Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOkay, can we finally get rid of one of the Libby Lobby's key talking points--that Valerie Plame Wilson was not an undercover CIA employee? This should be one outcome of the House oversight and government reform committee hearing on Friday, at which Valerie Wilson spoke for the first time at length about the leak case.
From the start of this scandal, confederates of the Bush White House (and backers of the war) have tried to diminish the significance of the administration leak that outed her as a CIA officer (as both legal and national security matters). Conservatives insisted she was not a clandestine officer doing anything important and that her employment at the CIA was either no big secret or no secret at all. A brief sampling:
* On September 29, 2003, former Republican Party spokesman Clifford May wrote that the July 14, 2003 Robert Novak column that disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection "wasn't news to me. I had been told that--but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."
* On September 30, 2003, National Review writer Jonah Goldberg huffed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already."
* On October 1, 2003, Novak wrote, "How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA....[A]n unofficial source at the agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations."
* On July 17, 2005, Republican Representative Roy Blunt, then the House majority leader, said on Face the Nation, "This was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."
* On February 18, 2007, as the Libby trial was under way, Republican lawyer/operative Victoria Toensing asserted in The Washington Post, "Plame was not covert."
Anyone who has read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and me, would know (as we disclosed for the first time) that Valerie Wilson was the undercover operations chief for the Joint Task Force on Iraq of the Counterproliferation Division, a unit of the agency's clandestine operations directorate. (See my piece, "What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA," here.) Both the book and the article reported that she had traveled overseas--undercover--within the five years before her name appeared in the Novak column.
There was other evidence--official evidence--that she had been a covert officer at the CIA. When special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby in October 2005, he said that Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified information. (He repeated that at the trial.) And in a January 2004 letter to Democratic Representative John Conyers, the CIA noted that the Valerie Wilson's CIA employment status was "classified information."
Now comes the victim of the leak. Testifying to the committee, Valerie Wilson reported that the CIA still prohibits her from saying much about her CIA career. (The agency has held up the publication of her memoirs, claiming at one point that she cannot acknowledge working for the CIA prior to 2002.) But Plame was able to tell the committee, "I was a covert officer." She said she helped to "manage and run operations." She noted that prior to the Iraq war she had "raced to discover intelligence" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. "I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions," she said under oath, "to find vital intelligence." She said these trips had occurred within the past five years. She added that she could "count on one hand" the number of people outside the CIA who knew of her employment at the agency: "It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit." She also explained that a covert officer at the CIA is "just like a general" who may spend time commanding troops in Afghanistan and then return to the Pentagon before heading off to another theater: "Covert operations officers, when they rotate back for temporary assignment in Washington, are still covert."
Before she testified, Representative Henry Waxman, the committee chairman, read an opening statement in which he said that Valerie Wilson had been a "covert" officer" who had "served at various times overseas" and "worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States." Waxman noted that the CIA had cleared this statement. And during the questioning period, Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings reported that General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, had told him, "Ms. Wilson was covert."
Will Toensing, Novak, May, Blunt, Goldberg and others admit they got this wrong? Perhaps even apologize to Valerie Wilson for misinforming the public about her clandestine public service? At the least, they should stop repeating the canard she was not a covert officer. (Victoria Toensing, this means you.)
At the hearing, other aspects of the leak affair were discussed. Valerie Wilson noted she certainly didn't know if any of the administration officials who disseminated information about her (Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage) realized she was undercover. But she added, "They should have been diligent in protecting me and other CIA officers." She explained that many employees of the CPD--where she worked--are covert, suggesting that Cheney and Libby (who both knew she was employed in that division) should have been careful in handling information about her.
One lingering question in the leak scandal is how much damage was done by the disclosure of her CIA connection. Her career as an operations officer was derailed. But were past or present operations blown? Specific sources and contacts endangered? Wilson testified that the CIA did a damage assessment but did not share it with her.
Wilson also addressed the issue of whether she dispatched her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, on his February 2002 trip to Niger, where he concluded there was not much to the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping there. For years, White House allies have tried to dismiss the importance of Wilson's trip by suggesting he was not qualified for the mission and had been sent (perhaps on a nepotistic junket) by his wife. They have pointed to a Senate intelligence committee report that suggested Valerie Wilson was instrumental in sending him. Before the House committee, she testified that she did not have the authority to dispatch her husband on such a trip, that a coworker had the idea to send Joe Wilson (who years earlier had taken on a similar assignment for the Counterproliferation Division), and that she had merely been asked to write a note confirming her husband's credentials. She also said that a colleague was misquoted within the Senate intelligence committee report (saying she had proposed her husband for the trip) and that this colleague subsequently was prevented by a superior from sending the committee a memo correcting the record. In other words, her husband's detractors have overplayed this angle. (By he way, much of this story was reported in Hubris.) Democrats on the committee said they would ask the CIA for a copy of the smothered memo.
After Valerie Wilson, who left the CIA in early 2006, finished, Waxman declared, "We need an investigation. This is not about Scooter Libby and not just about Valerie Plame Wilson." Waxman was right in that the Libby trial did not answer all the questions about the leak affair, especially those about the roles of Bush administration officials other than Libby. How did Cheney learn of Valerie Wilson's employment at the Counterproliferation Division and what did he do with that information? How did Karl Rove learn of her CIA connection? How did Rove manage to keep his job after the White House declared anyone involved in the leak would be fired? (Rove confirmed Armitage's leak to Novak and leaked information about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment to Matt Cooper, then of Time.) What did Bush know about Cheney's and Rove's actions? What did Bush do in response to the disclosure that Rove had leaked and had falsely claimed to White House press secretary Scott McClellan that he wasn't involved in the leak?
Representative Tom Davis, the senior Republican on the committee, seemed rather unhappy about the prospect of a committee inquiry and noted that Fitzgerald already had investigated the leak for years. Fitzgerald's mission, though, was to determine if a crime had been committed. Not all wrongdoing in Washington is criminal. Valerie Wilson's presence at the hearing was a reminder that White House officials (beyond Libby) engaged in improper conduct (which possibly threatened national security) and lied about it--while their comrades in the commentariat spinned away to distort the public debate.
The world's most famous CIA officer finally had her say in public. Her testimony showed that critical parts of the leak story remain unknown. Given that she and her husband are pursuing a civil lawsuit against the leakers (Rove, Libby, Armitage, Cheney and others), that she is battling the CIA to publish her memoirs, and that Waxman is considering mounting a congressional investigation, the tale of the CIA officer outed into the cold is not yet done.
******
DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Two points...
1. "It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit."...."not common"....or "totally unknown on the circuit"? There's a semantic difference. The latter represents that NOBODY knew of her covert status; the former indicates that SOME people knew it, but it wasn't "common knowledge". Maybe she meant the latter...but it's semantic wiggle-room.
2. "Valerie Wilson noted she certainly didn't know if any of the administration officials who disseminated information about her (Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage) realized she was undercover.".....so she basically admitted by her reckoning, there was NO violation of the IIPA by the White House.
Sorry, but this (plus Fitzgerald shying away) doesn't seem to be the "John Dean" moment that people wanted.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 1:43pm
What amazes me is the two individuals following Ms. Plame. One was a career government worker who is Director of the Whitehouse Security department who stated that there was NO investigation of the leak as required by the own Whitehouse rules. NO ONE had security clearances revoked. No investigation at all. This does not pass the smell test. The leak of classified information was a know act by the highest levels of the Whitehouse.
"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999
Posted by COProgressive at 03/16/2007 @ 1:50pm
Mask:
You are off on your points.
1. She was rebutting a point with a negative. The point being that it "was common knowledge." She was saying only that it was NOT - i.e. that claim is inaccurate. She otherwise testified that she could count on "one hand" the number of peole outside the CIA who knew her role - one of those being her husband.
2. Her state of mind is not at issue and what she knew is not authoritative on the issue. She is not admitting that no crime was committed only that the intent and knowledge elements could not be shown through her knowledge.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 1:55pm
Wow - Toensing has changed her tune.
Blaming the CIA for not doing enough to protect Plame/Wilson.
And the focus on issues like intent and knowledge.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 1:59pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 1:55pm
I think your two counterpoints are not only accurate, but obvious.
And Mask is smart enough to know it.
Posted by drhammer at 03/16/2007 @ 2:19pm
Wow - Toensing has changed her tune. Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 1:59pm
And Mask is smart enough to know it. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/16/2007 @ 2:19pm
Toensing is a Whitehouse apologist. Twisting and turning trying to spin this all away from the Whitehouse.
DR, you're joking, right?
Mask - The Nattering Nabob of Negativity.
"Don't quote me on this. Sometimes the truth is so precious, it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." Donald Rumsfeld -- A.K.A. Ronald Dumbsfeld - Secretary of War
Posted by COProgressive at 03/16/2007 @ 2:33pm
It's also time to finally peel the "ignorance" label off George Bush. It seem unlikely that he was completely ignorant of all the underhanded dealings of his staff.
He shouldn't only be "held accountable' for what happened under his watch, he should also be exposed for full knowledge and culpability of these "impeachable/traitorous" acts.
Let's stop treating George Bush as a complete idiot and realize that he may only be half idiot and the other half ..... perhaps a devious, immoral, nasty, bully who is easily led to seek revenge against anyone who searches for the truth.
It's not just Cheney and Rove. The true villans are the troika of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/16/2007 @ 2:42pm
1. She was rebutting a point with a negative. The point being that it "was common knowledge." She was saying only that it was NOT - i.e. that claim is inaccurate. She otherwise testified that she could count on "one hand" the number of peole outside the CIA who knew her role - one of those being her husband.
2. Her state of mind is not at issue and what she knew is not authoritative on the issue. She is not admitting that no crime was committed only that the intent and knowledge elements could not be shown through her knowledge.
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 1:55pm
HMAN...
1. She could rebutt it by saying "no, Congressman, it was NOT 'common knowledge on the Beltway circuit'....nobody unauthorized except my husband would know."....but she didn't. And WHO were those "other four fingers"? Family...or friends...or cocktail drinkers?
2. Re-read the IIPA.....intent and knowledge are PART of it. If you or I off-handedly revealed Valerie Plame's status...we couldn't be prosecuted. Intent is inherent in the law....she, the victim and a person who is claiming authority to speak on covert statuses and revelations there of, just said that no violation of the IIPA occured in her view.
