Is there anything self-serving and disingenuous in Valerie Plame's testimony before Congress?

Question

First, there is nothing, other than her saying so, to verify that she was at the time of her alleged "outing", a "covert" agent.

Second, in her testimony, she strongly implied that, by her "outing", intelligence networks around the world were exposed and effectively rendered useless. Again, there is no objective data to verify this.

And third, while previously she blamed the Administration for "outing" her, and even filed a law suit in this regard, she now is saying the Administration and the State Department blew her cover. I wonder if this is because Armitage belatedly admitted to being the one who initially leaked her name.

As I listened to her, I had to wonder how much of her testimony was simply partisan politics...and how much was designed to bolster the prospects of her lawsuit by tainting the jury pool.

Answer 1

She's perjured herself repeatedly in these hearings, she'll be lucky if she doesn't find herself jailed after this is all said and done.

Answer 2

I doubt it. yet i'm particular henry Waxman will carry out a little severe digging into what this White homestead has been as much as. inspite of the undeniable fact that, Impeachment of the vice chairman and throwing him and GWB into penal complex for something of their lives could be a mind-blowing Christmas 2007 or 2008.

Answer 3

I find it inderesting that the cons first tried to blame the media--then when that wouldn't work, to claim she wasn't really "outed" And then that it didn't really matter because she wasn't an agent in a vulnerable position and that breaking the law wasn't important.

Now that the victim of Bush's malfeasence is speaking out and fighting back, suddenly she"s "tainting the jury" by answering questions put to her by Congress. Where were you when the Bush administration was outing her? Where were your "concerns' when they were mounting a PR campaign to try to influence public opinion?

Answer 4

This is all political. She sent her husband, Wilson, to discredit the bush admin's claim that Sadam Husein was seeking "Yellow cake" Then she claims that she, who is not really undercover, was ruined by the bush administration, because she was "outed". The press which is 99% liberal democrat is loving the chance to have the dems on the air decrying the "outing"

Answer 5

LOL

There is 'nothing' (except for her sworn testimony while under oath) to verify that she was covert.

Yeah, except for the inconvenient little part about her working for the CIA. From time to time they are known to keep records and files - you know, just for fun.

It's going to be hilarious watching whoever the next administration official is in line behind scooter perjure themselves too!!

Answer 6

I blame it on the "hard hitting" questions of the "investigative committee". Which should have been called a "reassurance committee."

I don't think it matters if she was covert or not, she should not have been 'outed'.

However, she is lying in regards to getting her husband the job, and his clearly political results of his 'findings' in africa.

Answer 7

So now guys like you are trashing CIA agents these days.

What's next? Decorated war vets?

Answer 8

No. The only self serving people I've seen thus far are Rove, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Answer 9

I'm thinking it has to do with the book she just came out with.

Answer 10

I think she's nancy/crypto nancy/susi q/etc.... on here and that is why we haven't seen the usual postings today.