Analyst says Wilson 'outed' wife in 2002

WND ^ | November 5, 2005 | Art Moore

[AliVeritas]

A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

[DustyMoment]

Hate to say it, but this isn't new. Previous investigations have consistently led back to Wilson as the source of the "leak".

Only the MSM didn't like that conclusion and didn't publicize it. The phony allegations against Bush, Rove, Cheney, Halliburton, Rumsfeld, "Scooter" Libby, Pontious Pilat, Ceasar and Underdog were more to the MSM's liking and allowed them to keep this phony Bush-bashing non-story alive.

[Guenevere]

I realize this about WND....but I thought you were questioning Vallely's authenticity.

[go-ken-go]

I read on FR yesterday that Wlson and his lawyer have said that Wlson never told Vallely about his wife.

[BushWonGore'sDone]

Libby probably couldn't remember if he actually said she worked for the CIA or that he had heard the rumor that she had worked for the CIA. So he approaches the grand jury with a story that he didn't have the conversation at all with the reporter, when the reporter or reporters says he did. So the issue now is he is lying about not discussing this subject with the reporters. There probably is enough evidence out their indicating that Plame was already outed. The prosecuter is saying he lied to the grand jury and is denying that he spoke to the reporter or reporters about Plame. Libby's story does not match up with the reporters version. Therefore the conclusion is Libby is lying to the Grand Jury and saying he did not have a conversation discussing Plame's association with the CIA.
Again, if the republicans would just stop talking to the media they could accomplish so much more.

[pieces of time]

Did Libby lie? That's what he is indicted for, but DID he lie?
BTW Andrea Mitchell has also said that those that covered the CIA knew about Plame. If Russert is her bureau chief, did Russert lie?

[rhombus]

ne knows very few of their neighbors much more than a casual acknowlegement of recognition. Fitz can easily exclude those and still have the majority of the neighbors to canvas for that little publicity stunt.

Exactly. Very few of my neighbors have any idea about what I do to pay the mortgage.

[rhombus]

Just another example and lesson for the republicans to keep their mouths shut and not to have interviews with the corrupted and bias media.

Good point. I don't think many would blame the White House if they just refused interviews from the NY Times.

[tkathy]

I'm afraid that other witnesses like the good general will be intimidated to testify.

[stocksthatgoup]

Ask Andrea Mitchell.........time to bring in all the regulars. MSM, Left Wingers in CIA etc

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I am still perplexed that this whole thing comes down to a "he said, she said" with reprters and the "special" prosecuter makes a big deal out of believing reporters over Libby. the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[BushWonGore'sDone]

Libby's lie is, "I didn't have a conversation with the reporter about Plame. Doesn't matter what he said in the converstion with the reporter. The lie is, he says he did not have a conversation with the reporter about Plames' CIA association. He denies the conversation, therefore that becomes the lie which he is being indited for. Similar to Martha Stewart's situation. The cover up of something that wasn't illegal but she thought it was at the time and so she lied saying she didn't have a conversation with her broker. Lying to cover something up that isn't illegal becomes a crime, because you are lying.

[Waco]

Ames outed her before Wilson outed her. So there!

[BushWonGore'sDone]

You are right, it does stink. But the media always falls heavily on the democrat's side. Libby may end up doing time for something he could have easily avoided by saying he couldn't remember what was said in the conversation or couldn't remember if he had a conversation with the reporter or reporters. Better yet if the republicans could just keep their mouths shut and not talk to the liberal media who they know or going to try and catch them up in any little discrepancy, that would be even better.

[MilleniumBug]

"Libby's lie is, "I didn't have a conversation with the reporter about Plame. Doesn't matter what he said in the converstion with the reporter. The lie is, he says he did not have a conversation with the reporter about Plames' CIA association. He denies the conversation, therefore that becomes the lie which he is being indited for. Similar to Martha Stewart's situation. The cover up of something that wasn't illegal but she thought it was at the time and so she lied saying she didn't have a conversation with her broker. Lying to cover something up that isn't illegal becomes a crime, because you are lying."

Strictly, this doesn't apply to Democrats because the meaning of "is" is so uncertain. Clinton never had sex, just blowjobs. Wilson never lied to Fitz, just misspoke regularly. And if Libby was a Dem he wouldn't have been having a conversation -- it would have been a monolog.

[patriciamary]

But,they have to defend themselves ,oh that's right they don.t know how!

[ChildOfThe60s]

Maj. General Paul E. Vallely retired as Deputy Commander, U.S. Army, Pacific. He is the senior
military analyst for FOX News Channel, a regular guest lecturer and guest on nationally syndicated
radio shows, and has served on numerous U.S. security assistance missions. He is a graduate of the
U.S. Military Academy and served in many overseas theaters, as well as two combat tours in
Vietnam.

[leftcoaster]

Did Libby lie? That's what he is indicted for, but DID he lie?

BTW Andrea Mitchell has also said that those that covered the CIA knew about Plame. If Russert is her bureau chief, did Russert lie?

I don't have the exact testimony, but didn't Russert give as a denial for "outing" Plame to Libby that he couldn't possibly have done it that way, since he did not yet know her name? (That leaves lot of wiggle room for Tim actually knowing/giving her name vs. identifying her as "Wilson's wife".)Regardless, if Andrea Mitchell or other collegues can disprove Russert's statement that he did in fact know, or must have known, sooner than he claimed under oath, that at worst destroys his credibility as a witness against Libby.

[mcshot]

Exactly!
And this needs to be repeated adnauseum so it sinks in to the dark side - if that's possible.

mc

[zip]

ping

[Steve_Seattle]

"Can someone please tell me why Libby lied when he never had to? Still can't figure that one out."

You assume he lied, but that is not clear to me at this point. He was hearing about Plame from several different people in a brief time frame, and some of those people were reporters. Also, he might have heard about Plame from reporters in some prior context having nothing to do with the Wilson story. He could argue confusion of memory, and he could even use "no obvious motive to lie" as part of his defense.