In other words....she just became a DEFENSE witness.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 2:44pm
This just in from the fair and balanced news source ... Plame's testimony is in the small print section ... the headlines include something about Anna Nicole and a bus driver who might be a terrorist ... plus the latest on the hiccupping teen.
Didn't want you all to miss anything while you indulge in this non-story here.
Posted by MyParadigm at 03/16/2007 @ 2:44pm
Mask - The Nattering Nabob of Negativity.
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/16/2007 @ 2:33pm
Sorry, COPRO...don't mean to be so negative. Got "coal in my stocking" the LAST "Fitzmas" and not expecting that GI Joe and Red Ryder carbine action 200 shot air rifle THIS "Fitzmas" either!
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 2:45pm
What??? Anna Nicole's bus driver is a terrorist???!!!!
Posted by bjkron at 03/16/2007 @ 2:49pm
"DR, you're joking, right?
Mask - The Nattering Nabob of Negativity."
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/16/2007 @ 2:33pm
No, I'm not. While I can't take issue with your borrowed Agnewism, I think Mask is smarter than those two Knievel-like leaps would indicate.
Posted by drhammer at 03/16/2007 @ 2:55pm
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 2:45pm
It's just as well, because
YOU'LL PUT YOUR EYE OUT WITH THAT THING!
(Although, if it would make you feel better, I do have a leg lamp I could regift...)
Posted by drhammer at 03/16/2007 @ 3:04pm
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 1:43pm
oh now you are stretching my credibility...
1.she said she could count on one hand the number of people who she knew knew...ugh
2. because she did not know they knew then the must not have known? all cars have wheels, so everything with wheels is a car?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 3:11pm
just KEEP DIGGING - its like sticking a shovel in john wayne gacy's basement or opening a freezer at jeffry dahmer's...just keep looking...plenty of decomposing body parts to be found.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 3:15pm
mask = moron
"i was a covert agent"
that's all she needed to say.
Posted by darladoon at 03/16/2007 @ 3:29pm
"Don't quote me on this. Sometimes the truth is so precious, it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." Donald Rumsfeld -- A.K.A. Ronald Dumbsfeld - Secretary of War
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/16/2007 @ 2:33pm
Hah! Somebody quoted him anyway. Rummy, we miss ya, your honest dishonesty and your lying truthfulness!
Posted by w_m_bear at 03/16/2007 @ 3:49pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/16/2007 @ 1:09pm
from previous thread...
damn. corn is getting prolific on his blog. boes that mean he's slacking in his digging? almost tempted to buy his book...almost...
but thank heavan germany followed scandinavia and went good...there may be hope yet...
but its funny - the inferior american tanks forced the americans to rely on combined arms and trickiness too...we learned to set up armored ambushes and utilized smoke, from copious mobile artillery, to try to overcome the disadvantage - and we demolished the luftwaffe so bad by the end most were fighting on the ground as second rate infantry.
but its the contrast between the individual soldiers that is most fascinating. the continentals (france, germany, britain, soviets...italians) were generally better disciplined and able to sustain higher rates of fire before breaking than GI's, but once the european unit broke, good luck in getting them back in the fight. in contrast the GI was a bit more prone to freak out, but a lot easier to get back into the fight...
funny, eh?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 3:54pm
Interesting though that Valerie wants to publish a memoir. If her work is so secret, and any discussion of it can damage national security, you would think that people would be a little more concerned aobut it.
And if her work is so secret, why is congress parading her around and "negotiating" with the CIA with respect to her "PUBLIC" testimony?
Why don't they close the doors and re-assure the public that it is in everyones best interest that this receive as little press coverage as possible.
Corn decries the administration leaks, but then he goes out of his way to publish and profit from digging into every detail possible about Plames life, and makes that info readily available, and somehow puts a huge blurb about it into every weekly column he writes.
If it weren't for people like Corn, all we would know is that she worked at CIA. Everyone would assume she was a secretary.
Just interesting, that's all.
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 3:55pm
well, maybe not the french or italians..
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 3:55pm
is this some form of the old "liberals are hypocrites if they make money" deal?
if she writes and profits from a memoir, 1. so what and 2. she would not be the first.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 4:02pm
If her work is so secret, and any discussion of it can damage national security, you would think that people would be a little more concerned aobut it.
They are, that's why it's undergoing CIA review.
And if her work is so secret, why is congress parading her around and "negotiating" with the CIA with respect to her "PUBLIC" testimony?
There weren't discussing her covert sources and methods, just the stuff she did that had been blown thanks to the White House staff. In fact, she can't discuss anything she did prior to 2002.
Why don't they close the doors and re-assure the public that it is in everyones best interest that this receive as little press coverage as possible.
Because there is no public interest in covering up who was responsible for the leak.
Just interesting, that's all.
Not even remotely.
Posted by brunowe at 03/16/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 2:44pm
1. LOL. I think this is called "grasping at straws." I suppose she could have identified the other "four fingers." Or maybe . . . she meant one or two people. After all . . . she did not say that she could count them on her hand using ALL fingers - just using her fingers on one hand. This obviously means it could have been less than five. Maybe we should ask her to clarify how many fingers. Or maybe we should take her denial for what a reasonable person would . . . a denial that it was known outside of who was authorized to know (i.e. to people in the DC cocktail circuit).
2. You should know enough from my posts that I have read the statute. You need to take a step back. You say "she, the victim and a person who is claiming authority to speak on covert statuses and revelations there of, just said that no violation of the IIPA occured in her view."
You say "view" as if it were her overall opinion or conclusion. She did NOT express an opinion that no violation occurred . . . only that she did not know herself what Rove, Libby, Armitage, etc. knew. For example, Rove could have known irrespective of whether Plame knew he knew.
Now if you want to say that Fitz could not find evidence anyone knew, that is one thing. He obviously did not . . . but Plame is hardly crucial to this fact. Of course, it would have been nice for Fitz if she could have told him, "Sure Libby knew I was covert going back several months because . . ." But simply because she did not have that information herself does not mean she is somehow a defense witness.
I think you really know this and are just playing games at this point.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 4:12pm
No, HMAN....not playing a game. This HEARING is a game.
Waxman already admitted that it wasn't about "dicovering crimnal culpability, but taking responsibility"....i.e. he's got nothing to issue to ANOTHER special prosecutor (and of course Fitzgerald has already had his shot and came up with Libby lying to a grand jury...and ZIP for violations of the IIPA).
This is a show. Waxman looking to get some licks in on the Administration, but if he's not going ALL THE WAY and using this as stepping off point for some kind of CRIMINAL prosecution...or impeachment....it's about "scoring points" politically.
Plame left enough "open space" in her testimony that the civil suit defense guys will open it up and maybe even get it thrown out of court before Rove, Cheney, and Libby need to go into a courthouse. Saying "only a few people knew I was a covert agent" means in COURT, she'll have to produce who did know and when they knew it.
Anybody other than Joe or family before Novak's column....and the case is thrown out. Her testimony on "intent" can also be played into it.
So...just pointing out the flaws in this DREAM of "Plame-gate bringing down Rove and the Administration".
It was tried once...with a Federal prosecutor...and two years of investigation. The REVERSE of how "Watergate" and "Iran-Contra" went down. And the results?....Libby does soft time in a minimum security at most.
Happy Fitzmas!
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 4:33pm
If it weren't for people like Corn, all we would know is that she worked at CIA. Everyone would assume she was a secretary.
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 3:55pm
Actually, if it weren't for people like Corn, it would still be possible for the executive branch to get away with declassifying anything that covers up their mistakes.
And if we may turn the tables a bit (see many previous right winger posts demanding to know what laws were broken), can you please tell us what secrets were revealed by pointing out how wrong it was for the White House to do this? When her identity was published, the damage was done. It's ridiculous to claim that we'd all be better off if we'd just shut up and let the government go about their business, after they've let something like this happen.
Posted by MyParadigm at 03/16/2007 @ 4:39pm
Mask - Regarding who knew - sure, she will have to identify those people. Perhaps those additional people will be people she shared martinis with - but I doubt it. I can only guess, but my impression is that she is too smart for that. I suspect the "people" she refered to were authorized to know.
Her lack of knowledge on the intent and knowledge of others is basically meaningless and of no great import to the defense. You expect that she could have actually learned of Rove or Libby's intent? How? They would have told her - "yes we intended to out you to get back at your husband"? Like I said, it would be great if she could provide evidence herself that these guys KNEW, but that evidence is usually provided from other sources NOT the "victim."
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 4:45pm
MASK 03/16/2007 @ 4:33pm
Very weak logic. Any civil suit will hinge on how difficult it was to know what Plame's real job was before and after Novak's column. Before, you had to know somebody personally. After, all you had to do was google it. Huge, huge difference. No way is it thrown out because more than five people knew beforehand.
Posted by MyParadigm at 03/16/2007 @ 4:47pm
Corn [goes] digging into every detail possible about Plames life... Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 3:55pm
??? Everything else WALLy wrote has been addressed; need I point out that the referenced snippet is unsubstantiated hyperbole?
Posted by nathanhale at 03/16/2007 @ 4:51pm
hey HMAN,
Looks like you have to set the AP straight on a few things. Now THEY are parroting my talking points, which you have told me time and time again are baseless. Damn, this vast right wing conspiracy just keeps on growing, you know? Where will it all end?
Plame said she did not select her husband for a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson said in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration's prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.
Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.
But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.
Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby's trial said it was clear that Plame's job was classified. However, Fitzgerald said flatly at the courthouse after the verdict that Plame's job was classified.
Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee, said, "No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone--the fact that I worked for the CIA--should have put up a red flag."
Wilson has written a book, and Plame is working on one, "Fair Game," although it has had a troubled history. In May 2006, the Crown Publishing Group announced it would publish her book, a deal reportedly worth seven figures. But the two sides could not agree on a final contract, and two months later an agreement was announced with Simon & Schuster.
Plame's book is subject to a mandatory review by the CIA. On Thursday, Simon & Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg would say only that the book was "in progress," and that publication was expected soon.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 5:08pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 4:45pm
One simple question HMAN that blows away all your specious reasoning in one fell swoop:
If Plame was covert, how come no-one has been charged with outing her?
Your logic becomes more patently ridiculous as time goes on and no-one is charged with this grievous 'crime', yet you continue to fight it.
