More links to raw data in Plamegate
Here is the D.C. Circuit's opinion rejecting Judith Miller's attempt to avoid contempt of court. This is relevant because of . . .
This amicus brief filed by nearly every major media organization. Why is this amicus brief relevant? Guess what the media says when you're not looking:
"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the 'deep cover' required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. [section] 426 ('covert agent' defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington - not stationed abroad - for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."
and
"Novak’s column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: the Agency’s response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President’s office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have ‘low level’ bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife’s suggestion. See also Wilson Op-Ed. Did no one at Langley think that Plame’s identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?
The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame’s name. Moreover, given Novak’s suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame’s identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was ‘shocked, shocked’ that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate."
and
"While there is no suggestion that the special counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be an abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings."
And that's the real story - CIA incompetence, its subsequent cover-up and backstabbing the President. Why won't the media report on that?
This amicus brief filed by nearly every major media organization. Why is this amicus brief relevant? Guess what the media says when you're not looking:
"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the 'deep cover' required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. [section] 426 ('covert agent' defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington - not stationed abroad - for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."
and
"Novak’s column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: the Agency’s response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President’s office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have ‘low level’ bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife’s suggestion. See also Wilson Op-Ed. Did no one at Langley think that Plame’s identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?
The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame’s name. Moreover, given Novak’s suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame’s identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was ‘shocked, shocked’ that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate."
and
"While there is no suggestion that the special counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be an abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings."
And that's the real story - CIA incompetence, its subsequent cover-up and backstabbing the President. Why won't the media report on that?
posted by Ben at 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home