I originally wrote a much longer point-by-point rebuttal but I ultimately decided to only focus on one specific portion of the editorial. I did this because it is most blatantly incorrect statement I have ever seen from the JG editorial page. And after exposing this the credibility of the entire piece is shot. The JG opines:
The conviction of I. Lewis Scooter Libby was highly suspect and did not serve democracy. Whether Plame really was an unknown CIA operative was questionable.
Her covert status was not under question whatsoever - except perhaps by the pundits on Faux News. Special Prosecutoer Patrick Fitzgerald publicly said she was covert:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Obviously that wasn't enough for the JG. But when the Bush-appointed director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, releases a statement to Congress telling them that she was covert - I mean what more do they need:
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
Does it get any more cut and dry than that? Where is the "questionable" part of that statement? Tracy Warner should print an immediate retraction...
