Yakk

Thank you Lebell.

That editorial does not assert that Plame was not assigned overseas. The best it asserts is that she was working in the US for "some time". It doesn't deal with the fact that there is apparently a large volume of classified information presented to a judge who became convinced, based off this evidence, that journalistic privledge should be revoked in the national interest.

It doesn't mention that the CIA agent Novak talked to repeatedly told Novak not to reveal Plame's status as a CIA operative. Instead it brushes against this and mentions far less important quotes from the discussion... It doesn't mention that Plame was working for a CIA shell company (not the CIA), and her employment with the CIA at Langly was a secret. In fact, it uses "at Langly" as if this implies she was openly working for the CIA...

In effect, the piece looks like an advocacy piece, not an attempt to uncover the truth of the matter. The political credentials (high former official in a republican white house) provide cooroborative evidence.

I must therefore assume that it is written in an adversarial context, and that any ommissions and wholes in her arguement are intentionally left out are not accidental but rather rhetorical dishonesty. The history of expertise of Victoria means that it isn't reasonable to assume she just accidentally missed important and pertinant facts that happen to be less than supporting of her arguement.

So, in conclusion, Victoria isn't making an honest arguement. There is ample evidence of lies by ommission. So citing her as an authority, or assuming without independant proof, any fact she espouses is not reasonable.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.