Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

How Covert was Valerie Plame?

Beats me.  But in light of Saturday’s Chicago Tribune story (one of several, incidentally), Tom Maguire has some ideas.

Meanwhile, according to the WaPo’s famed Watergate editor Ben Bradlee, the Plame “leaker” (are we sure Google wasn’t responsible?) was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s Deputy Secretary of State—a supposition previously floated by Newsweek and drawn out by Maguire back in November.

Clarice Feldman at the American Thinker has a nice summary of this weekend’s events—all of which, I should think, have the Libby defense team smiling, and people like Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and partisan big game hunters like the Nation’s David Corn with egg on their faces.

AJ Strata is even more exercised:

[…] now we see how duplicitous and unprofessional a prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald really is. The person responsible for the leak was used to frame someone who the prosecutor stipulates lied to reporters regarding the details of the leak so as to not leak himself. Fitzgerald needs to be reprimanded and he needs to step down. Now.

See also, Decision ‘08.

****

updateMore, from AJ Strata.

7 Replies to “How Covert was Valerie Plame?”

  1. just asking says:

    Just how dangerous are Valerie Plame’s neighbors?  Does it really matter if THEY knew she worked at the CIA?  It is the bad guys who would work (or use google) to undercover the identity of covert agents who are a threat, not the head of her Neighborhood Civic Association.

  2. Just how dangerous are Valerie Plame’s neighbors?  Does it really matter if THEY knew she worked at the CIA? 

    Who do they talk to?

    Who to the people they talk to talk to?

  3. Spiny Norman says:

    Meanwhile, according to the WaPo’s famed Watergate editor Ben Bradlee, the Plame “leaker” (are we sure Google wasn’t responsible?) was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s Deputy Secretary of State…

    Nay! It was Rove, Rove, Rove! Joe Wilson said it could only be Rove, and we all know he would never deceive us.

  4. Rick says:

    Well, I was real close:  my pick was old Colin Powell hisseff.  Turns out is was his Mini-Me.

    Cordially…

  5. ed says:

    Hmmm.

    @ Jeff

    Really *the* most important question is why is Fitz handling Armitage with such kid gloves?  Why is the presiding judge going along with this?

    Even the most benign view of Armitage shows that he clearly did everything that Libby has been accused of, and more.  Yet Fitz not only refuses to indict him he’s also refused to actually *name* him.  And the judge thinks this is perfectly fine.

    Is Armitage being safeguarded for a new career as a Democrat Sec of State in 2008?  Or as a weapon against Bush that wouldn’t be useful if he were indicted and put on trial now?

    Where are all the Libby’hating lefties who were screaming so hard about sending secrets-revealing-bastards-to-prison?

    actus!  actus!  Someone wake up actus and tell him he’s on!

  6. MayBee says:

    I can see why Joe Wilson didn’t have visions of Armitage being frog-marched.  Noooobody wants to see that.

    I do think Fitzgerald tried to do a good job and has found himself caught up in a political game.  Of course, there’s no such thing as a Special Prosecutor in Washington being appointed for any reason other than political gamesmanship.

    A press not actively pushing for Kerry’s election would have outed Wilson as the democrat-donating, Kerry-campaigning, mission overstating, “no war for Israel” spouting, fraud that he was.

    In my opinion, we should never have a Special Prosecutor for anything ever, and especially not when the press or minority party is pushing for one.

  7. libopinion says:

    Okay, you guys can have the traitor. I’ll take the dude who prosecuted the mob, Osama, and helped smash a child porn ring.

    rolleyes

Comments are closed.