In WSJ op-ed, Toensing revisited familiar Plame falsehoods
In a November 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed (subscription required), Republican attorney Victoria Toensing criticized the CIA's role in the controversy surrounding outed CIA operative Valerie Plame and repeated a variety of falsehoods and distortions regarding Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
Falsehood: The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Plame suggested Wilson for the Niger mission
Toensing wrote: "The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion." However, the committee's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" reached no official conclusion regarding Plame's role in Wilson's selection. Additionally, several intelligence officials have disputed reports that Plame selected Wilson for the mission.
Falsehood: Wilson's NY Times op-ed "did not jibe" with what he reported to the CIA
Toensing wrote: "Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing." As Media Matters has noted, Wilson's report to the CIA is still classified, but much of its contents were laid out in the Senate Intelligence Committee report. As Media Matters has noted, the descriptions contained in the committee's report indicate that the findings and version of events Wilson disclosed to the CIA did not contradict those detailed in his July 6, 2003, op-ed in The New York Times, in which he described his mission to Niger and concluded that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Falsehood: Public knowledge of Plame's name was somehow significant
Toensing claimed that "if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise?" This argument, however, is based on faulty logic. When Wilson's July 6, 2003, op-ed was published, the only people who knew she worked for the CIA were those people authorized to know that information (and, allegedly, a number of reporters who learned it from administration officials).
Still, Toensing attempted to justify her argument by noting that Plame's name and marital status were publicly known at the time Wilson's op-ed was published. According to Toensing: "The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. [Robert D.] Novak asked after 'Why did the CIA send Wilson?' was 'Who is Wilson?' After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's 'wife' suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals 'Valerie Plame' as Mr. Wilson's spouse." But, as Media Matters has noted, Plame's name and the fact that she is married to Wilson were not classified. It was her status as a CIA employee that was classified. Novak was the first to publicly identify Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," in his July 14, 2003, nationally syndicated column. Novak cited "[t]wo senior administration officials" as his sources for the information, but has not identified either source.
Toensing went on to criticize the CIA for allowing Plame to make political donations under the name "Valerie E. Wilson," again wrongly suggesting that Plame's name was somehow significant. Toensing wrote: "Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name 'Wilson, Valerie E.,' information publicly available at the FEC." Again, this information would be significant to the controversy only if the Federal Elections Commission listed her employer as: "Central Intelligence Agency." As The Washington Post reported on October 8, 2003, when Plame donated $1,000 to Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential primary campaign, she listed as her employer "Brewster-Jennings & Associates," a CIA front company.
Notably, Toensing was not always of the opinion that Plame's name is significant to the controversy. During a July 19 interview on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Toensing acknowledged that revealing Plame's name was "not an important part of whether this is a crime or not." Toensing was referring to a potential violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she helped to draft.
Ms. Toensing wrote "Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background..." The Senate Intelligence Report states (pg. 39) that the CIA had previously sent Mr. Wilson to Niger. And Mr. Wilson's famous op-ed piece mentions that previous CIA experience. Gee - do you suppose that's why the agency asked him to go again? Because he'd served before and the company was satisfied with the work he'd done. Makes more sense to me than just asking his wife - or his wife asking them please could Joe go do it?
Speaking of WSJ misinformation on ScooterGate - take a look at Tuesday's (11/1/05) hit piece by George Melloan - if your stomach can stand it! Did you know President Bush personally appointed Patric Fitzgerald as "independent counsel?" Wow - what a load of horse pucky...
I read the article this morning and the thing that struck me is that it does raise the question (inadvertently of course) as to why the Bush Administration still reported the yellowcake uranium claim as fact when, according to Ms Toensing, The CIA’s investigation into the claim was shoddy, didn’t follow protocol and most importantly; no official report was submitted to The White House....
It's probably not a good idea to get to far ahead of the talking points Ms. Toensing.
Why can't wingers understand that Valerie Plame did not live in a cave, and that she did have a life outside her role in the CIA? The fact that "her name appeared on several websites" is COMPLETELY meaningless.
Tell me sexion, did these websites i.d. her as a CIA operative? Or did they just list her name as part of a group or a contributor to a cause? Prior to her outing by Novak/Libby/Rove, it was perfectly okay for Valerie Wilson to appear in public and lead an outwardly normal life. What was NOT okay would be for anyone to say "she works for the CIA". Neither Valerie Wilson, nor her husband, ever revealed her relationship with the CIA. Novak/Libby/Rove did that, and they are going to pay the price.
