Ever since the CIA was started it has been a political football. The worst games ever were during Bush II when Cheney, and his shills, went over there to “straighten things out.” They ended up “straightening out” those who warned us in advance of 9/11. They “straightened out” those who told us there were no “massive amounts of WMD.” And perhaps the most famous case; “straightened out” the wife of a man who had told the truth: the truth being those infamous aluminum tubes could not be used for in the service of producing nuclear weapons.
You know, if you apply just a little logic: something lacking these days, the idea that Saddam would ever actually use a nuke is a little thin. It would be a tad like New Hampshire striking Vermont. Depending on winds and such, a bit like dog eats self tail first, eh? Or if the Falklands had attempted to use their one nuke on the United States for not siding with them.
Mister Rogers asks, “Can you say, boys and girls, ‘what Falklands?'”
Part of the millions who died due to all this were scientists and others who helped Valerie, therefore the United States. Don’t even start with me about her being just some low level clerk. Taking her out as an operative would have been unnecessary if that had been the case. All the noise and lies would have been unnecessary: like Valerie supposedly sending Joe over there. Valerie could “send” no one. He was “sent” by those cowards who turned on his wife when he didn’t back up their warmongering BS.
And don’t even start with me about her, or Joe, lying. The Right has never been reluctant to claim someone committed perjury: even when they answer a question truthfully posed in the present tense (“is”) that they didn’t answer “truthfully” if it had been asked in the past tense. (“Has there ever been a relationship between you and…”) I didn’t hear a peep claiming Ms. Plame committed perjury. The Right would have insisted she be charged with such if that had been the case. Loudly: with the usual immense amount of noise and melodrama they so gleefully muster.
OK, she’s never been head of anything like the CIA, certainly never a politician, or political appointee to any high position: but maybe that’s all for the best.
She, and her husband, don’t wimpish-ly follow some politically correct left wing line, anymore than they have goosestepped down the right wing politically correct line. That last one was the main reason she and Joe were publicly humiliated, and one of the reasons her contacts, were snuffed.
That didn’t have to happen. Revenge often has repercussions far beyond the intended targets.
I would nominate Valerie because she probably would disagree with some of the comments I just typed. I’m not seeking someone who agrees with me. In fact we need someone in that position who is an independent thinker, not owing allegiance to any party, or pundit… unwilling to bend when it would be easier for her to just let millions die to keep her own job, keep her reputation. If anything, both her and her husband have proven a certain amount of independence that should be necessary for any such position, and a good amount of loyalty to those willing to risk their lives not only to help America, but do what’s right.
What we’ve had for years now is a trend towards “yes” men, regardless of what is good for the nation. “Yes men” despite what’s “good” for those who do the necessary work to keep us free, and what best for friends willing to help despite that means putting their lives, and the lives of their families and friends, on the line. Politically motivated appointments: those well connected and agreeable to one side or another, are not what we need. They are what has been “the problem” for years. The demand that the CIA, or any governmental agency, skew intel to the preference of any president is yet another reason the CIA has been screwing up, and another part of the problem we are having.
Don’t like the wrong intel on the terrorist attack in Benghazi? Blame poor leadership at the top. No, not Barack: he doesn’t gather intel. Blame what we have done to organizations like the CIA, and whomever is at the top of those organizations. And if you really think Barack ignored something crucial: intentionally or not, or didn’t let the “facts” out til after the election, who better to challenge that than someone whose husband challenged another president in public?
Perhaps a husband and wife team might also be something to consider here?
We need appointees brave enough to challenge some line of lies pushed by any administration, or president, or any side of the partisan divide. We certainly need no more Scooter Libbys, who demanded intel reflect what the administration wants it to reflect.
If you have read their books you know both Joe and Valerie say things that make lefties uncomfortable, and enrage righties too. They try to do, and say, what they think is right, what’s true. For good intel that’s exactly what need. We need someone honest who knows the CIA from the ground up.
That’s why I think Valerie Plame may make the best CIA director ever.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved