The CIA asked for the criminal investigation into outing Valarie Plame.

Not the Democratic Party.

Not the anti-war movement.

Not al Qaeda.

The C-frikken-IA!

These people ignored the very foundation of the Plame investigation from its inception. Why should one piece of paper make any difference at all?

After all, it, too, came from the CIA.

But the CIA is tasked with discovering intelligence AKA the truth and is careful to be sure that political considerations don't infect their fact-seeking activity.

They are therefore liberal-traitor-scum!

Was there anything in the Washington Post or New York Times covering the Fitzgerald response ?

of how the noise machine works.

There will be no corrections because Ms. Plame's employment status summary will be dismissed as a creation of the "junk-yard dog" prosecutor.

The CIA is not trusted to assess the status of their own employee because they are not loyal to Bush, so why trust a disloyal prosecutor?

Every fact that goes against the leader is a lie created by Goldstein - no, no, I mean traitors.

Whenever something like this comes out debunking some long-held RW conventional wisdom, I play this game where I pretend I am righty pundit attempting to reconcile this ugly new piece of information with my worldview. So here goes.

The CIA, like the Department of State, is run by a bunch of careerist bureaucrats, who only want to protect their own, are resistant to change, and will seek revenge upon anyone trying to challenge the status quo. (That was why we had to set up the Office of Special Plans, for which they still resent us). So this new memo is nothing more than some belated attempt to hit the Bush adminsitration while they're down, and pre-empt Scooter Libby's rightful pardon, but it won't work. She had a desk, and worked at it sometimes. Those stodgy pencil-pushers would name anyone covert if it advanced their agenda.

So no apologies are needed. In fact, it is the CIA who should apologize to Scooter Libby and the Bush administration, for frivolously assigning covert status to someone who, did I mention? -- had a desk and worked at it often.

"I keep wondering when/how actual reality will become unavoidable for them"

With respect, never underestimate the power of the human mind to deny reality even unto the end of its days. I can only speculate, but my guess is there are plenty of "true believers" that will never see anything other than what they want to see with regard to this period in history. No mountain of history books, official documents, historians, and the testimony of the architects of deceptions would change the mind of one for whom life itself depends on believing the lies. That this may be some significant percentage of people is frightening. But I can only guess that there are those who need to believe the lie against all else.

No kings,

Robert

Paul Rosenberg's right. Plus, this statement from Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, would have left no doubt in anyone actually interested in the facts:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

If someone can ignore that in favor of their talking points, it's pretty clear that facts simply don't matter to them.

I think Paul Dirks has it right providing this link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/fitzgerald_plame_cia_director.html

The obsessive re-articulation of established talking point, with added embellishments as needed is almost certainly going to be standard fare.

The CIA, after all, doesn't understand the law. They're not lawyers.

And Patrick Fitzgerald? Well, he may be a lawyer, but what kind of lawyer? He's almost a Democrat, really. And certainly an attention whore. What does he know?

Victoria Toensing alone knows what the law is.

And besides, (a) Clinton did it too, and (b) Michael Moore wears a hat.

Now, back to the glorious surge!

...to mock up (satirical) mirror sites, where thoughtful corrections would appear. Along with ardent apologies. (How could that not be satire?)

I don't understand the ferocity with which the right-wing noise machine defended the actions of the White House and attacked every other player in this drama, from the Wilsons to Fitzgerald to the CIA itself. What is it about this particular story that compels sweeping and utterly baseless claims such as these in defense of the White House?

For me the question of whether a crime was committed was always secondary to what these events said about the Bush administration. The central narrative is relatively simple: the White House stabbed an American spy in the back for the purpose of political revenge and intimidation. Whether it was technically illegal or not seems less significant than the simple fact that the administration is willing to do something so monstrous to destroy political enemies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRkMjU3YmQ2MzIwZjhhNDkwYWE3NWI1ZjhhZmRkMmY=

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-29-plame-testimony_N.htm

Look! A penny!

Will the press ask Tony Snow about his previous statements on this matter?

I’m not holding my breath.

SNOW: Very quickly -- very quickly, you got this Valerie Plame case. Now, it turns out that [special counsel] Peter (sic: Patrick) Fitzgerald doesn't -- can't even identify any harm. She wasn't a covert agent. She wasn't compromised.

As a result, what you're doing is possibly sending a senior administration official off about a faulty memory over something that wasn't a crime.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602060009

Now is certainly the time to remind the rightwingers what Papa Bush said about those who out our Secret Agents. And if I had more than a few seconds right now I'd do it myself, but someone ought to. (Is this where a "heh" goes, Shooter?)

If a Dem had exposed a covert op, the Fred Barnes' of the world would be SCREAMING for heads to roll. There wouldn't be a higher crime that an administration could commit. Not only would it be impeachable, they would demand, and probably rightly so, extreme jail terms. The real wingers would want them hanged for high treason.

In light of this, the hypocrisy in the reaction we will now see from the right is the kind that should forever exclude them from serious discussions of such things.