Proving that she and her husband are well-matched, given the conclusion reached that he lied in his testimony before the Intelligence Committee. After all, she clearly lied in her testimony yesterday.

Valerie Plame, the former CIA officer at the heart of a four-year political furor over the Bush administration's leak of her identity, lashed out at the White House yesterday, testifying in Congress that the president's aides destroyed a career she loved and slipped her name to reporters for "purely political motives."

Plame, breaking her public silence about the case, contended that her name and job "were carelessly and recklessly abused" by the government. Although she and her colleagues knew that "we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies," she said, "it was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover."

Plame calmly but firmly knocked down longstanding claims by administration allies that the disclosure was not criminal because she had not worked in a covert capacity.

"I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency," Plame told House members, a horde of journalists and a few antiwar activists. Her work, she said, "was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit."

So, the Post now takes as "proof" the fact that she makes the claim she was covert -- and that there was a plot by the Administration. Since when does the Washington Post take anyone's words, especially when contradicted by the evidence, as proof. After all, we know who leaked Valerie Plame's identity -- and that he and Plame and her perjuring husband were all opposed to the Iraq war. It was Richard Armitage. And we know there was no violation of the law in letting her identity out, because otherwise Patrick Fitzgerald would have charged Armitage with a crime instead of conducting a rogue investigation that turned faulty memory into perjury.

Interestingly enough, the MSM doesn't want to deal with the "minor" question of the law and whether or not Plame was actually a covert agent, nor do the Democrats. If they did, they would have also reported the testimony of Veronica Toensing, who wrote the statute on disclosing the identity of covert agents, including the definition what constitutes being covert. Indeed, only Rush Limbaugh did so, insofar as I can tell, actually playing the testimony that shows the committee chairman refusing to permit actual testimony on that matter. So what we had yesterday were not hearings designed to get at the truth, and not news coverage designed to disseminate the truth, but a political show-trial and witch-hunt -- featuring lies by a major Democrat contributor. And while she claims that the Administration was motivated by "purely political motives" (discrediting her husband's lies), it is clear that Plame and her suppoters are motivated by impure political motives -- the destruction of the Bush Presidency and the undermining of the War in Iraq.

Posted by: Greg at 04:33 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.