Plame Misconceptions CCXL...
In an apparently ongoing effort to lead horses to water, let me point out a recent example of a popular misconception from the Plame case, to wit, that her outing damaged national security. This is from "Scarecrow" at firedoglake:
I am certain of one thing: we already know that Dick Cheney and his WH helpers are responsible for a serious breach of national security, and it is only a matter of time before the media begins to couple reporting of the "smoking guns" revealed in the Libby trial with the obvious and damning evidence that has been staring them in the face the whole time.
...It is also seems virtually certain that her public outing disrupted and adversely affected her Counter-Proliferation Division's classified and highly sensitive efforts to acquire critical intelligence on the status of WMD development in Iraq and Iran. It is hard to imagine any intelligence issues more sensitive and vital to US security. Whether through carelessness, recklessness or design, that intelligence capability was harmed, not only by Plame’s outing but perhaps more so by the intimidating message her outing sent to every other person working in the US intelligence community.
"It also seems virtually certain"? Scarecrow, you're scaring me, but I bet you wouldn't say these things if you only had... well, Google, or Lexis. What is more than virtually certain is that no links have been provided to support this "virtually certain" claim.
I am familiar with the Raw Story and David Shuster accounts of Ms.Plame's single-handed efforts to hold back the mullahs in Iran - dare we enquire whether the scarecrow, or any of his/her flock, would care to offer something, well, credible? David Shuster, as folks who have been following this trial are aware, day dreams out loud.
Well - just as I did a few weeks back, let me see your David Shuster and raise you a Dana Priest. This is from an on-line chat following that Shuster "scoop":
Q:... From what you hear, was Ms. Plame working on Iran, how important was she to the tracking efforts, and how much has her "outing" really set us back?
Dana Priest: It was reported before that she worked on proliferation issues for the CIA. The leap in this new round of information is that her outing significantly impacted our current intel on Iran. I don't buy it. First, no one person who quit clandestine work four years ago is going to make that big of a dent in current knowledge. But also, nothing like this came up at the time of her outing and I believe it would have. Think we need some actual details. At present it just doesn't smell right.
It doesn't smell right? Oh, I think it smells exactly like Shuster on your shoes.
Posted by Tom Maguire on February 09, 2007 | Permalink |
AI
