Posted on 07/19/2005 10:04:42 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
Could minor Ambassador Joe Wilson himself have been the source in blowing his own Wife's cover?
It is distinctly possible, (though it may be unlikely that Joe Wilson himself directly was NY Times Judith Miller's source), since Joe Wilson himself evidently routinely bragged openly to strangers about her CIA employment, prior to such "cover" being "blown" in the press.
Here's an example of Joe's apparently routine and open bragging about Valerie being a "CIA agent," which became known directly to me over a year ago:
He certainly bragged about it per a famous and highly reliable source's (named below) account of his own face-to-face encounter with Amb. Joe Wilson prior to Valerie Plame's "outing" as a CIA agent/employee.
Based upon a personal conversation (we were in a small group eating; it was NOT an "off the record") I had with eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson (we were at a luncheon table together during a trip to Europe), it appeared entirely possible that Joe Wilson himself was the (or one source, if not the original one) possible source in revealing his own wife's status as a CIA agent or employee.
Victor Davis Hanson (Wilson presumably knew Victor Davis Hanson wrote regularly for NRO (National Review Online), had done OpEds for the Wall street Journal, and other publications, and had his own Website with a widespread following) said he (VDH) & Joe Wilson were both in the same "Green Room" before a televised debate-discussion on Iraq, etc. and Joe first warned the TV make-up person not to get powder on his $14,000 Rolex watch, then he bragged to Victor about several things (possessions and trips to Aspen, etc.), like his expensive car (I think it was a Mercedes), and then bragged about his beautiful ("hot") wife who, Joe Wilson said (braggingly) was a CIA operative.
I asked Victor Davis Hanson Why he didn't write up this account.(?) He replied that Joe Wilson would probably simply deny it, since only he (VDH) & Joe Wilson were in the Green Room together before the broadcast.
However, it is now easy to surmise that Joe Wilson is a crass, materialistic, self-promoting, vain, egotistical, bragaddocio-opportunist, so this account is perfectly consistent with Valerie Plame's TWO photo shoots in Vanity Fair.
Importantly, perhaps, and inferentially corroborative of the above account is the fact that David Corn in the Nation did an article on Valerie Plame's identity evidently (& reportedly) a day after he met with Joe Wilson.
Thanks again.
BTW, apropos of you screename, I may have been among the first persons to call NPR,
"National Peoples'Radio."
-- & Used it in a forum (not internet forum, of course) with about 150 Washington conservatives present, in which forum I have heard the term used numerous times since.
Re; Your comments:
<<"I don't think they are fans or nonfans. They'll work with Bush if it fits their agenda, they'll work against him if he gets in their way. They're spooks, that's what spooks do.
"When they got the uranium statement put in the SOTU address, their intent may not have been necessarily to bring Bush down, but just to set him up so that they would have leverage over him, so that they would have an avenue of control, so they could pull him down if they wanted to. It would give them the opportunity to try to knock him down if he did something that met with their dis-favor.
"The question is... What did Bush do that aroused their dis-approval??">>
Interesting question, and interesting hypothesis:
Would individuals within CIA (or any individuals within any other intel. agency) want to "set the President up"?
It has, or specific individuals therein (in the CIA), have, as you & I both note "shown dispproval of" or strong disagreement with the President through leaks, books and other means.
Seymour Hersh's report, if one is to believe it, is that the Niger documents were forged by ex-CIA officers, not by people currently within the CIA.
What would be their motivacion?? I do not believe the theory one reads on FR that it's just a viper nest of partisan Democrats doing partisan Democrat stuff. More likley they're using the Democrats for their own aims; they often use one-sided partisan cheerleaders as dupes because they are so predictable.
Old ex-CIA spooks are usually staunch anti-Communists, and so normally Republican in general sentiment. Doesn't mean they like any particular Republican administration though, it depends what they do.
Btw, what would be the motivacion for Terrance Wilkinson's 20-year hoax??
Here is a question... If these people were against a war in Iraq, why would they plant false evidence against Saddam Hussein which would stoke the war flames, and then only reveal the hoax after the war was a done deal???
Thanks for your comments at # 84.
What is your best hypothesis re: Terence Wilkinson?
Fact One... The false docs planted in the SOTU address, et cetera, pushed toward war with Iraq. January 2003.
Fact Two... The shoe was only dropped on Pres Bush after the war. Wilson, Wilkinson, et al. July 2003.
Conclussions... The forgers wanted war with Iraq, see Fact One. Howsoever, something happened between Fact One and Fact Two to turn them against Bush.
What did happen between January 2003 and July 2003? The war.
So... If they wanted war with Iraq, but disapproved of the war when it happened, that can means one only thing... They wanted war with Iraq, but later, after tensions were much higher so the level of war would have been strategically much greater.
Is there any other interpretation of Fact One and Fact Two??? They make a very peculliar combo.
Thanks for # 86, above.
My guess is all of the narcissitic dems are traiors who then fall back on THEIR version of free speech--wilson, kerry, fonda, etc.
Re, Your comment:
"My guess is all of the narcissitic dems are traiors who then fall back on THEIR version of free speech--wilson, kerry, fonda, etc."
Good point. Their version of free speech is?:
"I can say anything with impugnity. YOU, on th other hand, cannot be heard from!"
Thanks for your post # 48:
"They bought that house in 1998; before his book; and I'd like to know how two career insiders did that."
I just realised...
Also in the same timeframe and be-fore the war... The dud anthrax attack on or close to 24 February 2003.
Just as in theory above, intencion was to incite and inflame war with Iraque, but a delayed war... Delayed until tensions had escalated to much higher level. High enough to trigger a strategicly final response.
All fit the selfsame pattern.
This brings to mind a Whispering Joke that I once heard.
the actual combat phase of the war couldn't have been much faster - what "level of war" did they want to see?
I don't know, you tell me... Why do you think <1> some group of people would plant forged information so incendiary that it would help ignite a war? And then, <2> why do you think the fact that it was a forgery would be revealed after the basic combat was over??? This is the peculliar and hard-to-explain combo of facts.
If these people had been doing this as part of an anti-war op, the revealing of the forgery would have been done prior to the start of the war, since there is a good chance that doing so would have entirely prevented the war.
If these people were doing this as part of a pro-war op, why reveal the forgery at all? The revelacion of the forgery would just embarrass and deal an political blow to the administration that followed the very policy that the Cabal was ostensibally promoting.
How would you propose to interpret this peculliar combo and its timing???
well, one idea is that to discredit the president about the war - the war actually had to occur, with no WMD found. could a CIA group have known for sure that no WMD would be found, or perhaps even assisted with its removal to Syria? considering that a CIA group involved with WMD was an integral part of this story - who knows.
How could they have known this?? There is not a drop of evidence that anybody believed that Iraq had no WMD stashe.
Even if they believed that Iraque had no WMD, they would be taking a big gamble, in fact a double gamble:
After the fact, one knows that WMD were not found, or planted, or lied about, but who would have gambled on that???
<< or perhaps even assisted with its removal to Syria? >>
Even if they were willing to involve in such behaviour which crosses the line clearly to treason, they still would have problems 1 and 2, abovely. Namely, may-be all wouldn't get removed, and, if it had, could a WMD find have been claimed falsely??
Yeah... that tale had one heck of a punch-line, didn't it?
Thank you both for your volley of exchanges # posts # 93-96, inclusive!
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.