2007-03-20 06:04:40 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Several CIA officials and a federal prosecutor have all confirmed her status was "covert"....that's well established.
It doesn't become less a fact just because she also said it.
What makes you think it was a lie?
2007-03-20 06:08:36 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
So the Senate and Congress will have more large, well covered hearings of scandals. That's what Democrats do, lots of hearings, lots of insinuation, point their fingers at Republicans and hiss "Scandal". The media thrives on the this.
Valerie Plame was once a covert CIA operative. The question which remains unanswered is when did that status end? It is well before the mention of her by Novak.
2007-03-20 13:11:10 · answer #2 · answered by Susan M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wish I could convince you this administration, as well as Fox News doesn't care about you. They care about short term political gains outing Plame. They do not care aboout the long term good of other agents or future CIA operations. We know that she did work covert in the past. What do you think happens to those double agents she worked with over there? These guys are like short term CEOs that care about the current price of stock and not about whether the company will be healthy in 10 years. You have fooled-don't let them keep fooling you..
2007-03-20 13:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Technically, she did have covert status - 7 years ago.
She's been nothing more than an expensive secretary since then.
But that won't sell papers/hike up ratings, so the media says "covert operative" and omits that she hasn't been an agent since Clinton was president.
Then again, they also don't discuss that all of her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA - even though her husband admitted it in an interview. 'cause, you know, that would be telling us the whole story & letting us make up our own minds about the situation. Can't have that now, can we?
2007-03-20 13:15:33 · answer #4 · answered by Kat 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Same reason they don't talk about the good things happening in Iraq, the lack of coverage of the pro supporters outnumbering the anti war supporters 3/1. There agenda is very plain to see. Do what you can to make sure that the liberals get back in power. They were sorely disappointed when it didn't work after the last election so now it is all out war and the only victim are the American Public.
2007-03-20 13:10:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
If she's lying, which is doubtful, she will be charged with perjury will she not? Just because the media is reporting what most people understand to be the truth and it differs from what you wish to believe, doesn't mean they are pushing a lie.
2007-03-20 13:44:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
lol, you people confuse what covert means. She was covert, that is not contested, but she wasnt like a secret agent or anything deep behind enemy lines. She frequented the CIA headquarters almost daily, anyone who watched her for 4 hours knew she worked fo rthe CIA.
2007-03-20 13:17:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The Bush Administration refuses to release the data that will confirm your assertion. Why?
2007-03-20 13:09:25 · answer #8 · answered by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They don't, the CIA has said that she was covert.
Do some research before posting your hyperbole.
2007-03-20 13:10:26 · answer #9 · answered by cheri b 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
you have got to be kidding.
you heard that from some liar on talk radio eh?
2007-03-20 13:07:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