Also, did you notice that Plame is still claiming, in direct contradiction of her superiors at the CIA, that she DID NOT recommend her husband for the trip to Niger. Gee, too bad we can't get Fitz to put HER under oath so a jury can't determine which of THEM is lying (cuz after all, there are no misstatements in moonbat land, just perjury and obstruction). And since we now know that we don't need no stinking crime for a federal 'special' investigation, well that jsut about makes EVERYONE fair game. Heh.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/16/2007 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person
I say, let her make all the money in the world, I have no problem with that. She worked for the Govt, she probably needs all the help she can get. But she can't publish anything she wants and still claim to "CARE" about US security. I say, make the money and admit you either don't care, or that your work doesn't really have all that much effect on US security (which would drive down sales - catch 22), I would go with don't care and maximize profits.
As for liberal wealth based hypocracy, it is alive and well. I could care less, but don't put together powerpoint presentations on global warming from your private jet, and then expect me or anyone else to care, I don't.
But I say, if Al Gore can swindle millions of dollars from morons like you (who also don't care enough to make personal changes) then I say, those are some damn fine dollars.
I don't care that Bill and Hillary bought a house in Ireland because Ireland doesn't tax (actually it is a 12.5% effective tax) royalties on Intellectual Property, and then signed their book deals in Ireland to "AVOID" US tax, I just don't to hear you cry when Halliburton moves its headquarters to Bahrain, or Accenture moves to Bermuda. I support those decisions, without regard to who makes them.
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 5:29pm
Pontificus -
You two main talking points for over a year have been destroyed today. Either admit it or go away.
Plame testified she was covert and worked overseas within the last five years. CIA Director Hayden confirmed this and approved that the Committee could cite to that as fact.
Toensing backpedeled to the legal definition of "covert" in the statute - funny, she and you were so absolute about this just a few weeks ago. Tellingly, she could not point to the specific part of "covert" that Plame did not meet.
Under the IIPA, "covert" is defined as (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency-- (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.
So you tell me, which part did she not meet? She worked for the CIA, her status was classified, and she worked overseas on undercover assignments within the previous five years.
Not surprisingly, Toensing admitted that she does not possess ANY direct information about Plame's former status - but Plame and Hayden do. I guess I am crazy for thinking the ones with actual access to the facts are more reliable.
Talking point #2 - Plame further testified that she did not recommend Wilson for the trip and that the Senate Intelligence Report on this point was incorrect - it was based on the mischaracterization of the event from another staffer - one that the staffer was not allowed to go back and correct.
And I have addressed your "one simple question" ad nauseum. Fitz did not prosecute because he could not find intent or knowledge on the part of anyone he was investigating. You need to catch up, Ponti - that's where the new talking points are - Rove, Libby and the gang did not know she was covert. Mr. Davis was focused on this. At least this is a bit closer to reality.
Oh, and the other new talking point is that the CIA did not do enough to stop Novak from publishing Plame/Wilson's name. Or that Wilson did not do enough by signing a non-dislcosure agreement, or that Plame did not tell enough people that she was covert, or that it was not printed on every document discussing her in big bold letters.
I am sure once you have time to consult with your sources you will be on this one too.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:40pm
Hey, check this out, moonbats. This lady has been playing you like a piano. Note the following statement:
Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.
Uh huh. But when she says 'covert', what exactly does she mean? Well, apparently, not anything to do with the law having to do with outing 'covert' agents, because:
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was...
In other words, she repeatedly says she was covert, but she didn't really know if she was COVERT covert, because after all, she's "not a lawyer." The evidence suggests that she's not a particulary truthful or ethical person, either. But then again, she's got that 7-figure book deal coming soon, thus the testimony before Henry Waxman and his kangaroo court. What's next, a boob job, a nose job, and a spread (no pun intended) in Playboy?
And now journalists are joking that even though she calls herself covert (but doesn't know if she actually was), it must be because her status was so secret, even SHE did not even know what it was!
Can this thing get any more ludicrous? Well, maybe it could, if people still took this whole thing seriously.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 5:43pm
As for "COVERT," how covert can you be if your super-duper secret code name is your maiden name.
And as for the coctail circut, it is not just about how many people she knows that know, it is how many people "they" told that know.
I also believe that Cheney should go on trial, and the dems should try to impeach Bush. Makes for good TV, I would love to see President Pelosi, that would rock.
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 5:44pm
Doc -
I'd call yours a "self-serving" post if I ever saw one.
Gen. Hayden's confirmation isn't good enough for you?
I suppose we can expect a perjury case then, huh?
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:45pm
You are a fool wallstreet, what was secret was her job and who she worked for - not her real name.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:46pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 5:40pm
Talking point #2 - Plame further testified that she did not recommend Wilson for the trip and that the Senate Intelligence Report on this point was incorrect - it was based on the mischaracterization of the event from another staffer - one that the staffer was not allowed to go back and correct.
And again, HMAN, your 'facts' continue to be stubbornly ignored by the mainstream media, in this case, the AP:
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.
Can you explain this? Perhaps in addition to being the most brillian lawyer in the US, you are also the most brilliant journalist as well?
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 5:48pm
Amazing - a few weeks ago Ponti was claiming that she wasn't covert because she was not alleging it in her civil suit.
But now that she testified that she is . . . she still has it wrong.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:48pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 5:48pm
Can you read? I addressed this.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 5:49pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person
Blah blah blah.
Are you telling me that you approve of her choice of secret covert code name?
If it was her employment secret that mattered, and not her name, why not just go by Wilson? I could go for this if she got the job pre-marriage. Anysone know?
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 5:49pm
I suspect the "people" she refered to were authorized to know.
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 4:45pm
All it takes is one who isn't (and isn't family)... and then the defense attorneys for Rove/Cheney/Libby, ask for PLAME or WILSON to be prosecuted under the IIPA!
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 5:51pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 5:48pm
Did you read this?
Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.
Uh huh. But when she says 'covert', what exactly does she mean? Well, apparently, not anything to do with the law having to do with outing 'covert' agents, because:
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was...
????
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 5:53pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 5:49pm
Can you read? I addressed this.
No, actually you did not. You said her claim was disputed only by one junior level employee. The AP says it was several senior level employees in the CIA who testified under oath at the Libby trial. Now you're claiming you're right and the AP is wrong?
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 5:56pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 5:48pm
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.
How many times do I have to post this, HMAN? Surely as blinded by partisanship as you are, you can still read bold type?
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 5:58pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 5:29pm
you impute too much of your own motivations on others and have a funny sense of hypocrisy, gecko.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/16/2007 @ 5:59pm
No, actually you did not. You said her claim was disputed only by one junior level employee. The AP says it was several senior level employees in the CIA who testified under oath at the Libby trial. Now you're claiming you're right and the AP is wrong?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 5:56pm
You need to read more carefully or be more familiar with her testimony. Did you even listen to it by the way?
She did not say her claim was DISPUTED by the junior staffer - she said the conclusion that she suggested Wilson for the trip was based on a communication from this staffer - and that it was a mischaracterization - one that the junior staffer admitted, but was not allowed to correct.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:01pm
Sure Mask - but who is THAT ONE? And nobody has dug up this slam dunk during the past three years?!?!?!?!
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:02pm
How many times do I have to post this, HMAN? Surely as blinded by partisanship as you are, you can still read bold type?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 5:58pm
I read it the first time. It is my understanding that this testimony was based on parts of the communication I mentioned above.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:04pm
why not just go by Wilson? I could go for this if she got the job pre-marriage. Anysone know?
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 5:49pm
Is this really that important to you? I have no idea why she used her maiden name. Do you know anyone that goes by their maiden name after marriage?
I think it happens.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:05pm
Pontificus still says Plame was not covert.
And I am "blinded by partisanship."
hahahahahahahaha
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:06pm
To Pontificus (and the rest of the know-nothings):
1. Ms. Plame says she was covert.
2. General Hayden says she was covert.
3. For years until Novak outed her, when asked where she worked, Ms. Plame dutifully answered with the cover story provided by the CIA, namely, that she was an energy consultant employed by Brewster-Jennigns.
Conclusion: She was covert.
Deal with it.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 6:08pm
HMAN,
you still have not confirmed that you approve of her code name, do you?
Is HMAN23 your code name? or is that your maiden name?
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 6:08pm
You need to read more carefully or be more familiar with her testimony. Did you even listen to it by the way?
Uh, no. I actually have a job.
She did not say her claim was DISPUTED by the junior staffer - she said the conclusion that she suggested Wilson for the trip was based on a communication from this staffer - and that it was a mischaracterization - one that the junior staffer admitted, but was not allowed to correct.
I see you are parsing the following:
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.
So, you and Ms. Plame are saying all of these senior officials are basing their sworn statements on a misunderstanding caused by a junior staffer?
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:08pm
What's next, a boob job, a nose job, and a spread (no pun intended) in Playboy?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 5:43pm
No, you are confusing that with the therapy for alleged victims of sexual harrasment by a future president - just ask Paula Jones.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:09pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 6:08pm | ignore this person
Check your dates, but I remember hearing that she has not been using that cover for at least the last few years before her outing.
I'll see if I can find the red-neck hick conservative that said that.
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 6:10pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 6:08pm
I am not sure she had a "code name" or even if it is typical for covert agents to use fake names. Perhaps some do. Perhaps some don't - if their job is hidden well enough and they can trust presidential administrations to be careful and not disclsoe it for political reasons.
Yes HMAN23 is my code name. So I guess I am even more careful than Plame, huh? If she would have used "Onatop" she would have never been outed.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:15pm
Pontificus -
Come back after the weekend.
And NRO and Fox News tell you what your new arguments shoudl be.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:17pm
To WallStreet:
I believe you heard wrong.
We know that Ms. Plame gave Brewster-Jennings as her place of employment as recently as 2000 when she reported a contribution to the Gore for President campaign.
Mr. Corn could probably fill you in on more recent examples of her use of her cover, if he thinks it proper. I have heard nothing that would indicate that wasn't using it.
I believe today she said she was living his cover right up to the time she was outed and that her employment by the CIA was classified.
She was covert.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 6:19pm
And they're still trying to wiggle out of the comprising of a covert agent. These people have no shame, no integrity. And they know they're wrong; they just don't care. The ends justify any and all means for these ideologues. It is "un-American"!
