Saturday, March 17, 2007

Most Important Article In The World

* cannon:
"lukery has today's Most Important Article In The World, right here "
heh.

* kathleen is having trouble posting comments, so this is via email:
"I watched the (Plame)/Waxman hearing this morning and had an irresistable urge to call the committee while the hearing was ongoing. i wanted the committee to ask what duty the administration had to clarify Plame's status before they mentioned he name to the press.

I basically said that they knew or should have known it was illegal to reveal the name of a covert agent, and therefore , they should have inquired about her status before they spoke to anyone about her. that they did not even exercise a minimal due diligence to clarify her status first means to me that they intentionally revealed her name to eliminate anyone who could reliably refute the Niger forgeries.

The staffperson said it was a good point and he would speak to the members. Lo and behold, that cutie from maryland, Van Halen, did indeed ask what obligation the had to check first. I loved it. they blabbed plame's name with reckless abandon without the slightest concern for the damage they did to our national security.

to be continued felolow GSFers."
good work kax

* wolcott:
"Caught Fred Thompson on Fox News Sunday, flirting with a presidential run, though I can't imagine whom he'd drive into an amorous caucus frenzy. God what a grumpy old dog farting on the front porch he was yesterday, parked across the table from Chris Wallace. I so hope he runs. He has all the sparkle, verve, charisma, and inspirational lift of Lawrence Eagleburger acting as if it's some great imposition on him to discuss foreign policy and explain subtleties to idiots. Despite being a two-time Senator, Thompson acts as if he didn't cotton the way they do things in Washington and shouldn't be confused with the rest of those deal-cutting politicians. Put his gruff ego on the debate stage and the energy level will drop five octaves and take everybody else down with it. My TV isn't equipped with the special high-frequency decoder that enables me to understand Republican dog whistling, but none of Thompson's political positions--opposed to Roe v. Wade? check against gun control? check--struck me as any different than what Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback or John McCain or the newly reconstituted Mitt Romney espouses. Yet he's labeled a "true conservative," and somehow the rest of the field is somehow considered suspect, vaguely inadequate."

* susan @ larry's:
"While it was an honor to hear (Plame's) testimony today, I wish I had never heard of Valerie Plame Wilson. And I wish she were still doing her job. It sickens me that Bush administration officials, for the most base political reasons, destroyed the career of this woman who was doing the work I, and all of you, were counting on.

Each of us U.S. citizens pays these officers for that work. We entrust these officers to give our political leaders accurate information.

We further entrust our political leaders -- no matter their political party or particular ideological bents -- to assess intelligence data and analysis in an unbiased manner and to protect those intelligence officers and their assets who are devoting, and risking, their lives to provide and analyze raw data.

Otherwise, our nation would end up going to war for false reasons, and our military forces would die unnecessarily."

2 comments:

calipendence said...

Another question I'd have in addition to administration officials not taking responsibility to verify her status before saying more about her to the press and their responsibility for that, is asking Ms. Plame if there would have been an expectation of not to ECHO earlier damaging infromation and increasing the amount of damage that's been done because she's now "fair game", but doesn't the CIA have the expectation that if an "accidental" disclosure of a covert agaent's status (which is what they seem to be constantly claiming as a defense) was found, that the remaining folks would be expected to help with doing the damage control and at least try to avoid any further disclosures, if not actually help cover it up again?

It seems like whether or not this was an accidental disclosure or not, the subsequent "disclosures" can't claim innocence "because the damage had already been done". They should have been trying hard as conscientious officials to repair the mistakes that were made. I've seen no effort to "repair mistakes" and can only conclude that in their view, these disclosures were NOT mistakes at the time they were made. I'd like a congressman to conclude that for us when interviewing her!

lukery said...

thnx cp. great point.

fp'd