One problem:
If you have a cover, such as "Valerie Plame", you're not supposed to identify that name with your real life. That's the whole point of having a cover. "Valerie Plame" was supposed to be a fictional person who worked at Brewster and Jennings.
She should have gone by Valerie Wilson in every capacity that had to do with her personal life, thus keeping the real person, Mrs. Wilson, and Valerie Plame, separate.
They didn't do that, and compromised her cover.
seixon:
Valarie Plame was her maiden ... and WORK ... name, as many women use their professional name in business dealings.
Valarie Plame worked for her Cover business, as far as anyone knew, a legitimate energy analysis outfit with multiple overseas branches.
Your "THEORY" that Valarie Plame was her super-secret name that could not be spoken, is absolute blithering nonsense.
Her Married name is Wilson. This divulges NOTHING about the CIA. Her "cover" name of Plame ALSO divulges nothing about the CIA connection. Her name could be ANYTHING, and as long as her cover remains intact, as far as anyone knows, she has no CIA connection.
So, when does the public become aware that ANYONE (including the person named Valarie Plame) is a CIA op? WHEN SOMEONE BLOWS THEIR COVER AND TELLS THE WORLD SHE WORKS FOR THE CIA, as was done by ONLY Rove and Libby ... the traitors.
I realize you are desperate to explain away the treason of your heros in the White House, but you have taken leave of any level of credibility.
Toensing is repulsive, by the way. She is hardcore a Novak/Rove/Starr supporter. Why should anybody believe a goddam thing she says.
"After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's 'wife' suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals 'Valerie Plame' as Mr. Wilson's spouse."
Quick! Find one lie and one federal crime in this sentence.
Well...Novak originally said the name was given to him by two White House insiders...he said he didn't look for it, that they considered it significant and that they gave it to him.
So, if he now claims they merely said "Wilson's wife" and he had to go look up her name in WHO'S WHO, he's lying...either now or then.
The crime: that the two advisors revealed she was a CIA agent, whether they actually used her name or not. (However, given the preponderance of evidence over time, starting with Novak's original reporting, I believe they DID actually provide her name...for whatever neglibible significance that has as regards the act having been a crime. It's significant only in that it shows how readily they lie from one moment to the next to cover themselves.)
And...I don't get this line of argument Toensing makes, by the way, that, "if the CIA had TRULY wanted her identity kept secret, why would they have allowed Wilson to publish his op-ed?"
Well, Wilson could have appeared on AMERICAN IDOL or MTV's THE REAL WORLD, and it wouldn't have mattered: the only way Ms. Plame's status as a deep-cover CIA op could have been found out was if someone in a position to know had provided the information...had outed her.
Novak, Toensing, et al, are attempting to play on the public's (perceived) ignorance or confusion to argue that any attention whatsoever turned toward the Wilsons would have somehow uncovered her agency function.
Heck, if her neighbors and friends didn't know, how could anyone else known, merely by virtue of her husband's having published his op-ed? He was, after all, a career diplomat and not unknown in Washington or political circles, or in embassy posts around the world. Should we assume all the persons who knew him, and, by extension, probably knew or had met Ms. Plame, knew of her covert agent's status?
Of course not.
Ms. Toensing, a close friend, apparently, of Novak, is merely trying to rehabilitate Novak's damaged reputation, damage resulting from his obviously scurrilous deed in outing Ms. Plame, in which he revealed himself as a craven toady for the administration, willing to sell out national security at the behest of his masters.
robert1014:
Amen, brother.
Drawing attention to yourself isn't a particularly genius way to keep your wife under wraps. Also, the fact that she used her cover name, Valerie Plame, in a public capacity that corresponded to her real life also compromised this. If she had never identified herself as Valerie Plame in public, then there would have been no problem.
In other words, if a foreign intelligence service looked up "Valerie Plame", they should only find "Valerie Plame, works at Brewster and Jennings, married to Joe Bob Smith". Or hell, she shouldn't even be identified as married at all, as that provides more of a problem.
But there it was, for everyone to see, Valerie Plame, married to Joseph Wilson, former Clinton administration official, former ambassador, and since Wilson wrote the op-ed, CIA asset.
