Need ammo for LTTE re Novak column! My paper just published his disgusting

[CTyankee]

column re Plame's covert status a few days ago. I just got back from California and missed it earlier.

It infuriates me that the paper would publish such unsubstantiated trash. Novak offers no real backup to his claims that Plame was not covert, except stuff like "she had a desk job and drove to work."

Plame testified under oath that she was covert. If she was lying to Congress, it is very serious indeed. What I would like to know is if any Republican member of Congress plans to charge her with lying to Congress. If the Republicans are so convinced that she was lying, why aren't they taking any action against her? OR do they think we are all fooled by their lame accusations?

If anybody has some good rebuttal points to Novak I'd appreciate having them!

[babylonsister]

1. Here's the supreme ammo-Hayden:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3165789

and another...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3175700

[Canuckistanian]

2. The case was referred to the Justice Dept. AT THE CIA's REQUEST

And the Justice Dept. took it on. Ashcroft then recused himself and Fitz took over.
Why should Ashcroft recuse himself over a false accusation?

Now, don't you think the most basic question would be - has a crime been committed?

If Plame wasn't covert, it would have ended before it even got to this point.

[gratuitous]

3. Res ipsa loquitur

Everyone knows that covert agents use personal jet-packs to get to work, and never, ever sit at a desk, unless they're microfilming some arch-villain's secret plans for world domination. There! I've run rings around you logically. Valerie Plame, who drove a car (and probably not even an Aston-Martin with a retractable bullet-proof shield) and sat at a desk couldn't possibly have been covert.

[Igel]

4. Watch the way terms are defined.

There are at least three distinct definitions in circulation for 'covert'. I'll list 4 (believing that 3 and 4 should be merged in a sane world).

1. Had an official cover and worked on secret missions.
2. Had an official cover, had been assigned abroad under that cover in the last 5 years, and the agency had taken positive steps to maintain her cover.
3. Her status as CIA wasn't public information or known by those without sufficient clearance.
4. There was no publicly ascertainable evidence she was CIA.

One should define one's terms. Otherwise the conversation disintegrates, with both sides being perfectly sure they're correct ... and they likely are, given their definitions.

The CIA has said she's covert (def. 1), but has repeatedly failed to say she was covert (def. 2). What Plame said in front of the Congressional committee actually failed to resolve her status as covert (def. 2); she came real close, but didn't nail it.

People have argued against her being covert (def. 3), but she almost certainly was covert (def. 3). Novak has argued she's not covert (def. 2) or covert (def. 4).

When Plame testified to Congress, which definition did she use? Which is Novak using? Which are you using? It's this kind of quibble that makes most debates about Plame's status kasha.

(one edit: Added a sentence that had been cut, but not pasted.)