Exposing the identity of a CIA agent (inevitably exposing all of her contacts as well) is a "kerfluffel?"

No one who is serious about national security could trivialize this, as you have.

Exposing the identity of a CIA agent (inevitably exposing all of her contacts as well) is a "kerfluffel?"

No one who is serious about national security could trivialize this, as you have.

larryk,

Even dogs chasing their tails give up after a while. They either figure it out or get tired. In your case, I would expect you to tire.

If she was a super duper secret agent whose blown cover could cause her harm or even death, why hasn't she gone into hiding? Instead, she runs to the spotlight and says, "Yes, it's me, the secret agent.All of you bad guys that I worked against can now find me and my husband. We'll be in book publishers offices, trying to sell our crap."

Don’t you just hate it when someone wakes up and interjects in the middle of a long and ongoing conversation?

larryk – are you for real? Exposing the identity of a CIA agent? Seems like the only way she could have been MORE exposed BEFORE anything happened with her husband going to Africa would be if she paraded stark naked in Times Square with a flashing neon sign saying who and what she was.

Oh I’m sorry, forget I said anything and go back to sleep.

larryk,

The horse is dead! It never was alive! Get off the poor dead horse and go on to your next conspiracy theory! Go read back through the B4B archives if you want to rehash Plame-out or learn the facts about it!

Go work with the liberal [progressive] Democrats trying to convince America that the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center and not the fanatical Islamic terrorists who actually did the job! (Osama has to really be laughing at that left wing propaganda!) Go work with the looney left convincing the entire world that America and Israel are the bad guys and create more hate for America around the world! (Hezbollah and Hamas appreciate your support!) Go work with the fanatical left and help with their anti-American propaganda that has weakened America, weakened our security, and weakened our ability to deal with our enemies and terrorists around the world. Our enemies and terrorists couldn't have hoped for or bought better pro-terrorist propaganda and support than that provided by the liberal Democrats!

You and the left wing lunatics are worried that someone allegedly leaked the name of Plame while you support and encourage the liberal spies and traitors who give our defense secrets to our enemies. You condone, support, and encourage liberals who provide information to the New York Times about our efforts to protect hundreds of millions of Americans from terrorist attacks, but you [feign] worry about Plame. President Bush, the CIA, NSA, and our government work to protect America, and you liberals tell the world, our enemies, and terrorists what we are doing to stop them.

AAR

C'mon, guys. Give poor Larry a break.

After all, his minders never told him that dear darling over-protective hubby Joe tried to keep his wifey's CIA job a secret by only mentioning it in his entry in Who's Who. And to lots and lots of people he talked to. And by introducing her as "my wife, who works for the CIA".

Ranty Rhodes never bothered to tell Larry and the other Airheads that everyone who paid attention to who was doing what in D.C. already knew Plame worked for the CIA. Or that not every person who works for the CIA is an "agent".

Bet Alf Ranken didn't clue in Larry about the fact that Aldrich Ames blew Plame's cover a decade earlier, which is one reason she was brought back to the U.S.---pretty hard to be "under cover" when the bad guys have known for ten years or so who you are and what you have been doing.

Do you think that poor Larry has the capacity to wonder why Plame's old boss told her that she could never work in any kind of covert activity if she was going to first date, and then marry, a man who was working in embassies all over the world?

So don't pick on Larry. He's trying very very hard to be a good footsoldier in the army of neoradical loonyism, and here you all gang up on him.

Good job, Lar---you regurgitated the predigested pap you were fed, and you used all the right words. If they give points for trying, you can march right up and claim yours.

Too bad you had to sound like such a total idiot doing it.

As usual, AAR makes an excellent point---if Libs were as passionate about bringing the hammer down on everyone who endangers our national security by revealing classified information, we might be a little less cynical about their incessant whining about Plame's identity being discussed nationally.

While it is true that it was well-known in the circles who pay attention to such things, it was not public knowledge out here in the Heartland, and maybe some naive---or egotistical---souls thought if THEY didn't know, then NO ONE knew. I can understand how some people might be upset about the Plame discussion, at least until they learned the truth about her status in the CIA and her notoriety.

But to complain about Plame and never raise a voice in objection to serious breaches of national security, breaches which could easily lead to mass death and destruction, appears to be extremely hypocritical. And therefore dismissed as mere political posturing.

"Yes, it's me, the secret agent.All of you bad guys that I worked against can now find me and my husband. We'll be in book publishers offices, trying to sell our crap."

Great post, MagicalPat. Are you truly magical? Can you make the trolls disappear?

Almiranta... you crack me up girl. Great post!

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors. -- George H.W. Bush, April 16th, 1999

Pretty much says it all...

rewq---you are not clear. WHAT 'pretty much says it all"?

Betrayal of trust is a very bad thing. Those who took oaths of secrecy, made solemn promises to safeguard the information with which they were entrusted, and then betrayed those oaths because of political agendas, regardless of the potential damage to the safety of the country or its agents, are truly "the most insidious of traitors". Those who ratted to the NYT certainly belong in that category.

But surely the discussion of the employment of a person who was not in a particularly sensitive position,and whose employment with the CIA was public knowledge, could not be considered as such.

My cousin once worked for the FBI. Being from a small town near a slightly larger town, this was a big deal, and there was an article in the local paper about a local girl going off to Washington D.C. to work for the famed Eff Bee Eye. Which was OK, because she was not a secret agent or anything.

Ditto for Val, whose 'secret agent' days, such as they were, were far behind her. She'd had her day, it was taken from her by Aldrich Ames, and then she chose a life which publicly associated her with the Ambassador Corps.

As even chauffeuers and nannies in embassies are assumed to be CIA, and as the wife of an ambassador or even an aide d'affairs such as boyfriend/fiance/hubby Joe Valerie would be photographed and named as such, there was no hope of covert status once that line had been crossed.

One would assume that is why Joe was so open about Val's employment with the CIA. Hell, he ate out on it, riding on the coattails of reflected glory by bragging about what she did for a living.

Secret? Let's just say that if Val HAD, for some bizarre reason, BEEN considered for a covert position, one which carried with it great import, the nation can be glad she was exposed when she was, as her idiot publicity-seeking, media whore husband was a loose cannon.