Outed spy: I'm not going away(Please pay attention to me!!!)

From James Taranto's Best of the Web Todayof October 25:

Mr. Wrong
Life is short, so we won't be reading Valerie Plame's new book, "Fair Game." But Nicholas Wapshott's review in the New York Sun reinforces something we've thought for a long time about the world's most famous "secret agent," namely that she has atrocious taste in men:

"The frequent fights, seething accusations, hurtful words, and entrenched bitterness pushed us both to the brink," Ms. Plame writes. And she is talking about her fights with her husband, not Karl Rove.
"Joe is a formidable opponent in any circumstance, and I felt I was always on the losing side, unable to make my case coherently because so much emotion was involved and so much at stake personally. When communication nearly halted entirely, it became obvious that our marriage was in deep trouble. We retreated further into our shells and each began to contemplate life without the other."

Reading this, you understand why she was so eager to ship the guy off to Niger! Apparently she didn't want him to know that it was she who wanted him out of the country:

On page 186, Ms. Plame explains she wrote an e-mail that read: "My husband has good relations with both the [Niger] PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
When this e-mail came to light, in a Senate Intelligence Committee report, the high-strung Mr. Wilson once again launched into a temper tantrum. "Midway through the silent meal, Joe abruptly got up, dumped his unfinished plate in the sink, and left the room in a wordless rage. . . . Despite my best efforts to explain the innocence of the e-mail, Joe was too upset to listen. He just glared at me."
Mr. Wilson comes out badly according to his wife's account: invariably abusing her, storming off, or on the verge of tears, and when the White House concedes that the yellowcake mention was wrong, he does not accept victory graciously but needs to hurl himself angrily onto the national stage to draw the apology to everyone's notice. While Ms. Plame is left home in Washington looking after 7-year-old twins, anxious and exposed, her job in jeopardy, he is gallivanting around America talking to conspiracy theorists and peaceniks in community colleges.

If only she had told the CIA to make it a one-way ticket . . .

From the October 26 column:

The Right Stuff?
A reader calls our attention to the CIA Web site's description of the job of operations officer. These officers "serve on the front lines of the human intelligence collection business by clandestinely recruiting and handling sources of foreign intelligence":

It takes special skills and professional discipline to establish strong human relationships that result in high-value intelligence from clandestine sources. An Operations Officer must be able to deal with fast-moving, ambiguous and unstructured situations. This requires physical and psychological health, energy, intuition and "street sense." . . .
Because Operations Officers have demanding responsibilities, it is essential that they be physically and psychologically healthy, energetic, and able to cope with stress.

Compare this with Valerie Plame's description of her own life, which we quoted yesterday from her new book, "Fair Game":

Joe [Wilson, her hubby] is a formidable opponent in any circumstance, and I felt I was always on the losing side, unable to make my case coherently because so much emotion was involved and so much at stake personally. When communication nearly halted entirely, it became obvious that our marriage was in deep trouble. We retreated further into our shells and each began to contemplate life without the other.

Does it sound as if she has the discipline to establish strong human relationships; the capacity to deal with fast-moving, ambiguous and unstructured situations; and the ability to cope with stress?

Try fewer insults and more evidence-based reasoning, please. Byron York outlined just a few of the many questions that the Wilsons need to answer before anyone can regard them as credible on anything. #10 (below) deserves far more attention than it has received from anyone (most in the MSM have conveniently ignored it). Of course, if they did answer these questions honestly then no one could regard them as credible in Plamegate since it all hinged on numerous lies spouted by Joe Wilson and his media pals. Now Valerie has written a farcical book which you seem to think is credible. I’d still like to know the basis of your ‘certainty’....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEyMWE5NDUwZWMyNGIxZTAzYmU3YjMyODczYzNiOTU=

Ten Questions for Valerie Plame Wilson (March 15, 2007)
She’s set to testify before the House tomorrow. Here’s what the public needs to know.