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:21pm
You are so full of crap, HMAN; a true follower of Clintonian ethics in that what you can't deny, you attempt to discredit. There is not a shred of evidence to support your claim that all the senior officials in and out of the CIA who said Plame suggested her husband for the Niger trip wrongly based their claims on information provided by a junior staffer.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:22pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 6:17pm
NRO and Fox News tell you what your new arguments should be.
This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative. -- Ron Ziegler, White House press secretary during the Watergate crisis, April 17, 1973
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 6:22pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person
Thanks, I will confer with Mr. Corn this evening, and let you know what I find out.
Damn neo-conservative facist hillbillies, always trying to confuse me.
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 6:22pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 6:08pm
Message rom Moonbat World:
1. Ms. Plame says she was covert.
From the real world (AP):
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was...
Worlds are colliding!
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:27pm
Weasels.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:28pm
you impute too much of your own motivations on others and have a funny sense of hypocrisy, gecko.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/16/2007 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person
My motivations? Are you kidding me? Bill and Hill come to people like me to find out about places like Ireland.
People like the wilsons write books for the cash, not for some sense of patriotic duty. Cold Hard Cash. The last few years have shown that this crap can sell, and everyone and their brother has taken advantage of that.
Or are you one of the people that think Joe Wilson gave his Niger Report to the NYT because he thought they were the CIA report submission desk?
Also, why is no-one asking why Joe is writing letters to the NYT rather than talking to the VP who sent him to Africa?
Posted by WallStreet at 03/16/2007 @ 6:30pm
Worms.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:31pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 6:27pm
Message rom Moonbat World: (My, but you are being abusive today. -- JR)
1. Ms. Plame says she was covert.
From the real world (AP):
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was...
Point 2 from the Director of Central Intelligence: She was covert.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 6:32pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 6:31pm
Worms.
I do believe you have distilled the philosophical essence of the ideology behind the institution and acolytes of The Nation
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:33pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 6:17pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/16/2007 @ 6:21pm
Uh huh, Uh huh. That's right. Uh huh
Ponti, your arguments just met the meat grinder of truth. If, IF, your logic holds Fitzgerald will HAVE to indict Plame for lying under oath today. what do you think the odds are of that happening?
Face it, your elected officials and their flunkies outed a CIA agent that was trying to protect your intellectually lazy butt from Saddam. They did it out of spite and a desire to continue to hide the real story behind the lies.
-I just heard GonZaga may take the hit for the political ham handed lies about the fired UA's..
sound familiar? GDDAMN!! these people have zero shame.
POWER CORRUPTS and the neo-con apologists want to give these clowns more power. sick.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/16/2007 @ 6:34pm
Hey Ponti, if Bush said the world is shaped like a donut, would you bring the coffee?
I will return later to view your attempt to spin this to fit your predetermined conclusions.
HA!
How much extra was it to purchase the Adult Size Simon Says Sit and Spin? Though I find it personally reprehensible, I linked the MallWart site so the neo's will feel more comfortable purchasing them for their friends and family.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3989353
Posted by crabwalk at 03/16/2007 @ 6:39pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 6:32pm
Point 2 from the Director of Central Intelligence: She was covert.
Well, let's see. So much to sort through. Now you're saying that even though Ms. Plame didn't really know if she was covert or not (which didn't, of course, keep her from saying that she WAS when it was convenient to sell books or try to damage Bush), that she was after all. Got a link for that?
This goes nicely with HMAN's theory that even though no-one has ever been charged with outing a covert agent, they are plainly guilty anyway. Because some people (not Fitz, of course) say she might fit the technical definition, if not the spirit of the law. And even though the investigator specifically charged with investigating that allegation has, after years of opened ended inquiry and millions of dollars of expenditures, specifically declined to adddress that issue.
Par for the course, I would say.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:39pm
Scum.
Posted by mtspence05 at 03/16/2007 @ 6:39pm
I suggest you use the "quiet play" option.
And ask Maasch for one of his beanies.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/16/2007 @ 6:40pm
I assume from what I'm reading that Ponti must be saying that he knows more about what constitutes covert status than Plame does.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/16/2007 @ 6:43pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 6:39pm
I think the DCI would be a pretty good authority on whether or not Ms. Plame was covert.
He says she was covert.
Deal with it. The Bushies have been caught lying. Again.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 6:44pm
"Don't quote me on this. Sometimes the truth is so precious, it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." Donald Rumsfeld -- A.K.A. Ronald Dumbsfeld - Secretary of War
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/16/2007 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person
this is from Winston Churchill.
nattering nabobs was written by William Safire, speech writer for Nixon at the time.
now you know.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 6:44pm
"Don't quote me on this. Sometimes the truth is so precious, it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." Donald Rumsfeld -- A.K.A. Ronald Dumbsfeld - Secretary of War
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/16/2007 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person
this is from Winston Churchill.
nattering nabobs was written by William Safire, speech writer for Nixon at the time.
now you know.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 6:45pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/16/2007 @ 6:39pm
You know, CRABBIE, the funny thing is, I see you and all your fellow nitwit pointy-headed leftists on this site pretty much as you see me. Can we both be right? I doubt it. But I like my company a hell of a lot better. Given a choice between that couple of grifters, the pathological liar Clinton and his demented power-mad wife, and that incompetent boob Carter, I'll take a Bush or Reagan every time. Given a choice between a laughably unworkable idea like leftism that only some intellectually inbred barking-mad moonbat could follow and the principles that have made this country great, I'll take capitalism every time.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:47pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 6:44pm
I think the DCI would be a pretty good authority on whether or not Ms. Plame was covert.
He says she was covert.
And I think the prosecutor charged with determining whether a crime had been commited would be even a BETTER authority. And he just left town, along with your argument.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:54pm
Ok guys....tell me again why Fitzgerald indicted NOBODY for violating the IIPA, given what we heard today?
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 6:58pm
funny, eh?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/16/2007 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person
an important factor was that soviet troops could make do with severely cut rations. at Kursk, 1200 tanks did point blank battle. each side lost 300 tanks. the soviets could replace them, they had tanks in reserve, the germans could not. germans rushed their new tanks into battle, most broke down on the way to the field of battle.
just a few nuggets. I have consulted John Macdonald "great battles of ww2", some great graphics.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 6:58pm
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 6:58pm
Ok guys....tell me again why Fitzgerald indicted NOBODY for violating the IIPA, given what we heard today?
Because she was COVERT, dammit, haven't you been listening? And by the way, she's got a book to sell ya.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 6:59pm
many CIA operatives have written books.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/16/2007 @ 7:00pm
JR, thanks. I did know all that. I was surprised to hear at a later date that Dumbsfeld stole the quote from Churchill.
"I am reminded of the professor who, in his declining hours, was asked by his devoted pupils for his final counsel. He replied, 'Verify your quotations.'"
Sir Winston Churchill
Posted by COProgressive at 03/16/2007 @ 7:04pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 6:39pm Got a link for that?
Read it and weep.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 6:54pm
I think the prosecutor charged with determining whether a crime had been commited would be even a BETTER authority. And he just left town, along with your argument.
If you had been following the facts as closely as you have been following the right wing talking points, you would know that the reason Fitzgerald did not file charges is because he could not prove who did the actual leak, not because a crime a was not committed.
The reason Fitzgerald could not prove it is becasue Libby perjured himself to the Grand Jury and obstructed justice. Libby was protecting someone and that someone may get away with outing a covert agent.
There is a cloud over the Vice President's office. Deal with it.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 7:10pm
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 6:58pm
Ok guys....tell me again why Fitzgerald indicted NOBODY for violating the IIPA, given what we heard today?
See my response to Ponti at 7:10.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 7:17pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 7:10pm
Libby was protecting someone and that someone may get away with outing a covert agent.
Hmmm, let's see. Is that a fact, or your opinion. Are you capable of telling the difference? I wonder.
In your world, are people frequently convicted by your opinions? In the case of the Bush Administration, which would you have first, trial or sentence, my Red Queen friend?
There is a cloud over the Vice President's office.
Uh huh, and I suspect that in your case, and for that matter most Nation readers, that cloud descended when Bush/Cheney were elected. And that's someting you'll have to deal with for two more years, so you better get used to it.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 7:17pm
From the real world (AP):Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was... Worlds are colliding!
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 6:27pm
2. General Hayden says she was COVERT. He should know, right?
The CIA asked for a criminal investigation as to why Darth Cheney outed a COVERT agent. The CIA thought she was COVERT.
By Margaret Ebrahim and John Solomon
The Associated Press
Wednesday 01 March 2006
Washington - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.
Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."
So, if AP prints it, it must be true, Right?
"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." Lawrence J. Peter
Posted by COProgressive at 03/16/2007 @ 7:22pm
Hmmm, let's see. Is that a fact, or your opinion.
It's a fact. It's why Fitzgerald brought the case against Libby, but couldn't bring charges against any one else.
There is a cloud over the Vice President's office.
Don't blame me for that phrase. It's Fitzgerald's. Why? because the leak plot's epicenter was in the OVP. And Cheney was part of the scheme. Don't shoot me, boss, I'm just the messenger.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 7:24pm
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 03/16/2007 @ 7:22pm
2. General Hayden says she was COVERT. He should know, right?
Hmmm...so I guess we've tossed out number 1, and now we're at number 2. Okay.
I have no idea what General Hayden knows. What I do know is that you guys have jack and shit to prove that a crime was committed, and jack Fitz just left town.
And even if Plame WAS covert (which she plainly wasn't) Fitz has already admitted there was no-one worth charging. So what are all you moonbats flapping your wings about? It seems pretty clear that two Gore supporters, Plame and Wilson, decided to use their positions of trust in the federal government to undermine the Bush Administration for fame, fun, profit, and a political vendetta. So spare me the ersatz outrage, please.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 7:30pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/16/2007 @ 6:34pm
Crabs,
She's a bit of a doll isn't she? One can see why the males on the investigative committee wanted her along for an interview. Also one could make a pretty good guess at what sort of covert activity she would best be suited to.
Look crabs I understand most of the nerds here are serious crossword puzzle players but with all this feverish debating of what is logical, which never ever has anything to do with how legal systems work, it is easy to see why your mob is getting nowhere with this impeachment lark.
