Friday, March 16, 2007
Plame Makes Some Bold Claims
In her testimony today (sworn) before Henry Waxman's House sub-committee Valerie Plame probably said some things she shouldn't have. I'll just focus on one. I don't yet have the transcript of anything but her opening statement, but here is a long story, and a pretty fair one, from Matt Apuzzo.
Valerie Plame flat out denied the report she had suggested her husband for the trip to Niger, saying: I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority. (Not having the authority to pick him for the job is not the same as not having the authority to write a memo, which she very clearly did, which both recommended and suggested him--does she think we are stupid?)
Here's what the bipartisan committee, on page 39, wrote: The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 [a day before Cheney's briefing regarding Niger yellowcake, by the way, hmmm?] from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed some light on this sort of activity."
Oh, my. Whom to believe?
She also contradicts Robert Grenier who recently testified (under oath) against Libby and said that a CIA guy he contacted "mentioned" that Wilson's wife worked in the division and was the impetus behind the trip. "I am certain the individual did not tell me the name, only that it was Ambassador Wilson's wife."
Because there is an e-mail memorandum from her to her superior, she could not possibly deny that she wrote the memo--so here's her explanation how she wrote the memo which suggested her husband was a good choice for the job, even though she did not suggest her husband was a good choice for the job. It's pretty funny:
An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.
Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA.
John Podhoretz writes: In other words, she didn't recommend him or suggest him. Rather, it was a guy who walked by.
OK, one more short one.
She and her husband have sued the government for several members' gossiping about where she worked alleging in the first paragraph that: This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of one such human source at the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson... (Emphasis added).
Here's what she said under oath about those same actions--senior officials at the White House and State Department "carelessly and recklessly" blew her cover... (Emphasis added).
OOPS. That second statement is a much different accusation (and a loser accusation under the circumstances, due to governmental immunity). I don't think the lawsuit has the legs she and Joe hoped it would have.
Valerie Plame flat out denied the report she had suggested her husband for the trip to Niger, saying: I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority. (Not having the authority to pick him for the job is not the same as not having the authority to write a memo, which she very clearly did, which both recommended and suggested him--does she think we are stupid?)
Here's what the bipartisan committee, on page 39, wrote: The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 [a day before Cheney's briefing regarding Niger yellowcake, by the way, hmmm?] from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed some light on this sort of activity."
Oh, my. Whom to believe?
She also contradicts Robert Grenier who recently testified (under oath) against Libby and said that a CIA guy he contacted "mentioned" that Wilson's wife worked in the division and was the impetus behind the trip. "I am certain the individual did not tell me the name, only that it was Ambassador Wilson's wife."
Because there is an e-mail memorandum from her to her superior, she could not possibly deny that she wrote the memo--so here's her explanation how she wrote the memo which suggested her husband was a good choice for the job, even though she did not suggest her husband was a good choice for the job. It's pretty funny:
An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.
Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA.
John Podhoretz writes: In other words, she didn't recommend him or suggest him. Rather, it was a guy who walked by.
OK, one more short one.
She and her husband have sued the government for several members' gossiping about where she worked alleging in the first paragraph that: This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of one such human source at the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson... (Emphasis added).
Here's what she said under oath about those same actions--senior officials at the White House and State Department "carelessly and recklessly" blew her cover... (Emphasis added).
OOPS. That second statement is a much different accusation (and a loser accusation under the circumstances, due to governmental immunity). I don't think the lawsuit has the legs she and Joe hoped it would have.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:06 PM 
