Wait, Doesn't the hate-filled right wing still want to focus on Clinton? I mean, he was actually president and all. And he had an affair too, as opposed to slinking off to Treasures or watching internet p*rn five hours on Sunday after church lets out. Confusing. Maybe we can make up another group: "VC donkey cart drivers for truth!"
He doesn't know who they are. He presumes that someone's guilt. He describes a level of security clearance that that unknown someone has. And how did this "endanger people in the war on terror?" Isn't that just kind of inflammatory?
No. There are only a certain number of people who have the kind of security clearance it would take to find out Valerie Plame's identity. The folks who have it work for the Whitehouse or the CIA. When the FBI was handling the investigation they quickly ruled out the CIA outed one of their own. Now we know there are only a handful of people left who have that security clearance, and they are working for the whitehouse. We also know that it is a felony to reveal the identity of an undercover operative in the field. A felony was committed. We know down to about 20-30 people according to Wilson who could possibly have committed the felony. When there is an undercover agent who has made contacts, informants etc. and is getting information from them, because they believe her to be someone else that information will cease when they find out her true identity. That information alone may or may not have been vital to saving lives. But in a war on terror, information and intel is the best weapon we have. Now carry that further. Suppose the contacts Plame knows have been helpful, and are low level guys in a terrorist organization, or only know some people in the organization but aren't terrorists themselves. The terrorists the contacts know hear about the CIA agent, and realize that their aquaintences have been talking to her. Now those people's lives are forfeit. Because her identity has been revealed, I don't have to presume someone's guilt. I know that a felony has been committed. There is no doubt about that. Because of the way operatives work, we know that at best intel sources have been weakened, and at worst, those sources may have lost their lives or are in danger of doing so. To weaken any intel sources when we are engaged in a war on terror, is horrible. When it is the President's own staff that has done it, and the President doesn't talk about it, and has made little to no effort to hold the person accountable then that is negligence to leading the war on terror.
Outing an undercover CIA operative is a felony. It is also treason. The fact that it happened in the White House is astonishing. If it had happened during Clinton's time as POTUS, he would have been impeached and convicted, and rightfully so.
