What if there were TWO reasons for outing Valerie Plame?

The MSM cites a vindictive vendetta by the bush administration because her husband debunked bush’s main justification for attacking Iraq. We already know that’s true.

But maybe there’s another reason.

Maybe bush wanted to destroy the deep cover CIA operation that would certainly debunk the false claims being made now about Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program.

Our best estimate is that Iran is at least a decade away from producing a nuclear weapon.

If the neocons infesting the bush administration want to attack Iran too, for WMD’s that don’t exist, what could be better than nuking the CIA’s program to track WMD’s?

It wasn’t just a single NOC operative destroyed by the bush administration, but rather an entire international operation dedicated to preventing a WMD attack in the USA.

So did bush destroy the career of a single person just because he was annoyed with her husband, or did he destroy a secret worldwide CIA program to eliminate the possibility of the truth about Iran’s primitive nuclear program being known in the USA?

Did bush destroy the CIA Brewster Jennings operation for the express purpose of falsely claiming that Iran is less than a decade away from viable nuclear weapons because he intends to attack Iran soon?

I think it was both!

I wonder if there weren’t actually two separate instances of leaks against the Wilson’s. Robert Novak went further in his attacks on Plame, the second time speaking on CNN and actually revealing Brewster Jennings by name. Was that in the INR? I don’t think so, and it doesn’t appear in any of the testimony.

“Wilson’s wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates. There is no such firm, I’m convinced.”

How did he know this? How did he dig up where she worked? Anyone know? Is it possible that after Novak’s column, Rove or Libby actually went back to Novak and leaked again, knowing what a shit storm they’d just kicked up?

Former Fed @ 25

I just don’t understand how anyone can argue that GJ testimony from Libby shouldn’t be introduced. Of course that is the defense’s job, but it still doesn’t make sense – it’s what the guy answered – it came out of his mouth!!

And consequently “prejudicial.”

LOL!

This discussion of “prejudicial” reminds me of the 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case. In that there was expressed that it would be prejudicial to the rights of Bush for the votes of Floridians to actually be discerned, counted and tallied. But, the catch, as in this Libby case, is that prejudicial isn’t always UNFAIR.

It wasn’t fair for Floridians to have their votes ignored and it’s not always unfair for a defendant to have prejudicial evidence presented against them. After all, without prejudicial evidence you’d never be able to convict anyone by showing they had actually done something criminal.

Funny how the whole Bush admin. doesn’t like ‘prejudicial’ things in the same way they don’t like ‘reality-based’ things. Anything which might contradict what Dubya wants or feels becomes a problem. He’s just a little tyrant and that’s even reflected in this defense argument in the Libby trial.

I can’t wait for VP Cheney to testify that Dubya told him to ‘take care of Wilson’ or somesuch.

Does anyone else remember the album, When You’re in Love the Whole World is Jewish? Valerie–the woman who played Rhoda on tv–was one of the cast members. Good ol’ Jewish vaudeville stuff. Came out mid-60s. Had a song on there that got some airplay about “Irving–the 152d Fastest Gun in the West?” One of the lines was ‘even on the range he used two sets of dishes.’

I’m wondering if Scooter’s sensitivity to his first name was heightened by that little ditty.

I have a copy of that song on a Dr. Demento CD! His favorite picks or something. Also had the most hysterical spoof on Star Trek I ever heard, as wll as a short story that was nothing but fish-puns, as funny as it was painful.

Forgive the digresion.

Thank you for the reference to this link. I read the NY Post article written by J. Podhoretz. I then emailed him and asked if he was actually at the trial. He responded he was not. It’s a source issue.

say what?I have followed the Bond testimony and this ones way way off…she hammered a few nails in “the scooter’s” coffin I think…

ccmask @
48

Web sites on both sides of the ideological divide provide moment-by-moment transcripts of the courtroom proceedings, and other sites give moment-by-moment analysis.

Reading these sites every day has a vertigo-inducing effect that probably resembles the suffering of those who have bipolar disorder.

Yesterday, the anti-Libby partisans were thrilled with the first bit of testimony by an FBI agent who interviewed Libby in 2003. “I’m reading and I’m not quite believing it,” said one poster at the Fire Dog Lake site, “but yes, it does seem like Scooter is toast.” Then Libby’s lawyers rose to interview the agent – and the pro-Libby folks instantly rose from the depths of despair to the unshakable sense that their man would be acquitted.

It would be impossible in fewer than a thousand words to explain how Libby’s lawyers made FBI interviewer Deborah Bond look bad, but they did.

And since she was the final witness of the week in the Libby case, one poster at the Just One Minute site crowed: “The jury leaves with the taste and smell of burned Feeb.”

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02…..horetz.htm

I read the NY Post article written by Mr. Podhoretz. As a result I asked if he was actually at the trial. He responded he is not. It’s a source issue. Cher

I’m wondering if Scooter’s sensitivity to his first name was heightened by that little ditty.