Was Valerie Plame undercover or not???

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have consistently stated as fact that no crime was committed in the so-called outing of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative - simply because, so they claim, she was not undercover. Furthermore, they contend that Prosecutor Fitzgerald admitted this fact.

Ever the skeptic about any claim from these two, I tried to corroborate these claims. Hey, I'm willing to listen to what they say, and, if it stands on two legs, I'll support it.

What I found was very, very confusing. My mind is spinning with dozens of timelines and endless he-said, she-saids.

One thing I can say for sure: it is very, very far from an open-and-shut case for Rush and Sean's claim.

After my initial research, I find it misleading, if not disingenuous, for them to state their claims as undisputed facts, when the truth is that the veracity of almost every one of their claims is in doubt.

The most informative source I've found on the topic is from Media Matters for America. This outfit was formed to "monitor, analyze and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media". Obviously this organization makes its bread and butter criticizing the accuracy of the likes of Rush and Sean, hence their information is to be taken with a grain of salt. However, even after taking said grain, often their information is nothing more than that - information. Truthful, verifiable information. They steer away from commentary and opinion.

Having said that, I invite you to read the following article from their archives:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511110011

You'll find that the claims about Plame not being undercover are based on four witnesses:

1. Wayne Simmonds. He haver gave any details or evidence about his claims. There is no way to verify his claims.

2. retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely. Changed his story on repeated occasions. None of which is verifiable. Failed to give his info to the FBI investigators.

3. Andrea Mitchell. Completely retracted her claim.

4. Clifford May. After making his claim, he stopped referring to his own claim, essentially giving up using his own "evidence" to bolster his own arguments.

For the gory details, please read, with critical eye, the article at Media Matters for America:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511110011

I'd welcome any truthful sources that bolster the claims Rush and Sean. But until such sources are provided, I listen to them with a very skeptical ear.

Who really decimated the US military?

OK, I'm sick of another all-too-common rewriting of history by Hannity and his lemmings.

Lately they've been laying the groundwork for scapegoating Bill Clinton for the supposed decimation of US military services during his tenure as President. I don't recollect for sure whether Hannity himself makes these claims, but his callers sure do, and Hannity makes no attempt whatsoever to correct them.

Here are some hard hitting facts, Sean et. al.:

1. Major US military reductions occurred in the years 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 2005, under a congressional plan called the Base Realignment and Closure process. Bill Clinton was never a congressman. Bill Clinton was not President in 1988.

2. Of the 5 BRAC procedures, Clinton was in office for only two (1993 and 1995). For the later, both the House and Senate were firmly controlled by Republicans.

3. BRAC was conceived during the tail-end of the 40 year span of Democratic control of the House. So, if you'd like to blame this on the Dems, there's your starting point. But, FWIW, Ronald Reagan was in office at this time, GHW Bush was VP, and DICK Cheney was a member of that very congress.

4. As I recall, the logic behind BRAC was that the US Military was too troop-heavy, was built for the obsoleted cold war, was too expensive, had too much redundancy, needed more reliance on high technology, and was in great need of streamlining and high efficiency. I seriously doubt many Republicans of the time would have a problem with any of these reasonings.

5. The manner in which BRAC is structured intentionally removes the President from any input to the process. When he approves or disapproves the BRAC recommended closings, it is an all-or-nothing deal (eg, if 71 bases are recommended for closing, he can approve all 71 or disapprove all 71. Nothing in between) Disapproval can be overridden by the House.