Posted by: bridget | 16 March 2007

Plamely Lying

Valerie Plame testified before the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, stating that the Bush administration waged a war to discredit her husband and to destroy her career. She also briefly mentioned her role in assigning her husband as an investigator of the Niger yellowcake issue.

So when will Ms. Plame be charged with perjury? If Mr. Libby is facing decades in prison for lying before a grand jury (lies of no significance, as they pointed away from the Bush administration), why is Ms. Plame not being brought up on charges for distorting the truth to Congress? It is a well-known fact that the White House did not leak Ms. Plame’s name to the press; Richard Armitage, a Democrat, was the one who first mentioned her connection to Joseph Wilson. Ms. Plame, as a CIA operative, presumably has no knowledge of the inner workings of the White House; she was not a frequent visitor to the Oval Office.

“Rep. Harry Waxman (D. Calif.), who chairs the committee that sought Plame’s testimony, has said that today’s session will give Plame a chance to talk about the impact of the disclosure, but that his real aim is to determine the White House’s role in leaking her name to columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.”

The role of the White House has been well known for several years: nonexistent. Ms. Plame state, emphatically, that she was a covert agent. (Perhaps she neglected to mention the time period?) She also stated that the Bush administration worked to discredit her. If either of those things are untrue, she should be charged with the same crimes brought against Mr. Libby: perjury and obstruction of justice.



  1. Great question!

    Isn’t that amazing? I read the MSM account of her testimony online and couldn’t believe it. They just rehashed the same disproven Democrat talking points.

  2. Frightening, really. When the law is not applied in a rational manner, it ceases to exist and we live either in a dictatorship or in anarchy.

  3. Color me unsurprised.

  4. Duly noted and dittoed.

  5. What makes you think she is lying? Seems I heard today that no one in the white house even investigated the leak of her name.

  6. Easy question to answer. Richard Armitage, a Democrat, admitted to leaking her name. No, it wasn’t Bush or Cheney or Rove or Libby; it was Mr. Richard Armitage. It would be hard for Ms. Plame to be unaware of that fact; if she was aware but nevertheless testified as she did, she can be charged with (and convicted of) perjury.

    It is NOT the duty of the White House to investigate the leak of her name; ONLY if the leak was criminal (i.e. she was a covert agent and the person who leaked her name was aware of that) would there even be a duty to investigate. The White House does not typically investigate crimes; such is the job of the Justice Department.

  7. But who told HIM? Someone inside the white house, right?

  8. State Department memo. Ultimately, he read a memo and leaked. How is that Cheney’s fault? Or Rove’s? Or Libby, who will go to prison for it?

    Bottom line:
    She stated, under oath, that the White House outed her to reporters. Factually speaking, this is incorrect, and she is aware that it is incorrect. Therefore, she ought to be tried for perjury. A few decades in jail would improve her disposition.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: