Support 911Blogger


Valerie Plame Is Fair Game - Philly 9/11 Truth

Fair Game for 9/11 Truth
2/15/08

Valerie Plame Wilson, former CIA agent who worked to infiltrate and disrupt international nuclear procurement rings, received unexpected questions from the audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Plame lectured about the absurdity of her expulsion from the CIA and the dangers we face as Americans, given the existence of this Bush-league brand of corruption.

Plame fielded questions from the audience – unfortunately, her replies were neither substantive nor insightful. Scott and Phil of Philly 9/11 Truth each asked a question, and each in turn were met with the same dismissive rhetoric that one might expect from an embittered yet cautious ex-CIA employee. The first question was concerned with the one hundred thousand dollar wire-transfer to Muhammad Atta from the Pakistani I.S.I on September 10, 2001. She responded by saying she would have to base her analysis on “fact” and could not respond since she was not apprised to the details of the issue. She was then questioned about government censorship using the example of CIA field operative Gary Berntsen who alleged that the U.S. allowed bin Laden to escape during the Battle of Tora Bora.

After the speaking engagement, Plame signed books and was asked about her involvement with Brewster Jennings. When queried about the possibility of her ousting being the result of an FBI investigation into the American Turkish Council, she immediately stonewalled the question by invoking her CIA confidentiality clause. Plame acknowledged her awareness of Sibel Edmonds’ statements and agreed that they are alarming, but when asked if she would join Sibel’s National Security Whistleblowers Coalition she smugly grinned and replied “no.” Shortly thereafter, she refused to comment when asked about Bush’s transfer of nuclear secrets to Turkey.

Good job. Enjoyed the squading. You guys rock.

Was wondering if the diarist has any comments about Plame's initial response to the question about the Atta-ISI $$ transfer:

"We know there was no connection between Al Qaeda and 9/11."

Would seem that this statement is something of a headline (since the myth of a connection is so widely believed in America) and definitely added to the 9/11 history commons.

al Qaeda not responsible for 9/11!?

Our take on the statement where Plame says, "al Qaeda has no connection with 9/11" is that she either had a Freudian-slip or mispoke and inserted 'al Qaeda' where she meant to say 'Iraq'. Although we all know the "evidence" linking al Qaeda to 9/11 is dubious, it is unlikely that Plame intended to be seditious toward the government with this statement.

WWW.PHILLY911TRUTH.ORG

"There is no fury like that of a man scorned for expressing truth!"

Good point! I do find Plame's "al Qaeda" statement very

interesting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Supergirl comes to the supermarket

Yeahp, the quote that, "There is no linkage between al qaeda and 9/11..." is the would-be headline here, and I was really floored by the statement. Your observation that Ms. Plame, Ms. Spoke, makes immediate and obvious sense.

The audience member prefaces his question "about 9/11" with a statement to the effect that 9/11 led to the Iraq war, and I compliment you on your close attention to Plame's bungled answer, in that context.

Freud called such "slips of the tongue" parapraxes, and suggested that, even more than dreams, they revealed the unconscious in a manner particularly rewarding of interpretation. We can't know much about what's really going on here, but your alert observation is crucial to making any sense of her reply. Good catch. Many thanks.

As for another comment here about Ms. Plame's apparent condescension and aloofness: let's keep in mind that she's both a very attractive and accomplished woman, partnered in a celebrity marriage by any Washington beltway standards, who furthermore has a book to hawk and a career choice behind her that isn't likely to've occurred to many of us here, even as an option. I don't think CIA glamor girls are a dime a dozen, and it's improbable she'd relish wadding into the great unwashed, non-covert masses, such as we are.
Sometimes what we hear is misstated; sometimes what we see is Miss. America.

"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon

Sure Valerie, you & your hubby Joe are embattled CIA agents, but

you don't know that Pakistani I.S.I. transferring $100,000 to Atta is a documented fact??? Why are you playing the lying game on us? Are you perhaps a limited hangout artist of some sort???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Plame came across in an unsympathetic manner

It's great to see video of a highly visible player addressing 9/11 questions. Kudos.

Valerie Plame came across as smug and arrogant. The White House leaks may have ruined her career and exposed agents to life-threatening danger, Plame doesn't impress as a concerned Patriot. Plame's responses reflected, at times, amusement and condescension.;

Do they ever know anything or ever have any facts? In caustic jest, you may have suggested you could provide materials and can get back to us!

...don't believe them!

body language is telling

I've noticed something about speakers when they are asked "difficult" questions. It's their body language. Example - The John Gross of NIST video where he addresses the question of molten steel. He's just soooo uncomfortable... he adjusts his stance and his glasses.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501

I'm not a body language expert but I definitely sense uneasiness with Valerie Plame, too. Look how she reaches for the glass of water as soon as she is asked about 9/11. It's the way she reached for it - as if it were a way for her to gather her thoughts and regroup before answering. Something about her body language tells me she is very uncomfortable with the 911 questions.

Any body language experts out there wish to comment?

Jesus!

This must be one of the best FRIGGIN 9/11 truth squad videos out there! I'm seeing Hillary Clinton (again -- got video from the last time that I'll post later) at UTPA next Wednesday and I am TOTALLY inspired and stoked by your effort! GOOD JOB GUYS!!!

In the last question the

In the last question the attempt seemed to allude to her repeated statements that she cannot comment on anything prior to her work at the CIA before 2002 as a stipulation to having her book released, yet the story about the trading of secret intelligence to Turkey occurred in January 2008, as noted by the inquiry. I'm wondering why she was so adamant about denying or refusing to give information about not only 'Sibel Edmonds' but the 'Turkish-US nuclear trade', what's to hide? Either she doesn't know or is refusing to tell. All the "hmm-mm" responses when Plame was interviewed by American AM, transcript here, http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5685, which occurred before this truth squad leads one to question whether she knows more than she's telling. One would think if she didn't know at the time of the American AM interview, that there would have been time to research more about Sibel Edmonds. At the Constitution Center the 911 questions seemed to have brought forth her "hmm-mm" defensive mechanism to "listen" with very little response to these questions.

