Michael J. Totten says that this CIA leak “scandal” amounts to tabloid fodder and I’m inclined to agree with his assessment. I’m just not as classy as he is.
(I'll assume the readers know most of the pertinent facts. If not, click the CNN link. It'll have the facts, most of 'em, anyway.)
Considering that there have been several conflicting reports regarding the CIA employee’s (Valerie Plame) duty title, this "scandal" is beginning to take the aura of an interoffice rumor.
From CNN:
Sources also said Tuesday that Plame is not an analyst, as Novak said this week, but a CIA operations officer. For many years, the sources said, Plame was an active overseas undercover officer for the agency. More recently, she has been working at a management level within the operations section of the CIA.From the Opinion Journal Editorial Page:
In any event, Mrs. Wilson was not an agent in the field but is ensconced at Langley headquarters. It remains far from clear that any law was violated.And Robert Novak, the columnist who put the CIA employee’s name into print in the first place, makes things even more confusing, shifty bugger that he is.
From a Novak commentary at Townhall.com:
A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations. [Emphasis mine.]You’d think that the *professionals* on which we rely {snort} could get this factoid straight, SINCE THE ENTIRE STORY HINGES UPON IT.
Assuming the facts are eventually straightened out and Plame is an operative and some hapless CIA employee swings for blowing her cover, how will it be proved that the Bush Administration did this on purpose? How can it be proved that the administration did this to avenge on Plame's husband, due to his criticism of its decision to go to war?
A better question: why would any rational person think that the Bush Administration would authorize such a thing? What would there be to gain?
UPDATE: Michael decides to comment after all.
