The American Spectator

MS. PLAME WILSON: We went to my branch chief, or supervisor. My colleague suggested this idea, and my supervisor turned to me and said, “Well, when you go home this evening, would you be willing to speak to your husband, ask him to come into headquarters next week and we’ll discuss the options? See if this — what we could do.” Of course. And as I was leaving, he asked me to draft a quick email to the chief of our Counterproliferation Division [CPD], letting him know that this was — might happen. I said, “Of course,” and it was that email, Congressman, that was taken out of context and — a portion of which you see in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report of July 2004 that makes it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.

br> And here’s how Plame answered when Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen asked if she’d spoken to the reports officer: br>

MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, Congressman, and I can tell you that he came to me almost with tears in his eyes. He said his words had been twisted and distorted. He wrote a memo, and he asked his supervisor to allow him to be re-interviewed by the committee. And the memo went nowhere, and his request to be re-interviewed so that the record could be set straight was denied.

br> Van Hollen suggested that the House Committee ought to see that memo, and Committee Chairman Henry Waxman agreed.

Sen. Bond has issued a statement standing by the parts of the report that Plame Wilson disputes:

We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the Committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the Committee’s description of his comments. If the reports officer would like to clarify or change his remarks, I’m certain that the Committee would welcome his testimony.

We have also checked the memorandum written by Ms. Wilson suggesting her husband to look into the Niger reporting. I also stand by the Committee’s finding that this memorandum indicates Ms. Wilson did suggest her husband for a Niger inquiry….I suggest that the House Government Reform Committee request and examine this memorandum themselves. I am confident that they will come to the same conclusion as our bipartisan membership did.

br> There’s no question that in her testimony, Plame Wilson omitted inconvenient facts and put an inapt emphasis on others. If Bond’s characterization of the evidence is correct, she may actually have lied. Lying under oath before Congress constitutes perjury and a violation of the False Statements Act — the same crimes that accounted for three of the four charges that Scooter Libby was recently convicted of. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Valerie Plame Wilson were to share Libby’s fate?