I speak to you as one practical man to another. How far down the command chain can this impeachment thing go? As they have already demonstrated, your mob is not very adept at it, so why not start with the impeachment of a GOP supporting office boy, say from the CIA to get your hand in. If that is successful you could work up from there.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/16/2007 @ 7:37pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 7:30pm
Hmmm...so I guess we've tossed out number 1, and now we're at number 2. Okay.
No, Ponti, number 1 stands. She was covert.
No matter how often you repeat the right wing talking point, it won't make it a fact.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 7:41pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 7:30pm | ignore this person
You're so funny! Childish, but funny.
As Jack said:
1. Ms. Plame says she was covert.
2. General Hayden says she was covert.
3. For years until Novak outed her, when asked where she worked, Ms. Plame dutifully answered with the cover story provided by the CIA, namely, that she was an energy consultant employed by Brewster-Jennigns.
Conclusion: She was covert. Infinity!
Deal with it.
Libby is a felon and may go to jail for a long time for lying (is that a Repug thing?) (probably not though, that pardon thingie) Why did he lie? To cover Darth Cheney's fat ass.
Deal with it.
"But guys like us,"(talking about himself and smirk, and maybe you too) "we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner - 2006
Posted by COProgressive at 03/16/2007 @ 7:51pm
she plainly wasn't
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 7:30pm | ignore this person
Was so.
Was so.
Was so.
Was so.
Was so. Infinity!
You child!
There. That should end it.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George Bush - Yale Cheerleader
got bin Laden?
Posted by COProgressive at 03/16/2007 @ 7:57pm
To WallStreet:
From Mr. Corn's blog dtd September 15, 2006:
Before I wrote the article, I spoke to Joe Wilson. He would not confirm or deny that what Novak wrote was true. He would not say whether or not his wife worked at the CIA. Wilson noted that his wife was known to friends as >/i>an energy analyst for a private firm, and added, "I will not answer questions about my wife."
The cover story was used right to the end.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 8:00pm
PONTIFICUS MINIMUS,
Could you be any more of a cornpone cur? I mean, talk about being a supreme rube. Clinton is surely no saint, while his wife couldn't be more bland, but to believe they caused more trouble than Bush I, II and Reagan is ridiculous. Why don't you go read your Project for a New American Century propaganda and rub one off to your Bill Kristol photos?
Posted by chimichenga at 03/16/2007 @ 8:05pm
The only way to get to the bottom of all this is to send the Bush Administration to one of those "secret" overseas prisons and use torture on them all until they finally confess to all their crimes --- from A to Z.
Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/16/2007 @ 8:13pm
Posted by BOHDAN YURI 03/16/2007 @ 8:13pm
The only way to get to the bottom of all this is to send the Bush Administration to one of those "secret" overseas prisons and use torture on them all until they finally confess to all their crimes --- from A to Z.
Unfortunately, under torture, you can also get them them to say the Dick Cheney is the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
Did you know that waterboarding was a very effective interrogation method for excracting confessions from witches?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 8:17pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 7:17pm
So what's the point of this hearing, JACK?
Fitzgerald couldn't prove who leaked the name (though Armitage seems to be the one).
Waxman said it's not about "criminal culpability, but responsibility".
And if it can't be proven WHO did it....then how does this "scandal" get resolved?
What happens next?
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2007 @ 8:20pm
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 8:20pm
The Congressional investigation is supposed to uncover facts that could lead to legislative remedies.
Nobody, except perhaps Ponti and Rio, are saying this isn't a big deal. This did serious damage to the abilility of the US to gather intelligence about weapons proliferation. If there's a loophole in the law, it should be closed.
Nevertheless, unless Fitzgerald can persuade Libby to talk, then there's little chance anybody else is going to be prosecuted. I don't think he's so interested in Armitage as he is in who Libby was protecting, and I doubt Libby was covering for Armitage.
We had some facts about the case cleared up today. Ms. Plame was covert, a crime was committed and serious damage resulted from the disclosure that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 8:42pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/16/2007 @ 8:05pm
Clinton is surely no saint, while his wife couldn't be more bland, but to believe they caused more trouble than Bush I, II and Reagan is ridiculous.
That's the problem with the Clintons - they didn't do shit. Look at the entire history of their presidency. What was done? Nada. Nothing. The Clintons were elected at a time when little or nothing (other than fighting of nascent terrorists, which he characteristically did not do) was required, and they did it splendidly. The reprobate Clinton was too busy chasing tail and covering his ass to do much of anything. Reagan only won the Cold War and lifted the economy from the ashes of that moron Jimmy Carter, the greatest feats of any President in our lifetime. But my guess is since you're some ignorant latin american writing from some shit-poor 3rd world banana republic where governments are changed more frequently than underwear, ruled by some ancient oligarchy, you are not only ignorant of the facts on the ground here in the states, but you would no-doubt reject them in a knee-jerk fashion if someone did tell you them, just as your left-wing indoctrination has trained you to do.
My advice to you is to get a real country before you criticize ours, especially the only part that's worth jack, which are people like Reagan and Bush.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 8:56pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 8:42pm
This did serious damage to the abilility of the US to gather intelligence about weapons proliferation.
You really believe this? LOL! Sez who?
We had some facts about the case cleared up today. Ms. Plame was covert, a crime was committed and serious damage resulted from the disclosure that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA.
Wow, really? She was covert? A crime was committed? Quick, somebody call Fitzgerald! Oh wait...he left town! Do we need another investigation?
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2007 @ 9:00pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 9:00pm
You really believe [that did serious damage to the abilility of the US to gather intelligence about weapons proliferation]? LOL! Sez who?
Said Ms. Plame today. I'm inclined to believe it since she was the head of a counterproliferation team. The work of that enire team was compromised because of this disclosure. And, if you know anybody else who said they worked for Brewster-Jennnings, you can now amke a pretty easy interence that he works for the CIA.
By the way, Ponti, I had a TS security clearence when I was in the Army many years ago. I know a little bit about how these things work and why one is supposed to guard information this sensitive. You've said a lot of stupid things today, but asserting that no damage was done by blowing her cover and Rio's assertion in the very next thread that there is no evidence that her position was any more important to the CIA than the janitor's really take the cake. You should both be emparrassed.
Wow, really? She was covert?
The DCI said she was covert. What part of that do you not understand?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 9:16pm
This goes nicely with HMAN's theory that even though no-one has ever been charged with outing a covert agent, they are plainly guilty anyway.
This is a lie. I have never said anyone is plainly guilty. I have only rebutted your ridiculous assertion for the past year that because nobody was charged, Plame was NOT covert.
An illogical assertion of a simple-minded fool.
Deal with it.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 9:28pm
There is not a shred of evidence to support your claim that all the senior officials in and out of the CIA who said Plame suggested her husband for the Niger trip wrongly based their claims on information provided by a junior staffer.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 6:22pm
How about the first-hand account from Plame herself?
If you had a differing first-hand account to give me, and not people who heard it second and third hand, you might have something. But, I am not sure you do. If it is a he said she said, I'll take Plame on this one.
This has always been a canard for you anyway.
Who gives a shit if she suggested Wilson? The INR document makes it pretty clear he did not think it was necessary for him to even go.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 9:33pm
. Ms. Plame says she was covert.
From the real world (AP):
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was...
Ponti, that's not even close to a contradiction. She can't comment on her legal status under the law regarding disclosure of covert agents because she's not a lawyer. On the other hand, she kept her cover as an employee of Brewster-Jennings and operated under non-official cover. Therefore, she knows she's covert as far as Agency practices are concerned but she isn't about to comment on what the definition of "covert" under the law is. It's a basic concept--statutes generally start with definitions of their key terms. Those terms won't necessarily be parallel to how the terms are used in other circumstances.
Quick, somebody call Fitzgerald! Oh wait...he left town! Do we need another investigation?
Under the law, Fitzgerald would have had to prove that to party making the disclosure KNEW she was covert and would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. His conclusion that he can't meet that standard simply isn't dispositive on the question of Plame's covert status.
Both these points have been demonstrated to you ad nauseum and your consistent repetition of your discredited talking points is evocative of a five-year-old putting fingers in his ears and shouting "I'MRIGHTI'MRIGHTI'MRIGHTI'MRIGHT!!!"
Posted by brunowe at 03/16/2007 @ 9:36pm
Ok guys....tell me again why Fitzgerald indicted NOBODY for violating the IIPA, given what we heard today?
Posted by MASK 03/16/2007 @ 6:58pm
Again, Mask, he is never going to tell the public, but likely because he could not show that anyone had the requisite knowledge or intent.
He admitted as much in his August 2004 affidavit.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 9:36pm
Here's a interesting tibbit I found reading "the Hill" newspaper on line:
"Several Democrats wanted to expand the committee's oversight by asking for more documents as well as testimony from additional witnesses, including columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to disclose Plame's identity in a July 2003 story."
"Waxman said he 'will give it some thought' in asking Novak to testify at a future hearing, per Rep. Diane Watson's (D-Calif.) request."
..."I am very sensitive to how the process works and I am furious that your classified information was disclosed -- and by Robert Novak, of all people," Watson told Plame, citing her experience as an ambassador to Micronesia in dealing with state secrets."
Mask, what do you think about these statements?...unbiased opinion is needed here....hehehe
"Both Waxman and (Eleanor Holmes) Norton referenced Executive Order 12958, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, which established a system to classify as well as declassify national-security information."
IMO, this is probably one reason why no one's going to get reemed for this. Clinton made it easier.
Posted by ACook at 03/16/2007 @ 9:43pm
I have no idea what General Hayden knows.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 7:30pm
But you know better, right?
Or Victoria Toensing - who admitted she has absoutley ZERO non-public information on Plame.
hahahahahahahaha
I'll take a wild stab that Hayden knows what Plame's role was at the CIA.
No, you see Pontificus, we do know what Hayden knows . . . because he authorized the committee to enter a statement into the record that she was covert . . . and that she had done overseas work within the past five years.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 9:45pm
Reagan only won the Cold War and lifted the economy from the ashes of that moron Jimmy Carter, the greatest feats of any President in our lifetime.
Sorry, but Volcker's tight monetary policy had more to do with taming inflation then anything Reagan did. Reagan's tax cuts may have given a boost to the recovery but they also created a huge deficit that didn't go away until the Clinton administration--only to come back with a vengeance under the Crawford Cretin.
