« Whiny and Inaccurate Self-Pleading | Main | Hatch Supports Torture Exemption »
Whiny Yes, But Not So Inaccurate
by Ed Partridge
I was really looking forward to reading Gordon S. Jones’ post “Whiny and Inaccurate Self-Pleading” mostly just because of the great headline…it really jumped out and grabbed my attention. Sadly, after reading his point number one, I realized Mr. Jones had lost whatever credibility he hoped to achieve by writing a piece on a subject which he obviously knows little about. Instead, he simply recites the same tired Republican talking points recently passed around by partisan spin-meisters like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Max Boot.
Here’s the problem with Jones’ point number one:
Wilson wrote “”divulging a secret known only to me, her parents and her brother.” Jones wrote “If that were the case, one of those four would have to have been the leaker, not Scooter Libby.”
The fact is, outside of his wife’s employer, the U.S. Government, the only people Wilson believed knew (or should have known) that his wife was a CIA covert operative, were himself, her parents and her brother.
Of course other people knew…but they were all authorized to know.
Scooter Libby, as the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, was most likely authorized to know.
Judith Miller and Robert Novak were most assuredly not authorized to know.
That’s what Wilson was saying. Jones’ sarcastic comment trivializes an issue which even Republicans like William F. Buckley Jr. have come to acknowledge may involve, allegedly, a crime tantamount to treason. Treason is punishable by death during wartime. And last time I checked, we were at war.
No, the special prosecutor did not indict Scooter Libby for violating the Espionage Act or the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Not yet, anyway. But he’s not finished with his investigation.
Some of Jones’ other points have problems, too:
Point Number Two: Even the White House has since acknowledged that it was a mistake to put those 16 words into the State of the Union Address. If they can admit it was wrong, why can’t you, Mr. Jones?
Point Number Five: Plame never “suggested” her husband for the Niger yellowcake investigation. What she did was follow the instructions of her bosses at the CIA by writing a memo outlining her husband’s qualifications for such a mission (and he was highly qualified), introduced her husband at a meeting and then left. She was an undercover case officer, not a manager. She did not have the authority to make such a “suggestion”.
Point Number Seven: This is the easiest one to refute. Was she or was she not a covert agent? Jones obviously believes the (incorrect) talking point that says she was not because she had not “lived” overseas for six years. That, however, is not what the law says. The law says that in order to be considered a covered operative under the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, that person had to have “served” overseas in the past five years. Served does not mean lived. Valerie Plame had traveled overseas several times in 2001, 2002 and 2003 as an energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, a CIA front company. That’s considered “serving”. She was undeniably a covert agent, under the definition of the law, during the period in question. Besides, let’s not forget what Patrick Fitzgerald said in plain English at the beginning of his press conference last Friday: “Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown.” That pretty well means she was covered.
According to Jones, “our disagreements about the policy cannot justify playing fast and loose with the facts”. Mr. Jones, that applies to you as well. Please get your own “facts” straight before you attack a husband and wife who, together, have served this country honorably for nearly 43 years.
Posted by Editor on November 4, 2005 04:41 PM