By Byron York

Valerie Plame Wilson, the woman at the heart of the CIA-leak affair, is scheduled to testify tomorrow before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. There she will, for the first time, face questions about her role in the Niger uranium matter that eventually became the basis of the CIA-leak investigation. Here are a few questions Mrs. Wilson might be asked:

1) In a 2004 report, the Senate Intelligence Committee quoted a memo you wrote to the deputy chief of the CIA’s counterproliferation division (CPD) on February 12, 2002. In it, you suggested your husband for a trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had sought uranium there. According to the Senate report, you wrote, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” Was that all your memo said? Was there any more? If so, what did it say?

2) Your memo was dated February 12, 2002. Was that before or after you learned that Vice President Cheney had asked a question about reports of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger?

3) On February 19, 2002, according to the Senate report, the CPD held a meeting with your husband to discuss a trip to Niger. A State Department report said the meeting was “apparently convened by [Joseph Wilson’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.” Is that accurate? Please describe what happened.

4) In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said

In early May [2003], Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.

Is that account accurate? If so, please describe what you said to your fellow attendees, either publicly or privately, at the Democratic Policy Committee meeting.

5) There have been some questions about the wording of the Vanity Fair paragraph quote above, which says that your husband met for breakfast with “Kristof and his wife.” Just to be clear: were you at that breakfast? If so, what was said?

6) On June 13, 2003, Kristof wrote a column about the Niger-uranium matter. He wrote that he was “piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it.” Were you one of those people?

7) A month earlier, on May 6, 2003, Kristof wrote a column reporting that “In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the CIA and State Department that the information [of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal] was unequivocally wrong and that the documents [purporting to show such a deal] had been forged.” Kristof was later forced to admit that the envoy, your husband, had not actually seen the documents he claimed to have debunked. Did you know that at the time? Did you play any role in the preparation of that article?

8) At the Lewis Libby trial, Judge Reggie Walton said that he did not know if your job status was covert, classified, or other on July 14, 2003, the day your name was published in a column by Robert Novak. What is the answer?

9) Was your job status changing, or had it changed, during your last years at the agency? If so, when, and for what reason?

10) If your status was either covert or classified, and if you did in fact meet with the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and with Nicholas Kristof, did you view it as part of your covert or classified work to meet with political groups and a columnist from the New York Times to discuss matters within your purview at the CIA?

http://yargb.blogspot.com/2007/03/transcript-of-plame-testimony.html

Friday, March 16, 2007
Transcript of Plame Testimony

REP. DAVIS: Let me just ask, try to put some — some of the press speculation to rest and give you an opportunity to answer. In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article — not always known for great accuracy — touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said — this was what they said — “In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee at which Wilson spoke about Iraq . One of the other panelists was New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it but not name him.” Is that account accurate?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I think it is. I had nothing — I was not speaking to Mr. Kristof. And I think my husband did say that he had undertaken this trip, but not to be named as a source.

REP. DAVIS: Okay.

Just to be clear, when your — the article says that — says your husband “met for breakfast with Kristof and his wife.” Just to be clear, were you at the breakfast?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Briefly, yes, Congressman.

Here is one factoid that has been widely ignored by the vicious lying MSM: Valerie Plame Wilson admits that NINE WEEKS before the first Novak column she and husband Joe were meeting with NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof over breakfast the morning after they met at the conference of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

Yes, our secretive Harriet-the-Spy was sitting down with a prominent NY Times columist nine weeks before she claims she was ‘outed’ by eviiiilllll Republicans.

There were two Kristof columns plus WaPo items from Walter Pincus, then Joe Wilson’s own column in the NY Times, before Novak ever published. Just how exactly is a ‘covert’ CIA agent allowed to conduct a media campaign (against agency rules) of anti-WH propaganda, while claiming that the WH is responsible for blowing her cover because a State Dept. official blabs her role when asked about the tempest-in-a-teapot????

Joe and Valerie thrust themselves into the media maelstrom, then act surprised when things got hot. So then they concoct a ludicrous ‘retaliation’ fantasy about Karl Rove when in reality Richard Armitage leaked the info in order to try to set the record straight in response to lies of Joe Wilson and his media cohorts.

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.