What's more 'stunning' is that she knows so little about what Sibel is saying given the fact that she ousted Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, the same person as told by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds that was connected to a high-ranking State Department official in a nuclear smuggling ring and Pakistan’s ISI plant “moles” in US military and academic institutions that handle nuclear technology. Here are two individuals talking about A.Q. Khan, so where is the collaboration to remove the internal corruption? Sibel has publicly made it her mission to seek justice to these traitors, where Plame when asked to join the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition founded by Sibel Edmonds has declined.

Ironic that she ousted A.Q. Khan, but sadly and coincidentally now she has been ousted.

We should be sympathetic to Plame as she's the victim here without a doubt, because of Joe we are not in a war against Iran aside from the NIE of 2003 (that Bush claims he only learned about November 28, 2007 as made public December 3, 2007). Whether Plame's ousting was a factor in the NIE release is speculation. Whether the 2003 NIE assessment or Joe's yellow cake report or both prevented the war in Iran is contentious. But, why isn't the Constitution Center having Sibel Edmonds as a guest speaker or any press in the U.S.? Are we to believe that the CIA got one finally right by preventing the war in Iran through Joe's report (by a bit of rebellion by Joe to do the right thing), but failed miserably on the "slam dunk" of Iraq and the invading a country of Afgan to get the Wiley E. Coyote bin laden.

Just a highly speculative question, is the spotlight of Plame (and her book) taking away any of the plight of Sibel Emonds story, an ousting of a CIA agent as retaliation of Joe's report, very wrong of the administration and still punishable by treason vs. the story of Sibel Edmonds allegations of nuclear secrets being sold by high ranking officials at the State Department, also treasonous. Is there room for both, though both are not getting equal media attention. One story leads to the Bush administration doing something very bad by ousting Plame, the other is a grave situation of internal corruption that fuels terrorism, that makes the CIA look far worse not catching this, and has much more serious consequences. Is one a smoke screen for the other? Or is it that Plame's story was orchestrated give some credibility to the CIA and diminish Sibels allegations. Perhaps for Plame it was time anyway to retire from the CIA and start that new family, who knows. Because the CIA would never do anything to manipulate public perception right? I do realize that simply asking these questions may seem like an attack on her, which is not as the ousting of Plame was very wrong and both she and Joe are courageous for going public with their story, though people who are attractive do seem to get "more" of the benefit of the doubt, unless I am mistaken that physical looks are not glamorized in mainstream media and stunning people are not more successful and have better opportunities in society overall.

Just a note that the U.S. Turkey nuclear cooperation has come out after 3 articles from the U.K. Sunday Times about Sibel Edmonds telling about nuclear trade cooperation, yet the craftiness of this report is that "Bill Clinton" signed it in 2000, even though the Bush administration put it to Congress Jan 2008. From the pressure of these reports, is this an attempt to retroactively give them immunity from the trade secrets trades that Sibel is alleging to for the 8 years of the Bush administration and Mark Grossman and the State Department treasonous activities?

+A.+Q.+Khan's+Nuclear+Network
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=amid90sciafrontskhan...
+Sibel+Edmonds

Bush pushes US-Turkey nuclear cooperation January 22, 2008
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_pushes_US_Turkey_nuclear_coope_0123200...

If you disagree, a civil dialog would be appreciated.
--
highly skeptical of anything

Being Civil...Getting Information

Robin Hordon

I totatlly commend Philly 9/11 truth for their thoughtfulness, approach and conduct in dealing with Valerie. This approach will get much better milage than the IN-YO-FACE stuff championed by Tarpley and his 9/11 GOON squads and the more aggressive WAC groups who have to "confront" everyone.

The truth is on our side and we need simply to continuously seek it, and when we get it, to spread it about in Civil approaches and tones with the idea to educate citizens. I-YOU-WE-THEY will bring about the change...and not the politicians and military folks who if they did tell the truth, would indict themselves.

Lies fall to the blade of good, precise, thoughtful and respectful questioning...defenses rise to the feel of being confronted. Questioning is better...confronting is just the wrong way to go.

I'm an old 60s activist and the "confrontational" approach drove the masses away from the peace movements, as seen in the lowering attendance at big rallies and the like. Yet, out of the 60s came the environmental movement and the anti-nuke movements and they "live on" quite well because they were CIVIL...and they supplied INFORMATION to the public...even in schools!

So, 40 years later, which are more successful? The peace movements, or the the anti-nuke and environmental movements? If one can step back from the blood flow of confrontaion, one can see things a bit better...a better way to be.

...in Canada they call it...CI-A...Civil Information-Activism...
...in Portland its: IA...Information Activism...
...in Seattle its: CI...Civil Informationing...

...and its what the 9/11 Truth Movement is all about...information will bring about change...

Tremendous job Philly, and very, very well done!

Love, Peace and Progress with:

PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS using HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS on a NEW PAID FEDERAL HOLIDAY...

Robin Hodon

Great Job Philly!!! Freudian Slip??

Her statement sounded eerily similar to when Bhutto said Omar Sheik murdered OBL. She just kept on rolling as if she didn't even know she was dropping a bombshell. As if in her other more secretive circles, this is what she would say because it is what she truly believes. It must be hard to keep it all together when you are a former CIA operative who has to have 2 or more stories for everything, and has to know when to use which one.