Replies

At least a couple of people have noted that, in the context of the question he was answering, this appeared to be what he was saying.

I don't see how that can be a reasonable interpretation of his remarks. If the relevant part of the CNN transcript is what is shown here, then Wilson uses the phrasing "was not a clandestine officer" followed by a description of the day or time when she was not a clandestine officer twice within the space of a few seconds. To believe Wilson's revisionist interpretation of what he was saying, you would have to accept that he used essentially identical wording within an interval of a few breaths to mean two completely different things.

First, Wilson states:

My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

Then he states:

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared.

So, if one were to twist the first sentence to mean that as of the instant when Bob Novak blew her secret identity she was no longer a clandestine officer, but she might have been before and up to that very instant, you would have egg on your face if you tried to claim that that's what he also meant in the closely-following statement about her status at the time when the article appeared in Vanity Fair. That's a mighty big one to swallow, isn't it?

If, in Wilson's mind, the mere act of revealing her CIA connection caused her to no longer be a clandestine agent, then wouldn't that have occurred when her identity was first known to have been revealed, purportedly by Aldrich Ames to various Communist government agents? Or, does she continue to be a clandestine officer while her cover has been blown to enemies of the United States, but only ceases to be a clandestine officer when her identity is revealed to United States citizens? The absurdity of that is self-evident, isn't it? You can't be deflowered twice, can you?

Well parsed! Basically I had the same thoughts but you said it far better. In addition I would add that any spouse of any ambassador should be assumed to be a spook - especially if the ambassador is a career diplomat. Valerie Plame's career as a spy was done the day she became Mrs Wilson!

At this point...I wish her identity was kept secret from US citizens.

I don't follow. If he meant she wasn't a clandestine officer from the point Novak published going forward, how is that inconsistent with saying she wasn't a clandestine officer when the VF article appeared? It would mean the same thing.