You shouldn't have found ANYTHING like that if you looked up "Valerie Plame". You should only have found the fictional character that Valerie Plame was supposed to be.
You didn't, and thus the Wilsons compromised Valerie's cover already, not entirely, but enough to get attention.
Where are you getting that "Valerie Plame" was some sort of cover name?
Oh I see. You made it up: [link to www.seixon.com]
Nice blog *cough*.
seixon - Friday November 4, 2005 03:31:56 PM EST
Again we get the incredibly ignorant argument that Wilson should never have pointed out the inaccuracy of Bushs SOTU since he should have known that they would retaliate by exosing his wifes identity by revealing classified information. If I were stupid enough to buy this, IF my IQ dropped that low would I have to hire someone to remind me to breathe? Thats the real question
Robert 1014:
You stated: "And...I don't get this line of argument Toensing makes, by the way, that, "if the CIA had TRULY wanted her identity kept secret, why would they have allowed Wilson to publish his op-ed?"
Actually, I think your observation is right on target. Toensing's is a completely non-sensical statement and -- from what I read and hear in the news -- seems to be the latest Republican angle addressing problems stemming from outing a CIA agent's identity.
The argument is that Valerie Plame Wilson effectively outed herself, by "sending her husband" to Niger, particularly since this was followed by his speaking out publicly on the Niger issue.
I first heard this ridiculous point made by Kit Bond, in a press conference broadcast on C-Span2 earlier this week. Bond, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stepped out of the Senate closed session called by Reid and spoke to the press. He repeated at least three times that Wilson had been "sent to Niger" by his wife. (Note that his claim exceeds conclusions of the Phase I investigation, where the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee at most stated that, unlike the Democrats, they believed Valerie Plame Wilson "recommended" Joe Wilson for the trip.) Bond then made an outrageous statement to the effect that, by sending her husband to Niger, Mrs. Wilson had basically outed herself.
Yesterday, Deborah Orin, N.Y. Post Washington Bureau Chief and apparent Republican sympathizer, made a statement on Hardball that was strikingly similar to Bond's and also to the one in Toensing's op-ed on the same day. As Bond had done, however, Orin put the onus on Plame, while Toensing puts it on the CIA.
I expect there will be new examples of this line of argument on the Sunday morning shows, this weekend.
For Libby and/or Rove sympathizers to continue to mislead Americans with statements that Plame "sent her husband to Niger" is troubling enough. But this latest twist -- that, in recommending her husband for a CIA assignment, or in not preventing him from writing about his experience in Niger, Plame was already effectively outed -- reaches a new low.
I am a professed moderate, not prone to contributing to these message boards. But I find these latest P.R. tactics really odious. (Wag that dog!) The RNC and/or the Administration miss the point of how weary Americans are of messaging designed to test the gullibility of our citizenry. It's clear they continue to think most of us are very, very stupid.
An update to my last comment:
Deborah Orin's specific statement on Hardball, as cited elsehwere on the Media Matters Website today, was: "Where do you think in the CIA training manual are the directions that the way to keep yourself covert is to send your husband on a mission and then have him go high profile and blab about, attack the White House from every rooftop?
As I wrote in my earlier comment, Bond's, Orin's and Toensing's various public statements of this week go well beyond questioning the veracity of Joe Wilson's Senate testimony or the appropriateness of his NYT op-ed piece. The new Republican talking point appears to be that Valerie Plame outed herself. I guess this is somehow intended to exonerate Libby and/or Rove? Haven't we reached a new low here?
solon,
Most of what you're saying doesn't even make sense, and you are just taking the words of CIA-apologists as the truth. Why would her superiors ask her to send them reasons to select Wilson if they already knew he was the guy they wanted? Makes no sense man. And you've still got the CPD reports officer who says that Mrs. Wilson offered up his name. So in a way, your explanation makes sense, only if she initially offered up his name. In other words:
"So, we need to send someone over to Niger I guess"
"Oh, my husband can do it, we sent him one time before"
"Oh, OK, why don't you send some more details on him to me later?"
Tada. See, the whole superior asking for details about Wilson only makes sense if Mrs. Wilson already offered him as a choice for the trip. Which the CPD reports officer corroborates.
