Lies About Plame — Part Of The Cover-Up?

There have been several reports that the Special Prosecutor’s office has been asking Valerie Plame’s neighbors whether they knew she was a CIA agent.

A series of interviews by F.B.I. agents on Monday revived the possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald might be considering such a charge. Several neighbors of Ms. Wilson and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, were asked whether they knew that Ms. Wilson, also known by her unmarried name, Valerie Plame, had covert status.
Several neighbors, some who have known her for years, said they did not know before Mr. Novak’s column that she worked for the C.I.A.

Maybe they are looking into the man who said this:

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an “undercover agent,” saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency’s headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
“She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat,” Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

Bringing out someone like Rustmann would fit the pattern. (Think Swift Boaters.) This was in the Washington Times. I heard it on Limbaugh. And of course it was repeated on Fox. Remember the people who said things about the Clintons, and we found out later they were paid?

2 thoughts on “Lies About Plame — Part Of The Cover-Up?

  1. This morning C-SPAN was filled with people questioning whether Plame was really under cover. One person remarked that “she went to work at the CIA every day and everybody could see her go in.” I don’t know whether these are paid agents or just people trying to rationalize their faith in the Bush administration, but either way it’s pretty sad. Of course they’re going to demonize Fitzgerald, Plame, and Wilson. They don’t know any other way to think. Once an administration has achieved sainthood, it can do no wrong.

  2. It’s been repeated on CNN too. Multiple times.
    It strikes me as one piece of ‘try this on for size’ disinformation. A lot of that has been floating by lately. Even if none of it works, the sum of it all makes for a veritable shit-storm that will obfuscate the one narrative based on fact. There can only be one truth, but can you see it through all the brown stinky stuff?

Comments are closed.