Plame’s testimony shifting, source says

[sabra]

Source: Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map) - The public testimony of former CIA officer Valerie Plame before a House committee last week conflicts with what she told a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee three years ago, a government source told The Examiner this week.

...

Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week, Plame testified under oath that a CIA colleague, whom she did not name, first mentioned her husband as a trip candidate during a discussion at Langley headquarters. She denied recommending her husband, as Republicans have reported in their attempt to show why Bush officials discussed her occupation.

According to a U.S. government source, who spoke to The Examiner this week on condition of anonymity, Plame did not mention this incident when she provided secret testimony to the Senate Intelligence committee in 2004.

...

“We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the committee’s description of his comments," said Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I stand by the findings of the committee’s report.”

Bond said he was willing to re-interview witnesses. Melvin Dubee, spokesman for committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he has heard no such talk on the Democratic side.


Read more: http://www.examiner.com/a-634742~Plame_s_testimony_shifting__source_says.html

[woodsprite]

1. Trot out the pretty blonde again to take the heat off Gonzo/Rove. n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Okay, so what does this have to do with the Bush Administration blowing her cover?

[On the Road]

11. I Have Never Understood That at All

Even if all the Republican insinuations were true, so what? It's not even a question of believing or not -- I don't even understand the accusation. Just a huge smoke screen.

Actually, the one issue that might be legitimate is whether Wilson was asked to investigate a Niger government offical that he was friendly with and had a reason to exonerate. But for some reason that part has been buried.

[Sanity Claws]

3. Was she asked?

Her testimony a week ago indicated that someone junior came up to her very upset that his testimony was disregarded in the report, not that the committee disregarded her testimony or that she misspoke.

[Robbien]

4. According to the rumor rag Examiner's "anonymous source"

you gotta be kidding me. This isn't LBN.

[MGKrebs]

5. That first line does not seem to match what is in the rest of the story.

The conflicting testimony didn't come from Plame, it came from an anonymous "reports officer".

Just because she allegedly didn't mention the conversation before doesn't mean it is a conflict. Maybe they didn't ask her a specific question about it.

Looks like a hit piece to me.

[sabra]

8. RW is scrambling now that all of their "plame leak" talking points

have been discredited...

[wordpix]

17. "Looks like a hit piece to me"---my thoughts, exactly

[still_one]

6. no offense, but anoynomous sources, secret testimony, come on

During the last hearings with Plame it was pointed out that a memo documented that she was NOT responsible for getting her husband sent on that mission. Regardless of the fact that others had also told this administration that Iraq did not try to procur the yellow-cake

The MSM hardly covered the Plame hearing in the first place, and I have no doubt that the letter that Waxman requested, WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED UP BY OUR MEDIA

[Nickster]

7. Is it just me or is this a piss poor example of writing? I don't get what his point is?

[wordpix]

18. piss poor RW piece, that is. Some junior go-fer wrote it for *, IMO

[emulatorloo]

9. "Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo" -- pretty much tells you all you need to know

That guy is a partisan hack WHO WILL SAY ANYTHING to protect Bush and Cheney.

[xxqqqzme]

10. how does 'did not mention'

morph into 'testimony shifting'. How in that 'in conflict'? Figures it would be one of the * enablers to keep this pot stirred.

[Old and In the Way]

12. IIRC, the CIA guys testimony was added to the Intel Report

by Roberts and 2 of the Republicans on the Committee. I think it was an addendum. Did Rockerfeller ever see this? According to Plame, that guy wanted to reappear and set the record straight. I suspect that his testimony got twisted to fit the Republican talking points. Why not have him re-testify and release as part of the long delayed Part II report that Roberts promised last year. And now that we are in control of the Committee, why isn't Jay moving on getting this released?

[Crabby Appleton]

13. not just her testimony

The "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" contains the following:

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.”

The Committee report here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf

[MGKrebs]

14. That is the same "reports officer" referred to in the story.

And he is the one who wants to re-testify to clarify his statement.
The V. Plame memo means nothing. They asked her if she would ask him if he would do it, and she said yes, and that he would be good for the job.

But this is all meaningless anyway. So what if she DID suggest him? He is clearly qualified, it wasn't a "junket", and I suspect that this is pretty common in the spy world, ya' know, you have to use people you can trust. It all has nothing to do with the matters being investigated, and no one has shown any reason to be concerned with the process of how Joe was picked for the job. It just doesn't matter.

[wordpix]

19. so fucking what if she offered up her husband's name? She didn't have authority to send him, period

And it's not like going to Niger to research WMD sales is a big junket.

[gasperc]

15. oh yeah, the secret report that nobody can see

yeah, I believe it don't you?

[Peace Patriot]

16. One more reason not to read the Examiner, except for forensic purposes.

And to read between the lines of every war profiteering corporate news monopoly shitrag and misuse of our public airwaves. They are pushing lawlessness for a REASON.