Oh, the Soviet Union's imploding economy and arteriosclerotic government had more to do with its collapse then anything Reagan did. Pushing the Soviet Union in the arms race no doubt accelerated the process but certainly didn't cause it. Further, you're overlooking the effect of the spike in oil prices in the 80s that gave the USSR a hard currency the keep its economy upright until the end the mid-80s--hardly something you can credit Reagan with.
Posted by brunowe at 03/16/2007 @ 9:47pm
Posted by ACOOK 03/16/2007 @ 9:43pm
So is the theory now that someone lawfully declassified her status before it was leaked.
That would be an interesting twist four years later.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 9:48pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 9:00pm | ignore this person
He is a child. He feeds on your responses. He makes no sense. Ignore him.
"The biggest fool is one who argues with one." All-V's Sub wrapper
Posted by COProgressive at 03/16/2007 @ 9:48pm
To CoProgressive:
Don't tempt me like that.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 9:58pm
I have a question, if Plame's identity was so hush-hush, why didn't Gen. Michael Hayden, an appointee of George Bush and director of the CIA, protect her? No one knew who she or what her job was. Only her boss. And the only way anyone could have find out is if the info was asked for or he devulged it willingly. Personally, I think he opened his mouth to Dick Armitage over some dry martinis, who then spilled the beans on her to Bob Novak.
And, Libby hearing the juicy details, told his boss.
Posted by ACook at 03/16/2007 @ 10:02pm
Posted by ACOOK 03/16/2007 @ 10:02pm
Here it is!
The new talking point:
the CIA and Plame/Wilson did not do enough to protect her status.
Too bad your chronology is off.
Libby was talking to Judy Miller about Plame as early as June '03.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 10:12pm
General Hayden was not DCI at the time of the outing. George Tenet was.
General Hayden sent a letter this week to the Oversight Committee to be entered into the record stating the Ms. Plame was covert. Of course, there is no long a cover to protect.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 10:13pm
Rio -
Can you tell us how Plame did not meet the legal definition of "covert?"
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 10:13pm
"Libby was talking to Judy Miller about Plame as early as June '03."
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 10:12pm
OK, I'll ask this...how did Libby get the info? Did someone in the CIA tell him who she was?
Posted by ACook at 03/16/2007 @ 10:28pm
Posted by ACOOK 03/16/2007 @ 10:28pm
how did Libby get the info? Did someone in the CIA tell him who she was?
If you know, tell Fitz, because he'd like to know.
This may have been known within the OVP for some time. Cathy Martin's testimony in the Libby trial was very revealing on this matter. Ms. Martin, Libby and Cheney were discussing the matter and Cheney was hnading out the assignments. Rove knew and Ari Fleischer knew. We know who did the leaking, but we don't know how they found out.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 10:34pm
Lt. Caffey : "Colonel...you were leaving for a weekend, and you packed a bag and made 3 phone calls. Private Santiago was leaving for the rest of his life. Yet he hadn't called a soul...and he hadn't packed a thing. Colonel...can you explain that?"
Col. Jessup : "Lieutenant, I'm an educated man, but I cannot comment on the travel habits of young William. Maybe he was an early riser and liked to pack in the morning. Is that what this is all about?...phone calls and itineraries? Please tell me that you have something more...these two Marines are on trial for their lives. Please tell me that you haven't pinned their hopes to a phone bill".
"What would you like to discuss next...my favorite color?"
Posted by Sliver at 03/16/2007 @ 10:39pm
Posted by SLIVER 03/16/2007 @ 10:39pm
Great scene . . .
How did it wind up for Jessup again?
Not sure we will be so lucky to get soemone to admit they ordered the "Code Red" though.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/16/2007 @ 10:50pm
I'll go for Admiral Jessup.
The first man on Omaha Beach has got to be a sailor. -- From The Americanization of Emily (Arthur Hiller, 1964), screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 11:07pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/16/2007 @ 10:34pm
What chance Mr.W, perhaps under the influence at a party etc was the initiator?
". Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.[11]" (wikipedia)
Just by the way most of you must think foreign Counter Intelligence agencies wouldn't have worked out exactly who she was and what she did long before Novak blew the whistle. Come off it.
Of more concern to Americans should be that you had a person with an undergraduate degree from Penn State in advertising involved at a critical time in a non-conventional weapons division of CIA. Most First world countries would have required a PhD in science with some WMD specialisation as a starting point for such a job.
Perhaps like most public service jobs it was a case of whom you know rather than what you know.
Whatever the reason for an ill equipped Plame and by implication others also being in such sensitive jobs, it's not a wonder the US Intelligence agencies stuffed up so badly over Iraq.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/16/2007 @ 11:25pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzcovert...secret.....noncovert.....who knows? we'll watch the movieZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posted by davebarlett at 03/16/2007 @ 11:25pm
Just by the way most of you must think foreign Counter Intelligence agencies wouldn't have worked out exactly who she was and what she did long before Novak blew the whistle. Come off it.
Of course you're simply p*****g in the dark with that one, as evidenced by your citing of Wikipedia as your source. We don't know what foreign agencies knew and you haven't a clue either. We do know that the information became public as a result of the machinations of the White House.
Of more concern to Americans should be that you had a person with an undergraduate degree from Penn State in advertising involved at a critical time in a non-conventional weapons division of CIA. Most First world countries would have required a PhD in science with some WMD specialisation as a starting point for such a job.
Unless you have security clearance that we don't know about, you have no idea what degrees the covert operatives have. Bear in mind that her job would've been developing and running agents, that is a function of tradecraft/people skills, etc. The hard scientific knowledge would've belonged to the analysts.
Posted by brunowe at 03/16/2007 @ 11:41pm
Posted by LRJONES4 03/16/2007 @ 11:25pm
What chance Mr.W, perhaps under the influence at a party etc was the initiator?
I have no idea, but he was in on it. He secretly declassified parts of a secret document, the NIE, in order to give Libby legal cover for leaking it to the press. No one knew about this declassification except Bush, Cheney and Libby. Tenet was in the dark and so was Dr. Rice. It wasn't declassified for national security reasons.
Legal? I have my doubts, but it could be.
Impeachable? It sounds like an abuse of power to me.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 11:43pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/16/2007 @ 11:25pm
Shhhh!! Don't wake him. He's been asleep for six years.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/16/2007 @ 11:44pm
Let's stop treating George Bush as a complete idiot and realize that he may only be half idiot and the other half ..... perhaps a devious, immoral, nasty, bully who is easily led to seek revenge against anyone who searches for the truth. It's not just Cheney and Rove. The true villans are the troika of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
Posted by BOHDAN YURI 03/16/2007 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person
Libby is Cheney's firewall. Everybody is Bush's firewall.
Posted by NeilSagan at 03/17/2007 @ 12:23am
Further, you're overlooking the effect of the spike in oil prices in the 80s that gave the USSR a hard currency the keep its economy upright until the end the mid-80s--hardly something you can credit Reagan with.
My point being that if it hadn't been for the oil spike, the Soviet Union might have imploded at the beginning of Reagan's watch. It was this circumstance that effect the timing of when it went under more then anything Reagan did.
Posted by brunowe at 03/17/2007 @ 12:37am
Why does it surprise anybody here that conservatives have no standards, no loyalties, no morals, no honesty, no integrity, no intelligence, no ethics and soon....
no place in America's future
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 02:33am
There can be no reasonable doubt Plame's status was classified by the CIA and no reasonable doubt she was a covert agent with non-offical cover.
Both US Attorney Fitzgerald and CIA Director General Hayden have attested, as fact witnesses. to her classified status.
General Hayden, in a letter to Congress, confirmed Plame was a covert agent in the CIA at the time her name was leaked in the press by Robert Novak.
To assume Fitzgerald decided not to charge anyone - Libby or Cheney or Rove or Armitage - with an IIPA violation because Plame's status was not "covert"or not "covert and abroad in the last five years" is a claim thoroughly debunked in today's hearing. Instead, consider Libby's obstruction as the reason no one was charged with an IIPA violation. If you can't get a clear view of the crime, you can't prove it, and if you can't prove it, you don't charge.
Back to the hearing. The hearing is not about IIPA. Fitz invetigated criminal wrongdoing and following the Libby verdict Fitz said, the investigation is over and the case is inactive (unless new information comes to light.)
The hearing is about how classified information was handled, who had access, what was their source, did they have the need to know, and did they handle the information according to guidelines clearly explained to all people given securtity clearence.
So why does Rove still have security clearance?
And why does anybody who posts here, claim the Congress inquiry into the breach of classified information in the White House, and the leaking of a covert agent's name, is anything but important.
Posted by NeilSagan at 03/17/2007 @ 02:45am
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzcovert...secret.....noncovert.....who knows? we'll watch the movieZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/16/2007 @ 11:25pm |
LOOK! DAVEBARLETT's 16 month old types and watches movies. Dave, what's the kids name? It's obvious the kid is much more interesting than you.
Posted by NeilSagan at 03/17/2007 @ 02:54am
Couple of us just watched the CSPAN rerun of the Waxman chronicles..
A couple of things come to mind.
This is about breaking the law by Admin officals and "outting or leaking" a covert agent, and the law and breaking of it , is the issue,.... designed to protect of all our agents.
1. According to Gen Hayden, the CIA and the DEMS on the commitee Plame was covert...even Plasme herself wasn't sure, which I found puzzling until I heard from Toensing.
2. According to Toensing, who wrote the law, by definition and THE LAW, Plame was not covert...which probably is the reason Fitz had no criminal indictments on the boards...that a legal case(THE LAW)could be made she was not covert, ergo no crime committed...and given a long trial and innocent verdict, why bother.
3. The consesus at the table, Toensing(sp), and the other attorney, who rep covert agents, that no one is truely covert comes back and takes a desk job at the head quarters..in fact, they laughed at the suggestion that a covert agent shows up for a desk job..
4. The issue, Wilson said he was sent by VP to Niger, why report to New York Times? In an editorial? Why not go to your up channels with the report, if stonewallled then do an Elsburg..something fishy.
5. No one covert lists their names publicly and their cover company name in directorys or Whos Who books.
6. The CIA, itself, according to statue(THE LAW) was supposed to protect their covert agents with a process set up in the THE LAW, set up for cases such as this, and they did nothing.
