Now, this is a real shocker.  Valerie Plame, the ex CIA officer is suing Cheney, Libby and Rove, accusing them of conspiracy to end her career.

This makes me laugh.  Seriously.

She sues 3 people who did not leak her name, but fails to sue the two people who really did.

The first is Novak himself, whose article started all of this.  And he has clearly stated that the three people in question did not leak her name.  What is interesting is where he did learn her name:  From her husband, Joe Wilson.  Wilson listed her name in his who’s who listing.

According to the information known right now, Novak learned from an as yet unnamed primary source that Wilson’s wife sent him to Niger.  He got her name from Who’s Who.  He then confirmed it from the others.

But more fun will be how she will answer the questions of damage. If she takes the stand to detail it she opens herself up to answering the questions about sending Joe in the First place, which should be interesting.

Former CIA officer and husband file lawsuit against Cheney, Libby, Rove

The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby of revealing Plame’s CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration’s motives in Iraq.

Several news organizations wrote about Plame after syndicated columnist Robert Novak named her in a column on July 14, 2003. Novak’s column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

So clearly she should be suing Novak.  Will the civil libertarians defend him from a suit on the damage his story did?

Updated:  The video was removed. Good thing I saved it.  As soon as I will upload and have it available for viewing.

Correction-  The archived clips, the downloadable wmv and mov versions and all links, are gone, but the original link for the embedded flash player is still good.

The Video is here

Updated:  The video was removed for real this time.  Anyone interested, email and I will upload it.

I will be fair and say that the video I will link to below may not necessary reflect the views of ALL Democrats, so this is not a blanket indictment against all Democrats, nor even against all Congressional Democrats.

This is directly and solely directed at the DCCC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Their shiny new campaign video accuses Republicans of selling out, being corrupt in general, and blames them for global warming, high gas prices etc ad naseum.

In the beginning of the clip in the anti war section is a lovely clip of coffins on a military transport.

Now hang on a second.  Seems to me I recall President Bush coming under considerable condemnation by Democrats (and others) for exploiting 9/11 in his campaign commercials, because he tried to portray it as an area where he showed leadership.

So why is it OK for them to use dead soldiers?  Were the families of these soldiers consulted?

I doubt it.  Once again in DC, the pot calls the kettle black.  I don’t know why this surprises me.  I should be plenty jaded and used to it by now.

http://www.dccc.org/multimedia/archives/new_directions_wmv/

If the video changes, or is removed, it is OK, I downloaded it.  Just let me know.

MORE:  The reaction from the Republicans is in.

GOP Howling Over Democratic Web Ad

Republicans are howling over a Democratic political Web site ad that displays flag-draped coffins and a fake police mug shot of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, arguing that the ad politicizes war casualties and is an insult to the families of the troops killed in Iraq.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst.  

By Jay at Stop the ACLU

I am going to assume that most people can agree that America’s population is found across a vast political spectrum. From libertarians and liberals to moderates and conservatives we find each other across a broad field on ideas and issues. Many times we can all agree that certain things are problems within society yet be on the opposite extremes on how to solve that problem. One of the problems of society that most people can agree on is that of crime. The solution to reducing this problem most likely is found somewhere in the middle and not the extremes.

One of the purposes of the Constitution is to ensure domestic tranquility. Due process, the Fifth Amendment right, is a procedural right, one that defines the methods that can properly be used to ensure domestic tranquility. Without both, there can be no liberty. Domestic tranquility can easily be achieved without respect for due process, as dictatorships throughout history have shown. It is also quite possible to have a society where due process is respected-even considered sacrosanct-and still lack for domestic tranquility. The latter predicament more closely resembles the situation in the United States today.Source

The ACLU in its extreme ideals of society unravels due process from the reasons it was created to serve. The ACLU maintains that it is their purpose to ensure due process and the police to tend to domestic tranquility. I agree that the roles should be separate. I think the opposite would be an invitation to disaster. The ACLU’s sincerity in their statement might be more believable if, as we shall show, they were not so often in opposition of law enforcement. It is generally accepted that domestic tranquility is absolutely necessary to the process of liberty. What is often less understood is how the exclusive concern for due process can also be damaging to liberty.