gardenista
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:22 PM
Original message |
Valerie Plame should NOT make TV appearances in the wake of Rove's |
|
exposure as one of the traitors who leaked her covert identity. She should respond to any requests for TV interviews with a statement something like this:
"The damage done by the revelation of my covert identity has already led to a loss of life and destruction of important intelligence-gathering operations so crucial in a time of war. I will not risk adding to that damage by allowing my image to be used on television."
This will fend off the inevitable saturation of her image, which will result in a Rovian attempt to claim that she doesn't protect her identity, why should anyone else?
|
lancdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:25 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I suspect she's getting advice to do just that.
|
WhoWantsToBeOccupied
(413 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
Mythsaje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:36 PM
Response to Original message |
|
being a spook probably means she's VERY good at covering her ass. And she's going to be doubly certain to protect herself when she can't depend on the government anymore.
And Judith Miller is afraid .
If I were Plame, I might want to keep as low a profile as possible. Her testimony in front of a Grand Jury could be very interesting. She probably doesn't want to draw too much attention to that fact.
|
Disturbed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. V. Plame may still work for the CIA but is |
|
most obviously no longer covert or working on covert projects. Thanks to the Fascist Regime, that operation was destroyed.
|
Mythsaje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
and I'm wondering what sort of stuff the administration may not want to come to light.
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:38 PM
Response to Original message |
4. She hasn't been out there yet |
|
Is there any indication otherwise?
|
gardenista
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. No, not yet, but she should also get a statement out there. Because there |
|
are photos of her around, the one from the Vanity Fair article, in scarf and glasses, but also another where her face is unobscured...
The media will follow WH talking points and inundate with her image, if they can. If she makes a statement such as the one in the OP, I think she innoculates againsts this.
|
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jul-10-05 09:58 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Absolutely - who knows what her image will remind the people |
|
she was around of. Who knows who it could put in danger.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |