It's TownHall on TV - get it?

LIAR

Andy McCarthy has been following the issue closely:

Specifically, she was exposed by a Russian spy in the early 1990s. Thereafter, the CIA itself  "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. According to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, "the documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

As I wrote here nearly two years ago, this is not my claim. It is the contention made in a 2005 brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit by the Times along with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch). The mainstream media made the contention in an attempt to quash subpoenas issued to journalists — the argument being that if Mrs. Wilson's cover had already been blown, there could have been no crime when an administration official (who we now know to be Richard Armitage, not Scooter Libby) leaked her identity to journalist Robert Novak, and thus there was no need to compel reporters to reveal their sources.

Amazing how, when its own interests are at stake, the media manages to be very forceful in reporting relevant facts. But now, when those facts are even more relevant because Mrs. Wilson and congressional Democrats are bloviating about ruined intelligence networks and threatened lives, the media won't mention them. How can it be possible that a leak in 2002 "jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents" associated with Mrs. Wilson's covert assignment when, by the media's own account to a federal court, those networks had to have been blown for years?

Game... set... match... Valerie Plame is a lying liar of a liar, a flaming anti-war activist with an agenda. She and her ego-absorbed but mostly unemployed, mint julep drinking husband whose own report showed Iraq tried to secure uranium through Niger's black market are...

Full of horse puckey!

There is not enough time in this day to refute the abundance of lies, misdirections, and flat out false representations Valerie Plame unloaded before Congress today.

FOX NEWS has her opening statement...

1. "Set the record straight..." (by all the lies I'm about to tell...)
2. Notice she says she "was" covert, then talks about when she was outed... but the doesn't DIRECTLY say that she was in fact COVERT at the time that her name popped up in the media.
3. "Tell the committee even more..." (there was not one shred of new information in her pompous pontificating...)
4. Was covert and classified in the run up to the War In Iraq? Makes her sound "active" doesn't it. Of course then she asserts that she was running counter-proliferation efforts in Washington. (from where? K-Mart?)
5. Traveled? Where, When, and what was the extent that these missions were secret? More or less secret than the mint-julep binge you sent your unemployed husband on?
6. How many times does she say "Covert"?
7. "It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked." Well maybe not Joe the bartender, or Sally the lap-dancer, but everyone from your neighbors, to DC mover shakers, and a surprising number of anti-war movement members all seemed to. And more came to light when your less-than-bright unemployed husband went to Niger and no one in the administration signed off on it - or knew why he went.
8. All my efforts, training, blah, blah - "exposed irresponsibly." (And you were so worried about it you went out and posed for photo shoots, and magazine articles, and that genius husband of yours shared with the media who you would like to portray you in the made-for-television movie about the scenario.)
9. "Shocked by the evidence that emerged (in the Libby trial)." Sorry chick. That trial was about Libby misrepresenting which media member he talked to on which day. It had nothing to do with you, your unemployed husband, your photo shoots, your and your unemployed husband's activism against the troops and against the war, or anything resembling Iraq.
10. "Name and identity were recklessly abused by senior officials?" Like this?
Official One: Who's this Wilson guy saying the president lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa?
Official Two: He says he was sent by the Vice President's office.
Official One: Are you kidding me? We'd never go within a mile of hiring some unemployed bum.
Official Two: So how did he get the gig to go to Niger and drink mint-julips?
Official One: Oh look here - you know that chick from the Georgetown cocktail circuit? Says on that billboard across the street that she works at CIA and in this report where it says "who sent him" - it's signed Valerie Plame.
Official Two: But isn't the unemployed bum's name Wilson?
Official One: Yeah - its a liberal thing...
11. Loved the lecture about "tax-payer expense" related to 'covers'... especially ones that had lapsed before being "outed."
12. Did she survey "every single one of her fellow officers/agents" and did she ask if every single one of them worried about being "outed." (Me thinks this may be a tad bit of projection.) But if you hated our troops and freedom as much as she and her husband AND you work at CIA - being a little worried is probably a good thing... at least for the country...
13. I could go on... but for the sanity of my afternoon...

What do Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, and Jim McGreevey have in common?

An intolerant taste for Pace.

As in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine General Peter Pace... But what's even worse they (Hillary/Obama) refuse to recognize the narrowness of the general's remarks.

Pace commented on "behavior!"

Hillary/Obama pretend homosexuality is something you're born with - like being left-handed, or brown hair. Yet there is NO, not one shred, not the tiniest bit of science that backs up that belief.

The good General knows what undisciplined behavior could mean to the troops and that's why he wants none of it. To bad these commander-in-chief wannabes are so sadly lacking in their own ability to understand just that.