Nice try, though. (Or are you calling the CPD reports officer a liar? Please choose)
Since the quote never references ANYTHING about its origin OR details of said report how are these two statements contradictory? I mean they had to tell him SOMETHING, they were sending him to Niger to check this out. A memorandum was mentioned, not its origin nor its details which Wilson does not CLAIM to know. This is weak
Eh... Are you pretending that that quote is all he has ever said on the subject? Hahahha. Look at his testimony for the SSCI. There is says that he not only knew of the documents, but he knew that they were from a [redacted] intelligence service. All the CIA officers involved say they did not tell him of the documents, either.
So somehow Wilson knew that he was investigating something based on some documents, and knew which intelligence service they came from - even though everyone at the CIA has testified that they never told him.
Nice try though, taking one statement from Wilson and pretending that he never said anything other than that. Very, very weak.
They asked Novak twice NOT to reveal her name what is it you expect for them to assasinate him to stop him?
Yeah, but then Novak found her name all over the place and wondered why in the hell they told her to keep it a secret as it wouldn't matter if he used her name or not. Ooops.
Your next assertion is a leak. People get married, because someone is married to an Ambassador they are assumed to be a CIA agent? Is that your contention? Again very weak. Do you assume that Sandy Bergers wife is a CIA agent? Your next paragraph tries the same ploy it wont wash. Her NAME being in whos who or on a church newsletter are irrelevant unless they identified her as Valerie Plame CIA agent.
OK, let's go through this slowly. Say that I'm a foreign intelligence agent. Say that I have had contact with a Valerie Plame on some sort of business stuff abroad, which I thought was business. So I want to make sure that this person is not someone else. I look her up on Google. I find out that she is the wife of a former National Security Council official and a former ambassador. Now let's say that this ambassador husband of hers comes out and says that the CIA sent him on a mission.
You seriously don't think that Valerie Plame looks a bit less like an energy consultant, and more like something else? Gee, what are the odds, the energy consultant I talked to last year is the wife of a former US administration official, a former ambassador, and a CIA asset. Hmmmm.
I mean seriously.
If you claim "Bush said Iraq had chemical weapons", and if I were to do like you, I would just find some or another random quote where Bush didn't say that. LOL.
Wilson said he knew ABOUT the documents and WHERE they came from to the SSCI. The CIA has testified that they never, ever told him this information.
So, you choose, is the CIA lying, or is Wilson?
There's no lie.
>> Wilson said this:
>> "While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's."
>> The SSCI puts that to shame. Unless you want to claim that several CIA officers are liars. Like:
>> "The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting..."
Wilson's statement doesn't include the source of details of the original reporting. Wilson wasn't told where the forged memo came from -- that would be the source. Nor does his statement include a specific date for the document, who signed it, how much was sold, etc. -- those would be details.
Is this really the best evidence you have backing up the "Wilson Lied" fantasy?
LOL.
Once again you are pretending that your quote from Wilson is the only thing he has ever said about the issue. In other words, you could just post a quote from Wilson talking about bunny rabbits and claim that he never said anything about the source of the documents. You don't see how ridiculous that is?
How about I quote from the SSCI report:
"Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [redacted] intelligence service."
Ooops.
seixon - Saturday November 5, 2005 10:49:27 AM EST
OK I finally think I have run this down. It does seem troubling perhaps misinformation if not a lie. The story seems to be related to a WaPo article written by Walter Pincus. Wilson seems to be claiming he was misquoted. Pincus is a journalist with considerable credibility so that seems unlikely to me. Until I can see more information on this I am willing to give you that one. I dont see what its importance is in the context of the larger picture but it does seem dishonest to me at this point
"You seriously don't think that Valerie Plame looks a bit less like an energy consultant, and more like something else?"
She looked a LOT less like an energy consultant after the Bush adminstration outed her as a CIA agent.
Nice dodge.
seixon - Friday November 4, 2005 03:57:48 PM EST
Of course it makes sense, other than the typo.
