The Corner

More Questions For The Wilsons

Longtime NR reader Jack Jolis (and father of NR staffer)

1/ By what stretch of Wilson’s — or anyone else’s — imagination does it “embarrass” Wilson or “harm his credibility” to “reveal” that his wife works for the Agency, under cover or otherwise? Any normal person would conclude that such a “revelation” would ENHANCE Wilson’s credibility, rather than the opposite. I mean, the whole thing’s a non-sequitur.

and, 2/ Why on earth didn’t Mrs. Wilson — or her putative employer/handlers — simply deny the allegation, either back in July, or since then? If indeed Mrs. Wilson was working “under cover”, why didn’t she USE that cover to deny the allegation? That’s what cover is FOR, whether “official” or “non-official”. If it’s worth half a damn, or even if it exists at all, “cover” is there to be used PRECISELY to refute such allegations as Novak’s. That’s what cover IS — your plausible deniability. Neither Wilson nor her supposed Agency superiors have ever tried to use it. I personally believe this is because she never WAS under cover — and that Novak’s claim that she was described to him as an “analyst” is correct. The fact that she “took trips abroad” means exactly nothing. I’m sorry, Ms. Plame, if you don’t use your cover, or even TRY to, you ain’t/weren’t under cover, darlin’ — and the only person this whole farcical episode is likely to end up harming is Terry MacAuliffe. Better luck next time.


The Latest