you ok, WOOF?  You appear to be losing it.  Try another hit.

For example, if you could demonstrate that Joe Wilson’s bio entry in Who’s Who doesn’t refer to his wife Valerie and her former name, Plame, then clearly Novak would be lying about that.

Oh Jesus Christ—-that’s stupid even for you fucking fifth-graders. Novak leaked the fact that Plame was an undercover CIA operative, not the fact that she fucking EXISTS!!!

Nothing really new in Novak’s tell all column so no reason for this liberal troll to be depressed.

Mike, hardly surprising given that you are prone to seeing only what you want to see.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

whatever…if he’d revealed who his initial source was then that would be news.

MikeAdamson:

whatever…if he’d revealed who his initial source was then that would be news.

Fitzgerald already knows who that person is, and obviously isn’t filing charges, so why exactly do you think that would be news?  I mean that as a serious question, BTW.

I suppose since you, unlike some of your liberal friends, don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, it wasn’t even noteworthy to learn how “Valerie Plame” rather than “Valerie Wilson” got used in the original article?

Don,

Temper, temper.  You are going to need some serious medical attention if you don’t learn to hyper down a bit.  And given the intellectual prowess we’ve seen demonstrated here this morning among the up and coming class of doctors, I believe some preventive self-help is clearly called for.  Calm down.

Calling everyone whose point of view you disagree with little names isn’t going to change the fact that Valerie Plame was not a secret agent/covert operative/undercover anything.  Her previous work overseas was secret, but that was many years ago, before her status was regarded as “blown” thanks to the treachery of Aldrich Ames.  She was an analyst riding a desk, not Jane Bond, and the connection between Valerie Plame, CIA employee, and Valerie Wilson, Joe’s dutiful spouse, was hardly a secret either in Washington or to anyone with half an hour to spare and access to Google.  Her FEC campaing contributions to AlGore and Kerry were dutifully recorded under the name “Plame” and the listed employer was a known CIA front company.  Hubby listed her on his website as “the former Valerie Plame” as well.  And apparently all the wishful thinking to the contrary by you and the other childish maroons on the left didn’t leave much of an impression on Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, as in the end there were no indictments, let alone convictions for her “outing.”

You are rapidly descending into that exclusive hell reserved for the same pitiful partisans that insist that 9-11 was an inside job (again, check your doctor’s credentials - especially if his/her license to practice is from Wisconsin!), Vince Foster was murdered in the White House, and Jimmy Hoffa is buried under Giant’s stadium in the Meadowlands.

Take a pill.  Chill!

Carrick…the story is newsy to me in a gossipy way since I’m not an American and it doesn’t matter to me that an agent’s cover was blown. I’m curious who the original source was for the sake of the story’s coherence and development rather than pure news value per se. As for how Novak knew to use Plame rather than Wilson, Novak himself explained how he could have found it so it’s not much of a stretch to think that’s how it was actually done.

to me that an agent’s cover was blown.

Actually no cover was ever blown as she was a Washington desk jockey so more much to do about nothing.

Also the CIA had inadvertently leaked her name prior to all of this.

Actually no cover was ever blown as she was a Washington desk jockey…

I have seen speculation to that effect but I don’t recall an official response to the question of her status.

I have seen speculation to that effect but I don’t recall an official response to the question of her status.

“Blowing” her cover would have been a crime.  The very special prosecuter did not charge anyone on that charge.  He spent millions of dollars and could find no underlying charge.

TW…should I infer that you haven’t seen an official response either?

TW…should I infer that you haven’t seen an official response either?

What do you mean by “official.”  No the pope hasn’t told me that personally.

However as I told you before the official in charge of the investigation did not charge anyone.  He’s been asked that exact question and he hasn’t come out and answered it. 

What do you want me to do, there’s no official proclamation because the special prosecuter’s milking his job.  His actions do speak.

MA:

‘m curious who the original source was for the sake of the story’s coherence and development rather than pure news value per se.

My money is on Richard Armitage.

I can see why this would be interesting as a gossip column story, as I find it still interesting on that level, though more drama is added by the American loons who have gone off the deep end on this one.  Watching how they’ll get back on shore while retaining a shred of their original dignity will be pretty interesting.

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.

Here Come Da Judge

Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

(A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was “unlikely” to take further trips overseas, though.)

Carrick…I’m with you on Armitage.

TW…neither the Pope nor the Special Prosecutor are in postions to offer official responses on behalf of the CIA. It is fun to speculate though.

TW…neither the Pope nor the Special Prosecutor are in postions to offer official responses on behalf of the CIA. It is fun to speculate though.

The CIA’s responsibility is to refer it to the department of justice to see if the law was broken.  The Department of Justice in this case turned it over to the very special prosecuter.

The very special prosecuter has not charged and apparently won’t charge anyone for the leaking her name.

That’s how it works, the CIA has no ability to do what you think it does.

the CIA has no ability to do what you think it does.

I think that the CIA is able to answer any questions about the status of one its employees…whether it chooses to do so is another matter as is whether a prosecutor chooses to bring an indictment against any given target of an investigation. I still support your right to speculate however.

I think that the CIA is able to answer any questions about the status of one its employees…

I don’t think they will talk about that stuff, at least not officially.

TW: 

Actually no cover was ever blown as she was a Washington desk jockey so more much to do about nothing.

Fitzgerald:

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I’d like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It’s important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation’s security.

Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

…It’s critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.
…That’s the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer’s identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

…That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson’s cover had been blown, investigation began.