posted on March 16, 2007 08:53:49 AM new
Keeping the neocons quiet....
the story isn't over.....
Plame Testifies in CIA Leak Hearings
Updated 11:14 AM ET March 16, 2007
By MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON (AP) - Valerie Plame, the CIA operative whose outing led to the conviction of a top Bush administration official, told Congress on Friday she believes her identity was disclosed for "purely political reasons."
Plame, whose outing triggered a federal investigation, answered questions for the first time. She said that she always knew her identity could be discovered by foreign governments but said she was surprised to be identified by her own government.
"My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior official in White House and State Department," Plame testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained."
Democrats are eager make political fodder out of the 2003 leak scandal but it's unlikely the hearing will offer any new information about the leak itself. Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said that even though prosecutors brought no charges for the leak, questions remain about whether policies were followed.
"It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is out job to determine what went wrong and insist on accountability," Waxman said as he opened hearings.
Plame's testimony was not likely to include any behind-the-scenes details about the CIA or the White House.
The man with that kind of information is Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who spent years investigating the leak and interviewed President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and several top aides and journalists.
But Fitzgerald isn't talking, citing federal rules prohibiting such discussions. And nobody from the White House involved in the leak was scheduled to testify. Nor was someone from the State Department.
That leaves Plame to tell her story to lawmakers. She believes she was outed as retaliation against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Wilson has written a book and Plame has one expected out soon. They are also suing Cheney and others, claiming their constitutional rights were violated.
Waxman says he wants to know whether the White House appropriately safeguarded Plame's identity. During the obstruction of justice and perjury trial of Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, it was revealed that many in the Bush administration knew Plame worked for the CIA but not that it was classified.
Fitzgerald never charged anyone with the leak and he told Waxman he could not discuss his thoughts on the case.
Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the committee, said that since Fitzgerald didn't charge anyone with the leak, the hearings were unlikely to add any insight.
"No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified," Davis said. "This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."
Scheduled to testify Friday were attorney Mark Zaid, who has represented whistle-blowers; attorney Victoria Toensing, who said early on that no law was broken and has criticized the CIA's handling of the case, and J. William Leonard, security director of the National Archives, who was to discuss general procedures for handling sensitive information.
James Knodell, director of the White House security office, also could attend to discuss general security procedures, committee officials said.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on March 16, 2007 02:55:45 PM new
Mingo, this is the problem right here... "During the obstruction of justice and perjury trial of Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, it was revealed that many in the Bush administration knew Plame worked for the CIA but not that it was classified."
Unless it can be proven otherwise, that's Cheney's biggest trump card, don't you think?
posted on March 16, 2007 03:03:27 PM new
Well, shouldn't they have known ????Shouldn't they have just kept their mouths shut UNTIL they knew? Besides, they knew.
IF they thought they had done nothing wrong...why did Libby lie?
That's the question that I keep asking but no one has an answer.
posted on March 16, 2007 08:16:23 PM new
Yes, they will but they can only deny so much so often....with so many scandals coming at them so fast they will one day HAVE to admit they're BAD!
Ya know it's bad for the repugs when they don't dare show their face in here...hahahahaHA haven't heard a word from linduh ! Or her mini-me, Bear! LOL!!!!
posted on March 17, 2007 02:19:42 PM new"... they can only deny so much so often"
Mingo, they've been denying EVERYTHING that they've been responsible for since Bush got in. Nobody does ANYTHING about it so why should they admit to anything?
Again, the people who elected this administration should be totally ashamed of themselves. If Linda loves her country as much as she claims, hopefully, she's in church praying to her God for forgiveness as she's one of the millions that voted for the most corrupt group of people in history.
posted on March 22, 2007 10:38:05 AM new
Yep, KD, some people actually expect PROOF of wrong doing BEFORE they want to convict others.
Kind of a surprise to the liberals who want to convict on accusations and false allegations ONLY. lol
Thank God our system of justice doesn't work that way. We actually demand PROOF someone is guilty before we hang them. So unlike how the liberals would like it handled. LOL Especially with this administration.
Sore losers.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
