Well, without sunglasses and a scarf, anyway.
By Timothy Noah, Slate
Posted Wednesday, July 6, 2005, at 7:40 AM PT
Plame reveals herself in the madding media
crowd. [3rd photo down, on right]
Posted on 07/06/2005 10:19:59 AM PDT by summer
Valerie Plame, Nude!
Well, without sunglasses and a scarf, anyway.
By Timothy Noah, Slate
Posted Wednesday, July 6, 2005, at 7:40 AM PT
Plame reveals herself in the madding media
crowd. [3rd photo down, on right]
Valerie Plame's career in the Central Intelligence Agency was destroyed by whoever leaked her name to Robert Novak, and that is a terrible wrong. If we ever find out who the leaker is, the president must fire him. (Or them.) That said, I'm starting to weary of the story line that Plame avoids the media spotlight. "She has guarded her privacy" and "shunned publicity," Scott Shane wrote in the July 5 New York Times. That was true once, but it isn't true now. Shane pointed out a glaring exception late in 2003, when Plame "posed with her husband for a Vanity Fair photographer, wearing sunglasses and with a scarf over her blond hair." On Jan. 5, 2004, her husband, Joe Wilson, was quoted telling Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post that there was no remaining national-security reason to continue hiding Plame's face, since her cover was "completely blown." Then why the scarf and sunglasses? "She had to be clothed as generic blonde in order to deal with the genuine concern that some wacko on the street might easily identify her," Wilson explained. "It was just in the interest of personal security." Wilson repeated the need for this precaution in his memoir, The Politics of Truth:
She had already been described as the beautiful blond that she is, and her cover had long since been blown, so the only concern remaining was whether strangers would be able to use a photo to recognize her in public. With proper precautions taken, I saw no reason to deprive ourselves of the pleasure of being photographed together as the happily married couple that we are.
Fair enough. But on Page 70 of the July 2005 Vanity Fair—the one with Nicole Kidman on the cover and Mark Felt's Deep Throat confession inside—there's a photograph of the happy couple at Vanity Fair's party celebrating the Tribeca Film Festival. No scarf and no sunglasses. Plame, seated, is smiling and leaning into the camera. If you're a wacko on the street, please avert your eyes.
Everyone in the Georgetown social crowd knew that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer and this idiot woman also made a campaign contribution to Gore in 2000 using her CIA front company and cover to do so. How dumb is that? Should this woman even still be an agent if she can't even keep in cover intact?
So who really blew who's cover here?
Her idiot husband also has been found to be a liar and a fraud on many counts and his book was nothing but lies spun out of whole cloth.
Also how is it that Bob Novak who wrote about Plume in article and named her as a CIA agent got off scot free and no sanctions? This whole thing smells to high heaven and I can't wait to see who the real source was. Who knows maybe it was her husband
You wish.
It's yours.
My wish or my bedpost?
Both. LOL
Whose handcuffs?
Mine. Your Gin though. ROFL!!!
Vodka - I don't drink Gin - you know that.
;-)
You'll mature some day. ;o)
Silly leftists.
OMG. LOL.
I wrote some thoughts on the WaPo article last night. I know you'd have to slog through my replies but it's been a long day and I don't have time to look it up.
Suffice to say, it's a layered opinion. :)
Never.
This is it.
Topped out at 17, huh?
that is completely untrue. Novak himself has ridiculed this idea, pointing out that well before the leak Ms Plame was known in Washington's social set for her real name and her real job. This whole "issue" is a crock of shit
that is completely untrue. Novak himself has ridiculed this idea, pointing out that well before the leak Ms Plame was known in Washington's social set for her real name and her real job. This whole "issue" is a crock of shit
You sure that is a Picasso.
I'm thinking Duchamp.
Topped out at 38DD
No JRBC are you. ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.