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.
44dd
So I've seen...er, been told.
She is something else.....
sigh....
Speaking of that - nevermind.
How does one nevermind those? ;o)
Question of the month. Excellent.
Of course, you know the answer. The question answers itself when you understand the shared political agenda of the parties involved. The scumbags. But Valerie's pretty easy on the eyes. I wonder how many secrets she was able to suck out of enemy agents over the years? You know, when she was "undercover".
I have my own.
So I've seen...er, been told.
You have been ... discussed here... by friends....
XOXOXO
Take it over to one of your chat threads.
You're most welcome, and thanks for the reply.
Re your post #169 - THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT TO THEM!
re your post #36 - Thanks so much for posting that. I thought about your post and realized Slate may have just copied Byron York's earliest post. But, FR remains first by posting a "nude" photo of her this weekend! :)
Re your post #141 - see my post #175.
Thanks for correcting the artist's name. Also see post #172.
Also see post #175. It links to the article by lawyer Victoria Toensing, who wrote the subject federal law. Victoria is saying Valeria was not covert under that law because Valeria did not live abroad for five years.
It just goes to show you that accepting Google results at face value can bite you in the... canvas.
:-)
No problem at all.:)
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.