[mburbank]

Tell you what. You wait for this story to die out and I'll wait to see if and WMD are ever found in Iraq.


You read what you post, right? A typical right wing pundit technique is to title a piece with the nugget you want your reader to take away.

There is very little in that article that bears on the title of the piece. Here's the sum total.

"On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of. "


Clifford May, the author of your article says he got the information from someone who was not, as Novak stated in his original article, a "Senior Administration Official". Clifford May 'infers' that the mnner this informtion was passed on was 'offhand' and thius not a leak, but "something that insiders were well aware of. " Mmmm. That's some mighty fine investigative journalism.

The rest of the article, several hundred more words is ll about discreditting Wilson and his opinions on Uranium. A far better headline would have been "Why I don't trust Wilsons opinions on Nigerian Uranium".

I think you found the lead through a search and did a cut n' paste without reading the article. Prove me wrong.


I didn't read Novak the day it was published, but I've read the article several times since. He sites "Two Senior Administration Figures". Was he lying? You may not know that there’s differnence between the administration and the CIA, which is forgiveable. With the acception only a few of appointees at the very top of the CIA are administration. Every one else there is hired and works for the agency, no matter which party holds the whitehouse. Novak knows the distinction. Does he mean Geogre tennet is the source of the leak? If not, then he was either lying in the original article, or now. My first post on this dates back to July 14’th, the day David Corn reported the story and I believe he was the first journalist to point out Novaks article might be evince of a federal crime.

Novak described Wilson's wife as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." The degree of secrecy surrounding Pjalmes role in the CIA has, as far as know, not yet been reported, nor has her current status with the CIA or with her other, private sector employees, who have not been named in any story I can find. If you have sources on these, first, well done, and second, post them. Otherwise wait.

On Monday , the CIA told CNN Wilson’s wife "was an operative who ran agents in the field." Who’s telling the truth? Novak or the CIA? Ask yourself this. What motive does the CIA currently have to lie about Pjalmes job now?

"When this story is retracted, it will be in page D18 of the classified ads."
-Vinth

That's exactly where I found retraction after retraction about WMDs being found. Oh, excpet for the NYT. They haven't retracted some of their stories yet. I guess they'll get around to it when they stop having such a liberal bias.

" You also don't find it strange that Wilson brings it up now, instead of July?"
-Vinth

"Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."
-Wilson 7/14/03.

I'm sorry, who pounds a drum without doing research, dumbass?

"Don't even try to act like the Democrats have been sitting around researching this story."
-Vinth

Here are the words I used to describe the democrats not going with the story in July.

"less balls than a castrated gerbil." Let me make myself clear. The reason the democrats waited so long on this story is not research, it is cowardice. The fact the have decided to go with it means that these cowardly people think they currently have nothing to be afraid of.