Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: LindyBill	3/19/2007 1:36:27 PM
	of 793928

Re Plame [Cliff May] One thing worth adding to Byron's good piece this morning: Bob Novak has consistently maintained that when he referred to Plame as a "CIA operative" in his column he did not mean to imply she was covert – on the contrary, he would not have named her had he believed that. I see no reason to doubt Novak on this. And surely Novak's source, Richard Armitage, would not knowingly reveal the name of a CIA agent he believed had covert status. Armitage may be a gossip but he is not a traitor: He would not intentionally do anything that might endanger the lives of American spies and their contacts. So I ask again: If Armitage and Novak did not believe Plame was (or had formerly been) undercover, where did that idea come from? The answer: It was first raised in a story by the Nation's David Corn. And the only source named in that story is Joe Wilson, who had a close relation with Corn and with the Nation. Does this suggest it was really Wilson who exposed his wife's covert status and did so, in league with Corn, as a way to damage the White House? If there's a more logical or likely interpretation of the facts as we now know then, I haven't heard it. corner.nationalreview.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next