The American Spectator

The Spectacle Blog

Tom Maguire:

[S]ince the left and the press seems to be having a failure of imagination, I would offer these suggestions as to why Ms. Plame might be inclined to, hmm, shade her story a bit:

1. Protect her movie deal and book deal;

2. Protect her (long-shot) civil suit;

3. Protect her husband's reputation, given his many past denials of her role;

4. It's a free throw (mandatory March Madness metaphor) - Ms. Plame is a media and democratic darling, so Chairman Waxman would never burden her with a perjury charge, or even such an allegation...

5. Where's the paperwork? There really are nepotism issues here, and the CIA file with the relevant paperwork noting the spousal connection might be a bit light - better for all to deny her role.

6. Placate the Senate - the unanimous portion of the SSCI criticized the CIA for sending an employee's spouse (see ERRATA below); they had an obvious problem that Joe Wilson seemed to know more classified info than he should have, yet no one would 'fess up to having, ahh, over-briefed him. That criticism is even more trenchant if Ms. Plame led the charge to get him the job...

Do any or all of these possible motives fit, and is Ms. Plame lying? How could I possibly know - what, now I'm a human lie detector? But let's say that Ms. Plame is not inside the circle of trust.

Regarding number 4: You might think even a Democratic chairman might have some reservations about a witness lying before his committee. But perhaps not. Given that, a question: I know it would be unusual for a prosecutor to investigate perjury in congressional testimony without a recommendation from the committee, but is it even remotely conceivable that any prosecutor would do so? If you have any insight, email me, john /at/ johntabin.com.