Why would her superiors ask her to send them reasons to select Wilson if they already knew he was the guy they wanted? Makes no sense man.<<
I can think of lots of reasons why they would ask his WIFE if he was a good choice to go after that like everything in government it was documented, a paper trail to justify every decision, preferably done by an underling. A better question is why if they DIDNT ask her did they SAY they did? I dont see it as a big deal one way or another but the people involved are saying she DIDNT suggest him, IF you are going to call them liars cough up your proof. Your imaginary scenario conversation apparantly dredged up from your rectal database is meaningless. How about hey Val, we need someone to check out a claim about Niger for the VPs office your husband has contacts there doesnt he, write me up a memorandum about his qualifications, I think I will suggest him when it comes time to pick someone in the meeting later. Sounds reasonable to me.
Nice try, though. (Or are you calling the CPD reports officer a liar? Please choose<<
I am not calling anyone a liar, You seem to be calling those who told Ensor that it DID go down this way liars perhaps you can cough up some evidence that they are in fact LYING.
Eh... Are you pretending that that quote is all he has ever said on the subject? Hahahha. Look at his testimony for the SSCI<<
I am pretending nothing you were asked to back up your claim, this is what you produced this is what I dealt with, cough up something else we will see.
Nice try though, taking one statement from Wilson and pretending that he never said anything other than that. Very, very weak.<<
That one statement from Wilson is ALL you produced to portray him as a liar, I correctly pointed out it was in no way contradictory to the claims you used to attack his credibility, what about this are you haveing a hard time understanding?
Yeah, but then Novak found her name all over the place and wondered why in the hell they told her to keep it a secret as it wouldn't matter if he used her name or not. Ooops.<<
You should say oooops I have seen better attempts at logic on Bazooka Joe bubblegum comix. Her name was not in any way at issue, her identity as a CIA agent is and Novak is on record stating he learned that from "two senior adminstration officials, man you really arent very good at this, if you are going to play in this league you REALLY need to step up your game.
solon,
1. The CPD reports officer has said that Valerie "offered up his name" under oath to the Senate. Every person you are talking about has said a different story to the press, where they were not under oath. Again, are you calling the CPD reports officer a liar or not? He said so under oath, your sources did not. Get a clue. It's called damage control.
2. I only used that quote as an example. Wilson said he got to know about the source and that the report was based on documents. CIA officers have said under oath that they did not tell him either of those things.
3. The point about Novak and the name was that the CIA officer you cited claimed he told Novak not to use her NAME because it would cause problems. Now obviously this was not true, since her name was all over the place. So why did the CIA officer tell him not to use her name? I think I know - because he didn't know that Valerie had already compromised her cover name.
4. You didn't even understand the point I was making, so stick some Bazooka Joe in your mouth and shove it.
seixon - Saturday November 5, 2005 10:55:28 AM EST -
The CPD reports officer has said that Valerie "offered up his name" under oath to the Senate. Every person you are talking about has said a different story to the press, where they were not under oath. Again, are you calling the CPD reports officer a liar or not? He said so under oath, your sources did not.<<
OR, as I have already pointed out before he could have been wrong he is a reports officer he could have made that assumption based on the memo which Vals superiors claim THEY initiated. Did he say he HEARD her suggest his name?
[link to www.talkingpointsmemo.com]
The LAT article notes that Plame's bosses at the CIA continue to insist that the idea to send Wilson was not hers, but rather theirs. The Times quotes a 'senior intelligence official' saying that "Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going…. They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes."
2 I am not really sure what to think about this claim give me a link I will check it out. I know Wilson did say when he claimed the Bush administration statement was based on forged documents (which it almost certainlywas either directly or indirectly) he might have been confused because the IAEA had just released the FACT the documents were in fact forged if that is NOT what you are talking about I am in the dark.
3 I see what you are trying to say, the CIA man also told him the story he was going with WASNT TRUE. He couldnt do more without compromising classified information, he couldnt say hey Val is a covert agent dont print the story as that was classified, so telling him the story wasnt true and if he went with it not to use her name was all he COULD do. As for your supposition its just that supposition nothing more. Fitzgerald said it was not known she was a CIA agent, this name game is ludicrous she WAS married the names WERE linked by marriage period the pertinent point was that it was not widely known she was a CIA AGENT.