It can be a pretty interesting and revealing exercise to vet these scumbags for what lie they're pushing this week, for their methods of destroying our democracy, for who they are quoting and to what end. But it's important to keep reminding yourself that truth is not their object, and that the ONLY reason they have a forum--newspaper reporting inches, radio show, etc.--is that some far rightwing billionaire media CEO, who is profiting from the war, is GIVING IT TO THEM, to promulgate false "news" and opinion that in no way reflect the views of the vast majority of Americans. In this way, they convince many Americans that far right wing views are in the majority. It's a complete scam, and it is their only propaganda/brainwashing victory. So beware of taking crap "new"/opinion seriously, just because it has a forum.

[yellowcanine]

20. According to a U.S. government source, who spoke to The Examiner this week on condition of anonymity

Need anymore be said?

[MurrayDelph]

21. This just in! Valerie Plame once said she had Home Fries for breakfast

when they really served O'Brien Potatoes!

Obviously, we can't believe her about anything!

[dkofos]

22. We did not ask her this question, so she must be lying!!

[LynnTheDem]

23. What a tangled web they weave when rightwingnuts set out to deceive...

FACT: a CIA colleague testified to the bipartisan committee that Plame did NOT suggest her husband for Niger.

FACT: the CIA colleague's testimony was twisted by the rightwingnuts to say he testified Plame DID suggest her husband.

FACT: the CIA colleague has been trying to re-testify to the committee ever since that in fact he'd testified that Plame did NOT suggest her husband for Niger.

FACT: The CIA says Plame did NOT suggest her husband for Niger.

FACT: Plame testified she did NOT suggest her husband for Niger.

And the BIG FACTS: Joe Wilson was CORRECT about Niger & Iraq, George W. bUsh KNOWINGLY LIED under oath about Niger & Iraq, Plame WAS COVERT, and the bush Cabal outed her for revenge.

[Grandrose]

27. Thank You for such.....clarity!

I think even the rightwingnuts could understand this post.
:rofl: :applause: :kick:

[gratuitous]

24. Let's see, person in a hearing under oath - not to be believed

Anonymous person who may or may not have said something three years ago - unimpeachable.

It takes an uncommon mind to think of things that way. Uncommon, indeed.

[drm604]

25. None of this is relevant.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the fact that they outed her as a covert agent and exposed Brewster Jennings.

Suppose for the sake of argument that she actually did recommend her husband and suppose for the sake of argument that she did it for some (so far unexplained) nefarious evil un-American purpose. How in the hell does that give them the legal right to blow her cover, especially in the manner they did? How in the hell does that justify exposing a CIA network that was investigating WMDs?

If she was acting in some kind of illegal manner than she should have been indicted and prosecuted through normal legal channels rather than in a newspaper editorial in a manner that damaged national security. If she merely acted unprofessionally then she should have been terminated from her employment and lost her pension without any public disclosure of sensitive information. Of course she's not guilty of either of these things but even if she was their behavior was in no way justified and doesn't even make sense.

It only makes sense if they were trying to discredit Joe Wilson because they couldn't directly discredit his information, because it was true.

To me, it's all quite simple. The whole incident is the smoking gun proof that they intentionally misled us into war. Their behavior makes no sense in any other context. They know this, so they're constantly trying to muddy the water and distract people with completely irrelevant non-issues.

They want everyone arguing about the non-issue of who recommended Joe Wilson for the trip rather than pointing out the smoking gun.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Clue: "a government source told The Examiner"

Faux News was spinning this talking point on the day that Valerie Wilson testified to Congress. The Bush regime has never told the truth about anything, why should we start believing them?

[Garbo 2004]

28. Anyone else wonder if that anonymous "government source" is Kit Bond?

Reading the tea leaves of anonymous sourcing in these sorts of articles, we've seen that sometimes a gov't official is quoted on the record and then other stuff from the same official is sourced to an anonymous source.

Notable example: Libby to journalists. On the record and off the record in the same conversation for the same article. Makes it look like there are two sources, one confirming the other and the anon source expanding on what the official said for attribution. When really it is one source providing the info both on and off the public record.

Kit's been a chatty fellow on this subject. Remember, Bond was an author of that addendum to the Committees's report along with Roberts and Hatch that was neither "bipartisan" or part of the full Committee's findings, such as they were.

As it is, this article is really a big nothing full of implied suggestion but no real meat. And so poorly written that no doubt that some readers will think that Plame was the unidentified male "report officer" who testified. Just another venue for the Kit Bond roadshow.

Kit: Joe Wilson goes public July 6, 2003. What happens? July 7, 2003: White House admits its Niger yellowcake claims were incorrect. And in 2004 you Kit and your Repub buddies still, like Libby with Judy Miller in 2003, falsely claim that Wilson's 2002 findings actually supported the Niger claims. Care to go under oath yourself, Kit?