If they didnt know Plame was undercover, why bother mentioning her?

[LSK]

If she was just a secretary, why bother having conversations about her with reporters.

"By the way, did you know his wife was a secretary?"

What would be the point in that?

[blondeatlast]

1. EXACTLY. Great point.

:patriot:

[Why Syzygy]

2. Treason.

Subvert the real operation. Put in the false one. Treason.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Lunatic conservatives and their lunatic supporters

Psstt, hey bob novak Joe Wilson's wife is an insignificant, totally unimportant, incredibly miniscule desk jockey. Pass it on.

If there were no underlying crime why did libby HAVE TO LIE??

[sabra]

4. the "desk jockey" came out after the fact as a talking point

to try to diffuse their actions.

And they did know that she worked for the "agency" in the WMD arena. We also know that they are proven liars.

[gatorboy]

5. I'm still wondering why they'd think a secretary would have the power.

to send her husband on top secret missions. Is that just a perk everyone in the CIA gets?


"We need an agent in Siberia quick! get Ted the janitor to write up the plans, STAT!"

[Canuckistanian]

24. Exactly. If desk jockeys have that much power

Why are they still desk jockeys?

[BOSSHOG]

6. No doubt a free republic guest could answer that question for us

They are all patriotic, god loving Americans who certainly would be opposed to even the hint of impropriety relative to our national security.

Why expose her?
Why did scoot scoot lie?
Was there really, really, really no underlying crime?

Thanks for your forthcoming answers.

[bunny planet]

7. Yup.

So true, and I sure hope someone says it in front of a camera on national teevee. Its kind of a giant hole in all of the right wing talking points isn't it?

[ourbluenation]

8. Because their entire point was to discredit wilson by saying his wifey sent him on

the mission and they're both partisan.

[BlueEyedSon]

25. Correct. nt

[Vincardog]

26. The entire point was to out the Front company and stop them from investigating the WMD links

to the Reich Wing nutz

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. No. We should get their argument straight

Your argument assumes that they were trying to "out" somebody in the first place.

Their argument is that they were trying to call the Niger trip into question by discrediting the way it was arranged. If it was arranged as a "junket" through his wife, then it was a sham, and Wilson shouldn't be believed. Whether Ms. Plame was covert is immaterial to that putative intention. (i.e., she could be just a secretary, and the information would perform the same function)

[LSK]

12. their argument changes by the minute

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. That may be the case

But their argument was NEVER "We outted her in order to punish her," which is what the OP's question assumes.

[LSK]

16. no, the assumption is they did it to punish him, Wilson

I am not assuming they did it to punish her.

But that was the result of their actions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. But that's not a valid ASSUMPTION

That's the conclusion, not the premise. You have to at least grant them their own premises when you argue that they are being illogical. You can't provide them with premises and then say they are being illogical.

[LSK]

19. you lost me

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. Here

CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT:

TRIPS arranged by relatives are not credible
Wilson's trip was arranged by his wife at the CIA
Therefore, Wilson's trip is not credible

This is the argument they've been making. Notice: her covert status is inessential for this argument. She could just as easily be a secretary as a covert operative. For this argument, one doesn't need to assume that she was covert, in other words. Now, you say "If they didn't know Plame was undercover, why bother mentioning her?...What would be the point of that?" Their answer is simple:

We mentioned her because if she arranged the trip, then the trip was not credible.

That's their logic. Of course, it is rank negligence at best, complete bullshit at worst. But, using that argument, one can very easily see the point of mentioning her even if one DID NOT KNOW OR BELIEVE that she was covert. I'm answering your question given the logic that they're using. You can't import your own premise (they wanted to punish her or Wilson) in order to show up the logical flaws in THEIR argument. Now, in my view they knew perfectly well that she was covert and outted her to punish Wilson. In other words, they're criminals and liars. But I do recognize that their lie holds together logically.

[LSK]

22. ok, I get you

I just recall several times during the hearing today it was brought up that they hypothetically didnt know she was not covert but it wasnt connected to the part about her sending her husband until later.

I need to rewatch the hearing.

[uppityperson]

20. They lie

They may argue "we were trying to call the Niger trip into question by discrediting the way it was arranged" but that is a lie. They were trying to punish HIM for what he said (the truth).

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Obviously, that's the case

My only point is that they do, with their LIE, have a logical answer to the OP's question. Something can be logically valid and factually untrue.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. They took her career away from her

Now they say oh she wasn't covert. Who cares? They cost her her job.

How do these bastards sleep at night?

[Beelzebud]

11. Because they're all LIARS! :)

[EFerrari]

14. Exactly. The answer is in the question.

If she had nothing to lose, why bother?

:thumbsup:

[NNN0LHI]

15. There is no GOOD answer to this question

I wonder if KO has thought about this. He would bring it up if he did.

Don

[TahitiNut]

17. As any 6-year-old knows, you don't run around saying "I know a secret" if it's not a secret.

If it was common knowledge then why say anything? If it was common knowledge then why did everyone outside the White House know from whom, when and where they found out?

Fucking insane to pretend otherwise.