4 Now I expected better from you a man of your intellect, no I guess I didnt.
more:
Your next paragraph is a restatement of your original premise without any added insight or information, here is a clue no matter how many times you repeat something it doesnt give it added credibility. Do you assume Bergers wife is a CIA agent? Any former Ambassador that does some fact checking for our government is suddenly suspected of being a CIA agent. Its ludicrous on the face of it
You seriously don't think that Valerie Plame looks a bit less like an energy consultant, and more like something else?<<
This argument is so dumb it only shows your desperation, are you now claiming you can tell CIA agents or energy consultants for that matter by their looks???? A pretty lady is married to a former ambassador so she is NOT covert because everyone knows any pretty lady married to an ambassador is a CIA agent?? Back away from the kool-aid it is evidently rotting your brain.
If you claim "Bush said Iraq had chemical weapons", and if I were to do like you, I would just find some or another random quote where Bush didn't say that. LOL.<<
Good luck with that, Bush said a lot more than Iraq had chemical weapons he said they had 25,000 liters of this and so many thousand liters of that, so I tell you what you FIND me that quote of Bush saying BEFORE the invasion that Iraq did NOT have chemical weapons then get back to me. I wont hold my breath
Wilson said he knew ABOUT the documents and WHERE they came from to the SSCI. The CIA has testified that they never, ever told him this information.
So, you choose, is the CIA lying, or is Wilson?<<
You have not documented this and I havent seen a contradiction. I see no evidence as yet either is lying,
No, I would not assume Berger's wife is a CIA agent. Why not? Because she has never served overseas, and has never used her maiden name overseas as a cover. Did you forget about that?
Valerie compromised her cover because she let her cover name be associated with Valerie Wilson. That should never have happened. Valerie Plame and Valerie Wilson should have been totally indistinguishable people, but they were not.
She had used "Valerie Plame" overseas on assignments earlier in her career. Did Mrs. Berger? Nope. That's where your logic got you all twisted up in a knot. I do not believe Mrs. Berger has a cover working at a fictional company, either. In other words, foreign agents would never have any reason to be looking up Mrs. Berger, since she has never worked any assignements overseas. Plame did, so of course they would be looking her up.
The fact that this simple logic test befuddled you shows a thing or two.
When did I claim I could tell CIA agents by their looks? Lay off the strawmen arguments... You're getting all high.
I made a cogent argument, and you have tried to take it all out of context because it made too much sense.
Obviously you didn't get the point I was making about Bush, either. I was ridiculing you using a random quote from Wilson to prove that he didn't say something... Zzzz....
Lastly,
The CPD reports officer has testified to the SSCI UNDER OATH that Mrs. Wilson "offered up his name". The CIA has also testified under oath that they did not tell Wilson anything about any documents or the origin of the documents. Yet Wilson, under oath, said he knew about both.
So you choose, is Wilson lying, or is the CIA lying?
The documentation is in the SSCI report, if you actually wanted to read it. It is clear that you don't. I tire of debating with people who have the attention span of a gnat. Your tirade about the Bush thing shows you have no reading comprehension what so ever.
seixon - Saturday November 5, 2005 11:05:44 AM EST
You are trying to say that if the name Plame gets connected to the name Wilson it means she was suspect? ludicrous, many women take the name of their husband but continue to use their maiden name in their professional life she was a CIA agent BEFORE she married Wilson. It is NOT suspect to continue to use her name when in her professional capacity as an Energy analyst with her old contacts overseas.
When did I claim I could tell CIA agents by their looks? Lay off the strawmen arguments... You're getting all high.<<
Did you or did you NOT say THIS? You seriously don't think that Valerie Plame looks a bit less like an energy consultant, and more like something else? YOU DID. So exactly what DID you mean? Lay off the koolaid it is getting you all stupid
Obviously you didn't get the point I was making about Bush, either. I was ridiculing you using a random quote from Wilson to prove that he didn't say something... Zzzz....<<
Obviously you didnt MAKE a point since I used the same quote you did just a more complete version of it to show tha it did NOT contradict what you claimed it did. I see your attention threshold and ability to hold a thought is extremely limited by your snoring, that explains a lot
So you choose, is Wilson lying, or is the CIA lying?<<
AND the CIA is on record as saying she didnt and was asked so IF you are correct the CIA is either lying in one of the two contradictory statements or someone is wrong talking out of turn without all the facts.
I tire of debating with people who have the attention span of a gnat. Your tirade about the Bush thing shows you have no reading comprehension what so ever.<<
Funny I scored college level reading comprehension on the Ohio state tests when I was in 8th grade. On the other hand I pick things off my sweater that show more higher brain function than I have seen in any of your posts so far.