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.

Valerie wasn't clandestine at the time of Rove's conversation with Cooper, or for more than five years before it, and Wilson knew it.

So what does it matter what the context of the question was? I guess you think an admission of the obvious is important to some hear.

from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

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

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

I appreciate your desire for precision, but I do not understand your point. The last paragraph seems to be a total non sequitur. Wilson must have known perfectly well what Blitzer was trying to confirm, namely, since she had not been a cladestine agent in a foreign country for over 5 years at the time she was identified as CIA, nobody broke the law. He is clearly wriggling, by introducing irrelevant material. Strangely, his answer is to the questions that Blitzer has yet to ask!! --
"I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC..."

Blitzer then obliges by asking the question:

"BLITZER: Who did you vote for in 2000?"

I would swear the phrase "defined by" was in answer to Couric's question about whether he is a Democrat. Can anybody verify.

The whole interchange with Blitzer is bizarre. Wilson's clarification does not clarify anything, except that if someone is known to work for the CIA and their picture shows up in Vanity Fair they are not likely to sent anytime soon on a covert operation. I kind of doubt that anybody was sending the wife of an Ambassador on a cladestine operation period. Once she married Wilson her cover was blown!

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?

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

Lugs, dude, I know you've been having a terrible time of it these last 24 hours, but you look silly talking about "context" when Wilson says, flat-out, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

You're spinning as much as Wilson was. Your protests that you're just looking for the truth are as sad as his.

You don't like Rove; don't let that get in the way of your ability to read/listen.

"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. "

Doesn't matter what the psychotic goofball was saying. The fact is that his wife was broiught home physically in 1994, and officially de-registered between 1994 and 1997, proving his Frog March routine the ludicrous, Ritterish lie that it is.

Neither Wilson nor his wife, who seems to enjoy to current one trick dog and pony show they're inflicting on the public, is a hero.

Plame set Bush up, using her husband to do it. They have been caught. It's as simple as that. It's a switchback ploy that they lost their way and got caught on, pure and simple.