7. Whether intentional or unintentional, a covert agent "outoing" would trigger the mechanism for investigations and protections..this didn't happen, even with CIA higher ups talking to Novak and other reporters. None demand or asked not to print. Not until everything broke open.
8. Why, as the commitee repeatedly stated that they want to find out what happened and protect the agents, why was the name Armitage not even mentioned or why wasn't he on the hot seat?
Our conclusions, based on THE LAW and what it says is covert and what is not, that Plame was not covert and therfore no crime was committed...hence the only guy that did commit a crime was Libby..and thats is who Fitz hammered.
I also came away with the conslusion that someone else wrote the questions some of the members asked and 2 seemed to be rambling and clearly didn't understand what was really being said..Norton and Watson, the 2 older ladies, seemd flumoxed...
This is death by a 1000 cuts and is aimed at Bush heart..these guys want blood and this hearing is designed to slowly bleed the patient..even when he is healthy...dog and pony sham...it is embarassing to watch.
Bush desrves many things and I would like to give him an hour of ass chewing about many of his policys...but these hearings have nothing to do with finding any truth and are political only.
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 04:14am
except she was covert
she even to some covert work in the last five years
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 04:21am
pretty neat huh
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 04:21am
Posted by BRUNOWE 03/17/2007 @ 12:37am
My point being that if it hadn't been for the oil spike, the Soviet Union might have imploded at the beginning of Reagan's watch. It was this circumstance that effect the timing of when it went under more then anything Reagan did.
You seem to be grasping at straws with that thesis, Brunowe, and ignoring what for me is the far more obvious and compelling one. When Reagan came to power, the country was a wreck and the Soviet Union was ascendant around the world. By electing Reagan, the country repudiated the leftist policies of Jimmy Carter. The country implicitly recognized the failure of leftist policies, plainly obvious at the time and even more so in retrospect, a fact which the retrograde Carter and the most diehard socialists (yes, I know you call yourselves progressives) on this site have never forgiven this country for.
Shortly after Reagan left office, the slave states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself collapsed. Many if not most historians and even Gorbacheve himself argue that this was not a coincidence, and that the Cold War was in fact won by Reagan's strong defense policies which were the final straw for the old Soviet Union. Like all leftist economies, the Soviet Union was a loser from the get-go and relied on human slavery and constant imperial expansion to stay afloat because the economic and social theories upon which it was based were fundamentally unsound. You can choose to argue the opposite thesis until the cows come home, as many leftists do, but then again I would say that is syptomatic of the leftism which I believe is the ideology that never learns anything.
Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2007 @ 04:21am
the soviet union was ascendent around the world?
Bwah Ha ha HaH Ah Ah
scooootificus, the soviets were just begining their wonderful adventure in afghanistan. and as a matter of fact it was jimmy carter and the liberal congress that appropritated the first funds to build up the afghani resistance.
it's good that reagan kept the carter doctrine in place
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 04:28am
you could say that jimmy carter won the cold war
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 04:28am
As I have done many times before, BRUNOWE, I would recommend to you 'Modern Times' by the great writer and historian Paul Johnson when it comes to understanding the twentieth century. It's a great counterpoint to the ilk of socialist Howard Zinn's "People's History," the premise of which in my view only people with a huge grudge against society could swallow. Curiously, 'Modern Times' is recommended by the NYT, which I find odd since it plainly contradicts the premise of so many of their editorials.
Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2007 @ 04:39am
scootificus I recommend that you read the encyclopedia. You'll save yourself future embarrassment.
Unless embarrassment is the new hamster high, then don't let me stop you
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 04:42am
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 9:28pm
This is a lie. I have never said anyone is plainly guilty.
Well, let's just say that if you didn't say it yourself, you never have contradicted anyone who did.
I have only rebutted your ridiculous assertion for the past year that because nobody was charged, Plame was NOT covert.
I think that most people who are knowledgeable about this subject and do not have any particular agenda (narrowing it to a pretty small subset) conclude that Plame's status could be argued either way based on the technical definitions in the law. As I have stated to you several times before, I personally believe that she plainly was not, because her status at the CIA was completely unlike that of the covert agents who were murdered in the early 80's and whose method of demise the IIPA was designed to redress. As I have stated many times before, you and many people on the left with your knee-jerk anti-Bush agenda, have chosen to argue the technical definitions of the law rather than the spirit of the law in order to further your own partisan ends. And as I have stated before, you may argue technicalities all day, but I would say that since the reality is that you have a clear agenda to pursue and Fitz never charged anyone with anything regarding Plame's status, we should read the proof in the pudding and simply acknowledge the plain reality of the situation - the law regarding revealing covert agents identities was not broken.
Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2007 @ 05:09am
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 9:28pm
I have only rebutted your ridiculous assertion for the past year that because nobody was charged, Plame was NOT covert.
I understand your point that Plame may still have been covert under the technical definition of the law even though no-one was charged with outing her, because those responsible for said outing may not have been aware of her status. In this, you are assuming that Cheney outed her and had his underlings release her identity. But if that was true (and again I'm granting you a huge amount of slack), Cheney had the right to declassify at will so it would have been legal and in my view, perfectly legitimate since it is apparent to me and many others that Plame and Wilson, with the assistance of the poltically motivated like yourself, were both using their government positions to smear and through outright lies, attempt to damage and discredit the Administration. If you choose to take it one step further and argue that it was Cheney himself who actually revealed the identity of an agent that was not only classified but in fact covert, still you have that problem with the conflict of the spirit of the law.
And yes, I, unlike you, do in fact find it telling that Fitz has never even stated his opinion as to whether Plame was covert. I think he knows full well that he would have a very, very difficult making such a charge stick in court, for the very same reasons regarding the spirit and intent of the IIPA that I have set forth previously. You may disagree, but at this point it is purely academic because it's all over, and the whole issue will re-submerge into the nothingness from whence it came.
Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2007 @ 05:35am
a matter of fact it was jimmy carter and the liberal congress that appropritated the first funds to build up the afghani resistance.
Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 04:28am
Uh, young WILLIAM, you DO realize that the liberal spin on Osama bin Laden is that WE "created him" when we sponsered the mujahhedin in Afghanistan. Ask around.
You just gave credit/blame for that to....Jimmy Carter and the "liberal Congress"!
Posted by Mask at 03/17/2007 @ 07:36am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 6:47pm
there you go, assigning members to some mythical group you think we might belong to.
I am reading Larry Kolbs book, "America at Night" right now. I had never heard of this plan to connect Usama and Kerry through some shenanigans, but I was already familiar with Reagans back door dealings with Khumeini. Larry goes into some detail about that, he was there. So, tell me, what is worse, lying about a blow job, or buying drugs from death squads and dealing with Mullahs to keep Americans hostage till after the election? Then having the operators lie under oath and get the Planner elected as president the next go 'round.
I have voted for many a repub, those not poisoned by the real far right religious nuts. Have you ever voted for the person, not the party? From reading your silly posts here, I doubt it. You are twisted up inside, unable to admit your "side" is even more inept and corrupt than the "side" you hate with so much passion.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/16/2007 @ 7:33pm
"no foul"? God you are myopic.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 09:14am
Roves MO- no crime, just a victim.
Who did Rove serve at the feet of around 1972ish?
You neo-clowns are a bad joke. No matter how many lies are exposed, no matter how many officials are CONVICTED, no matter how many dept heads are appointed for their connections and adherence to ideology instead of competence, you will compare it to Bill Clinton. What a crock of Stimpy.
Breaking NEWS!!! Bill Clinton is not the base parameter for conduct.
non breaking news. Most here know this, Ponti does too but ignores it. I never voted for Clinton. As a matter of fact, in my short time as a dem I worked specifically to stop his nomination. but mere precinct delegates were steamrolled. Probably like they will be steamrolled to get The Queen nominated.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 09:35am
QUAGMIREJONES:
I really don't know why impeachment is "off the table". An attempt to "get along"? Time constraints? Political weakness more likely. But, I do know that as hearing progress it will be shown that ChimpCO abused power every chance they got, that lies were told under oath and policy was based on ideological dreams, not pragmatic facts.
(see Iraq)
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 09:39am
Is anybody else familiar with Larry Kolbs story? The book is not well written, and 'ol Lare is full of self confidence, but it sheds light on the way things really work. It ain't pretty. If Hirshfeld and Sensi had pulled off their gambit it could have been real ugly. Here we had a rogue CIA agent attempting to screw the 04 election, almost succeeding, and I, a pol junkie, never heard a word about this till I picked up the book. Is this stuff true?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 09:44am
JR, thanks. I did know all that. I was surprised to hear at a later date that Dumbsfeld stole the quote from Churchill.
of course you did, but perhaps others didn't. incidentally, one cannot steal a quote, one can merely quote a quote, which is what Rumsfeld did.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 09:50am
buying drugs from death squads and dealing with Mullahs to keep Americans hostage till after the election? Then having the operators lie under oath and get the Planner elected as president the next go 'round.
this was treason, and a coup d'etat.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 09:52am
And yes, I, unlike you, do in fact find it telling that Fitz has never even stated his opinion as to whether Plame was covert.
this is a lie. he did so in front of TV cameras, but then nearly everything from this poster is a lie, including the the and the and. whom am I quoting?
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 09:54am
4. The issue, Wilson said he was sent by VP to Niger, why report to New York Times? In an editorial? Why not go to your up channels with the report, if stonewallled then do an Elsburg..something fishy.
Maasch, you are misinformed. the editorial came way after he made his report to his employer. you're just making these things up as you go along, en passant.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 09:58am
How can anyone say that it is okay for the Whitehouse to talk about an individual's employment and status with the CIA? Just for a minute, forget whether it was legal or illegal and think about rather or not it was the right thing to do. Stop talking about the five other people who might have known about Valerie Wilson's identity and have not been shown to have leaked her identity, and concentrate on those from the Whitehouse that we know did leak the information. What we know from her testimony yesterday is that she was covert. Perhaps those who talked freely about her identity should have thought twice, and rather than looking for revenge on Joe Wilson, they should have put the United States first. After all, this all took place after 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq. They outed Valerie Wilson to discredit her and her husband. How can this be okay, no matter what way you spin it? No one knows the damage done, and we probably never will. The grasping at straws is those of you who are defending what the Whitehouse did. Most of us know relatively little about the CIA, but we all know that people working for the agency lead dual lives. The Whitehouse would know this better than any of us. It makes me sick that what was done has been defended by anyone and that the blame has been turned on the Wilsons.
