The LA Times does its best to perform CPR on the rapidly fading Valerie Palme story:
Some folks say that as we learn more, the scandal is getting smaller, not larger. Valerie Plame was a CIA functionary commuting openly to agency headquarters, not a spy working behind enemy lines. The law against revealing the identities of intelligence agents is complicated and probably wasn't broken in this case. And the story line gets muddier: Journalists may have revealed Plame's identity to White House honchos.
What's the Times' response to all these points - the first two pretty much not in doubt and the third being highly likely?
We don't buy it.
I wish it were that easy for me. If I got pulled over for speeding and told that I was 20 over, I could just say 'I don't buy it.' and that would be that. Boy, would that be handy.
Maybe I'm being a bit too glib, because they go on to say
However they came to learn about this juicy factoid, people in the Bush administration misused an intelligence secret to discredit a critic of its Iraq policy.Wow, three strikes in one sentence. No misuse, no secret, and Wilson discredited himself quite adequately, thank you just the same.
And outing Plame, whether illegal or not, did harm to our national security. Plame may work in Langley, Va., but she worked with others who work in more dangerous locales.If this were true (e.g., as a case officer), she might be considered covered by the law. Is that what the Times is claiming? I'd like to see evidence of it (and good luck with that, by the way).
You only need to imagine how Republicans would have treated such a leak in the Clinton administration to dismiss their protestations that it's all no big deal.Hardly. The same legacy media mouthpieces that spent eight years sucking Bill Clinton's dick would have shouted them down in a heartbeat. Posted by Chris at July 31, 2005 04:15 PM