Your pals on the "right" were attempting to diminish this traitorous act, good and loyal Americans that they are.

----------from tompaine.com---------------

The current spin from administration defenders within and without the mainstream media is that Valerie Plame was only an analyst, and not an operative. This, somehow, is supposed to lessen the blow of an administration willing to attack the families of its critics. Yet the characterization of Plame as an analyst is factually incorrect. For one, Robert Novak himself indicated that she was an operative in the original report that birthed this scandal. "Wilson never worked for the CIA," wrote Novak, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."


McGovern further elaborated on the damage done when such an agent has their cover blown. "This causes a great deal of damage," said McGovern. "These kinds of networks take ten years to develop. The reason why they operate under deep cover is that the only people who have access to the kind of data we need cannot be associated in any way with the American intelligence community. Our operatives live a lie to maintain these networks, and do so out of patriotism. When they get blown, the operatives themselves are in physical danger. The people they recruit are also in physical danger, because foreign intelligence services can make the connections and find them. Operatives like Valerie Plame are real patriots."

What this has to do with Wilson is that the outing is generally seen as payback to him.

As for "Wilson lying," well, you'd have to believe the cr*p in that National Review article to swallow that.

Oh, wait! you're the one that posted it! I guess that means you do believe it when it claims Wilson didn't know about the documents until after his June [sic] ineterview with the Washington Post.

I guess the Senate and NR just overlooked this little bit of trivia:

March 8, 2003—Toronto Globe and Mail
Jeff Shallot of the Toronto Globe and Mail cites U.N. sources in reporting IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei's conclusion that "Secret documents detailing attempts by Iraq to buy uranium for nuclear warheads from Niger are forgeries. …"

So, three months before Wilson says the documents are forgeries, the forgeries are outed. So how is this a 'Wilson lie'? Looks like shoddy research. Quelle surprise.

The reference to Wilson's wife's memo is taken so out of context, I don't know if it contradicts his statement that 'his wife had not proposed him for the trip.'

I don't know how critical that is, or if he'd have even been aware of her memos within the CIA. Generally, my understanding is that CIA operatives share little, of any of their work with spouses.

And speaking of shoddy research, there's an interesting report from one Susan Schmidt... but I'll let you see the entire review of the article (look at the July 10 entry)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_04.php#003143

Interesting excerpts:
"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."

I read the report's discussion of the whole Niger business. And I didn't see that reference. However, on page 44 there is a reference to Wilson reporting to the CIA that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran."

---------------------
Iran, Iraq...what's a one-letter slip?

Further, to the underlying issue of the importance of the uranium discussion is this excerpt:

Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."

So... the truth takes a long time to come out. Weeks ago, we were told Saddam had 2 tons of uranium ore. But in '02, the CIA reported that Saddam had 550 tons of the stuff -- without drama or excitement, because Iraq didn't have the ability to do anything with it.

Now, since the administration knew Saddam already had 550 tons, why did they make a big deal out of a purported attempt to buy a smaller amount?

Maybe hoping that just the word 'uranium' would give Joe Sixpack the jitters?

You must be an insider. Your talent with twisting an argument is stellar. No one said he lied about the documents being forgeries, though you have felt the need to defend him in this regard twice? What is stated is that he declared them forgeries before he ever saw them. Odd, certainly.

Your next twist is whether Valerie was in deep cover. Again, I never mentioned it, yet you have gone to great lengths prove the unchallenged, kudos! The point is that he lied about his wife getting him the work. Defend that, or twist away again.

People wonder why I use such strong arm tactics. This is precisely why...The pig aint gonna sing, so just shoot it dead, cut it up to pieces and put it on your sandwich for lunch.

You are doing that just fine.

Valerie Plame was in bed with Joe Wilson (figurative and literal). She silently allowed him to lie, as the book was fabricated pre-outing, therefore complicit in his intent to defame a sitting President in war time. The motive was solid...Power and access.

Valerie was working subversively in an organization that should be objective. In short, Valerie Plame was plotting against the government and using her clearance as a cloak to hide her treachery...There was a time where she would have been hung.

Who wants to bet they are both liberal Democrats?

Since we are so friggin deep into the semantics over whether Bush did or did not say "imminent" in reference to to the threat from Saddam's WMD, does any of the Wilson bashers wish to peruse the New York times article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

For the accusation in the NRO article:

Lets at least be consistent here...

Cam, I have read that before. What you're missing is that this was not his only statement on the subject. Are you saying he didn't say Bush lied? I'll grant you he didn't in that article.

To be fair, I have a feeling he says it in the book.

He certainly doesn't in the article (he questions Bush's motives/actions though).