That’s Why They Call it ‘Treason’
Vol: 58 Issue: 15 Saturday, July 15, 2006
That’s Why They Call it ‘Treason’
Having failed in the criminal court system, one supposes it was only a matter of time before the Valerie Plame Affair made its way into the civil court system. After all, there is no better way to embarrass the government than to haul it into civil court where it is more or less defenseless.
In America, the government always starts three steps behind when it stands before the courts. The court system is slanted (as it should be) in favor of the individual citizen, which is why the government fears the civil court system even more than the criminal branch.
So it was big news when Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson announced they were suing the government in civil court for ‘outing’ Valerie Plame as a CIA employee.
Plame told at a news conference she trusted the government to protect her and that the government “betrayed that trust. I’d much rather be continuing my career as a public servant than as a plaintiff in a lawsuit,” she said.
Talk about a case of the pot calling the kettle black! “The government betrayed that trust?” Valerie Plame was given a position of trust within the CIA and she used that position to work against the public that she claims she wants to serve, by arranging her husband’s partisan junket to Niger and then lying about it.
A quick refresher:
Plame’s identity as a CIA officer was revealed in a July 14, 2003, article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Novak’s column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.
Interestingly, the information that Wilson claims was ‘twisted’ turned out to be true. And the 9/11 Commission was so suspicious of Wilson and Plame’s testimony that it concluded neither was a trustworthy witness.
For starters, Wilson insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium.
“Valerie had nothing to do with the matter,” Wilson says in his book. “She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.” In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her recommending Wilson for the job.
At Friday’s news conference, Wilson noted he had written an op-ed criticizing the administration’s defense of going to war in Iraq, saying “I exercised my civil duty to hold my government to account.”
Wilson didn’t hold ‘his government to account’. He went after the partisan administration, not the government itself. His wife WORKS for the government.
And there is no ‘civil duty’ to oppose one’s government in time of war. One’s civil duty is to defend one’s country in time of war. If there were a civil duty to oppose one’s government in time of war, that government would not last beyond the first war it was in. That’s why all governments have laws against treason.
Moreover, if Wilson was sent by the CIA, is it not passing strange that he was under no obligation to keep his mission and its conclusions confidential? But Wilson exposed the entire mission on the front page of the New York Times, before the war and in plenty of time to embarrass the government.
Finally, as it happens, Wilson was lying all along. The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, “Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'”
The problem for Wilson is that he “had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: “The documents purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.”
As Susan Schmidt reported back on page A9 of Saturday’s Washington Post: “Contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence.”
There is plenty of time for verbal partisan in-fighting once the blood-and-guts fighting is over and our forces are no longer on the battlefield. Opposing one’s government in time of war has a different name.
The dictionary, the USC Civil Code and the Bible all define that as ‘treason’.
(The BIBLE? See Romans 13:1-7)
For a ‘secret’ agent, Valerie Plame has a real problem with publicity. Her career as a ‘secret’ civil ‘servant’ was ‘ruined’ by the Bush administration to the tune of; several photospreads in Vanity Fair, a $2.5 million book deal for Plame, tentatively entitled “Fair Game” (to sit on the shelf beside Joe Wilson’s $2.5 million book, “The Politics of Truth”).
Ummm, Plame and her family were ‘ruined’ to the tune of five million dollars? I suppose if treason can be termed a ‘civil duty’ then becoming a millionaire can be described as being ‘ruined’. It all depends on how one defines ‘ruined’.
The Wilsons claim that Plame was a secret agent until her status was blown by the Bush administration. (Actually, it was blown by Bob Novak who said he got Plame’s name from ‘Who’s Who in America’.
(I told you Plame had a real publicity problem for a ‘secret’ agent)
But in an intervew with Wolf Blitzer on July 14, 2005, Wilson admitted, “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.” So what’s the deal?
It is really pretty simple. They sold out their nation, cashed in on it politically and financially, and now they are making another trip back to the feed trough to cash in again.
I feel somewhat sorry for both Wilson and Plame. History will treat both unkindly. While it has become fashionable to separate the Bush administration out from ‘the government’ as some kind of separate entity, the fact remains that the Bush administration IS the government, and will remain so until a new government is elected in 2008.
Where is there an exemption in the treason law for those who don’t happen to like the officials currently in office? It is fair to say that Osama bin Laden doesn’t like Bush, either. Does that make him a patriot? Is 9/11 suddenly noble?
I’ve said it before and I will say it again. To argue that ‘Bush lied’ is to argue a logical impossibility. Bush would have to have known what nobody else on earth knew in order to earn the title of liar. Otherwise, he was at worst as mistaken as every other government leader except Saddam Hussein.
And if that is true, then the entire Iraq War opposition machine is based on a fraud as transparent as the Valerie Plame Affair.
There is no point in going back over the real causes for the Iraq War. Everybody can recite them in their sleep. The imaginary cause, i.e. “we’re going to steal Iraqi oil” has lost some of its luster — since we didn’t — but the opposition is so firmly entrenched now that it no longer needs a reason.
That’s because it never needed a reason. The ‘anti-war’ movement is merely a renaming of the anti-Bush movement so it doesn’t sound so petty. As noted, there is no exception to the treason law that you don’t like the administration in power.
The Valerie Plame Affair is being styled as a case of two ‘patriots’ — Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame — going after a corrupt and unfaithful government who betrayed them by leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the press.
Plame and Wilson don’t expect to win. She wasn’t a secret agent. Her name wasn’t leaked by the government. But the facts are unimportant.
What matters is that the allegations are kept alive and at the top of the news during the mid-term election cycle. Afterwards, it will die the natural death of all such frivolous lawsuits — after the damage is done.
It is possible to love America and not love the Bush administration. But it isn’t possible to hurt the Bush administration’s war effort without hurting America.
That’s why the dictionary calls opposing one’s own government’s war efforts ‘treason.’