Posted by lpumphrey at 03/17/2007 @ 10:04am
JR, have you heard about this Kolb book and the plan he uncovered?
"Although Sensi has also been involved with the Bush family and the Republican National Committee, Kolb contends that there is no political animus at work in his pursuit of Sensi. And he points out that he voted for Reagan. Instead of having a partisan agenda, he says, he helped the Department of Homeland Security pursue two men who might have no qualms about helping terrorists, since they had no apparent qualms about anything else."-review from Herald Tribune.
BTW, enjoying the discussion about Soviet armaments.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 10:06am
Posted by LPUMPHREY 03/17/2007 @ 10:04am |
YUP! Smart man.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 10:08am
"I really don't know why impeachment is "off the table". An attempt to "get along"? Time constraints? Political weakness more likely. But, I do know that as hearing progress it will be shown that ChimpCO abused power every chance they got, that lies were told under oath and policy was based on ideological dreams, not pragmatic facts."
(see Iraq)
Posted by CRABWALK 03/17/2007 @ 09:39am
OK Crabs, Let's assume for arguments sake that the Dems are not totally incompetent; that leaves only one possibility and that is there are no constitutional grounds for impeachment.
You blokes seem to think the Dems are all ignorant pushovers. My suggestion is they know very well that there are absolutely no valid grounds for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney etc. However being politicians they tell you dills that they have too many important things on their plate, such as making sure Bush gets all the troops and time he needs to win in Iraq. If they see they are able to convince you that impeachment is off the agenda because of time constraints, instead of the true reason, they must also figure you will see how genuine they are about Iraq by feeding you some spinach. It could be said that Bush is not the only one who has told you lies.
The only reason that Bush is getting heat over his Attorney General and Plame is that he is a really nice guy and doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. My guess is that once he gets his war money he'll get stuck into these other issues and chase the Dem attack dogs back into their kennel as he has done with his Iraq war.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/17/2007 @ 10:33am
"The only reason that Bush is getting heat over his Attorney General and Plame is that he is a really nice guy and doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. "-LRJONES
ahh, your losing me here, Leroy.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 10:50am
JR, have you heard about this Kolb book and the plan he uncovered?
I have not, but I'm always interested in your posts.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 10:52am
As the bar for impeachment has been lowered, I firmly believe that if real hearings were held, oaths were taken and documents subpoenaed (odd word to spell), the result would be outrage by the snoozing electorate.
Just a few thoughts; one of the first things Chimpy did when he assumed the post was to extend the time presidential papers will be classified (to hide his fathers misdeeds and to keep his own deeds hidden after he leaves office), he has been found to have violated laws by the GAO, the CPB, the Supremes, appellate courts and many cases are winding there way through the system. The connections between many, many war profiteers admin officials are myriad, the waste fraud and abuse is public knowledge already.
gotta run. But I ask again, what makes Chimpy better than all the other pols that have come before? Why do you give him so much leeway?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 11:07am
The only reason that Bush is getting heat over his Attorney General and Plame is that he is a really nice guy and doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
has there been a more absurd post? Oz, you are out of your depth here, back to the beach.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 11:13am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 10:52am
I just find it curious that nobody has heard of this plot. I have a lot of skepticism about the veracity of Kolbs story, it is just so bizarre. Then again, I think these power hungry goons are capable of anything. It is one of those tales that while reading you are constantly muttering "no way" and chuckling at the brazen things people get away with. Like trying to steal 50 million from Marcos using Muhammad Ali as a pivot for the deal. Or mimicking Alis voice in hundreds of phone calls to Senatrs/congressmen. Fascinating.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 11:13am
John Maaasch must have been watching CSPAN 4 RNC. It's hard to imagine he is sincere. If he is, he has been fooled completely or he is a complete fool.
Anybody who believes there is doubt about Plame's status - now clearly and authoritatively established as classified and covert - after watching the hearing is slow on the uptake. Fitzgerald, Hayden and Plame said Plame's status was classified and CIA Director Hayden said Plame was a covert CIA agent. Only a desperate sycophant, an insincere partisan or a dullard would question the accuracy of Hayden's declaration and his unique position to make it authoritatively.
To the contrary, Toensing who is an expert on the IIPA law and not an expert on Plame's status said Plame was "not covert as defined by IIPA". The problem with that statement is that it is misleading in its construct. The IIPA is not the defining authority of a CIA agent's status; it is the defining authority of the conditions under which miscreants that out a covert CIA agent can be criminally prosecuted. The only conclusion one can draw from expert knowledge about the IIPA is whether the conditions were met to prosecute a leak, not whether the agent was covert.
Toensing's claim that Plame was "not covert as defined by IIPA" is unfounded on second count. Toensing claims to know Plame had not traveled outside the US as an undercover agent in the five years prior to the leak. To the contrary, Plame testified she did travel as an undercover agent in the five years prior to the leak. Even if one takes Toensing's specious construct at face value – Plame was not covert because Plame was not out of the country undercover in the last five years – Toensing's conclusion rests on a fact disputed by Plame's testimony. While Plame has first hand knowledge, Toensing could not cite a source despite direct questions from Rep Watson.
Waxmen's committee did not convene to investigate criminal violations of IIPA. His committee convened to investigate the handling of classified information in the executive branch in the CIA leak case. One has to wonder why Toensing labored so diligently to maintain the disproved belief that Plame was not covert.
"I will restore honor and integrity to the White House" "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." – GWB
Rove leaked classified information to Cooper and Novak. Rove still has security clearance. We learned from the Waxman hearing Friday that White House security has not investigated the leak despite a two month period after Novak's column and before CIA referred the case to Justice.
Libby was convicted of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case investigation.
Cheney who wrote all of the talking points Libby and Cathie Martin used to discredit Wilson, an administration critic, has not explained his role in the leak. In the Libby trial, Fitzgerald said, "There is a cloud over the Vice President." Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rove will account for their roles in leaking classified information.
People who argue congressional oversight into this matter is driven solely by politics must also argue it is unimportant to hold administration officials accountable for unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
Posted by NeilSagan at 03/17/2007 @ 11:53am
Unless of course you want to argue that Cheney and Bush authorized the dislosure of covert CIA agent classified status for purely political reasons, in which case we're talking resignation or impeachment.
Posted by NeilSagan at 03/17/2007 @ 11:59am
One simple question HMAN that blows away all your specious reasoning in one fell swoop:
If Plame was covert, how come no-one has been charged with outing her?
Your logic becomes more patently ridiculous as time goes on and no-one is charged with this grievous 'crime', yet you continue to fight it.
Also, did you notice that Plame is still claiming, in direct contradiction of her superiors at the CIA, that she DID NOT recommend her husband for the trip to Niger. Gee, too bad we can't get Fitz to put HER under oath so a jury can't determine which of THEM is lying (cuz after all, there are no misstatements in moonbat land, just perjury and obstruction). And since we now know that we don't need no stinking crime for a federal 'special' investigation, well that jsut about makes EVERYONE fair game. Heh.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 5:14pm
Nothing but right-wing deception in this one. Hayden said under oath that Plame was covert. She explained, very thoroughly, that she did not have the power to authorize sending her husband to Niger. As she explained, someone else in the agency recommended him for the trip. And for the record, testifying under oath before Congress is the same as testifying under oath in front of a jury. No one in the Committee hearing appears to have been given cause to suspect she was lying. And you know it. So take your right-wing lies and shove them. Plame's testimony confirmed what has been increasingly common knowledge for some time: that she was covert, and that the regime occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was the source of the illegal leaking of her identity.
But I digress, for I had another point to make. I was reading the Media Matters piece on Plame ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160013 ) and it seems Robert Novak is once again lying to save his own non-existent credibility. On Fox Noise Channel, hardly surprising considering the other networks probably don't want anything to do with this journalistic fraud.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/17/2007 @ 12:10pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 6:30pm |
what? people want to make money? really? oh shit...you are right!
people desire wealth...they like to make the money. that desire, therefore, is the only motivation people have. great logic, gecko.
people love chocolate, therefore that is their only desire. people love sex, therefore that is their only motivator for behavior. people love the money, therefore THEY LOVE NOTHING ELSE.
that, gordon, is the way you think. you impute far too much of your mindset onto other people, which indicates a certain inability to empathize.
the shrink who interviewed nazis at nuremberg, a jew by the way, was in search of a definition for evil. kind of silly, eh, for a professional psychiatrist? well, the only thing he found in common amongst the convicted war criminals was a distinct inability to empathize with other human beings.
people other than you have different motivations than you, gecko. i know you cannot understand this but although any non fool does indeed love the money, many non fools do indeed love things other than the money more...
take my word for it. its true, even though you dont understand it. and they are not all idiots, gordon. some are actually wealthy and powerful...but this does not fit into your self servingly cynical lowest common denominater vile view of people, does it?
you are the reason we-who-do-love-the-money-but-love-other-stuff-more must band together and pool our wealth to take over for real -simple self preservation against financial/political sociopaths like yourself.
the best society is that which works toward the general good and advancement of us shaved apes' condition while tolerating as much vileness as possible while still progressing.
gecko, you and those you represent are tolerable vileness, but you must still be opposed.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/17/2007 @ 12:21pm
So many things to reply to:
"But my guess is since you're some ignorant latin american writing from some shit-poor 3rd world banana republic where governments are changed more frequently than underwear, ruled by some ancient oligarchy, you are not only ignorant of the facts on the ground here in the states, but you would no-doubt reject them in a knee-jerk fashion if someone did tell you them, just as your left-wing indoctrination has trained you to do.
"My advice to you is to get a real country before you criticize ours, especially the only part that's worth jack, which are people like Reagan and Bush.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/16/2007 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person"
I'm rather shocked that I am the first person to call Pontificus (an apt handle, by the way) on his disgustingly racist response to Chimichenga. In addition to being a right-wing, GOP hack, Ponti revealed himself as a racist, stereotyping pig, and it would have been nice if someone called him such a little sooner.
Next...
"well, maybe not the french or italians..
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/16/2007 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person"
I didn't follow the previous thread you were quoting from but can we please drop the idiotic "French and Italians as wimps" jokes? Both nations have been involved in quite enough wars, rebellions, revolutions and/or imperialist conquests over the centuries to have proven they have the war-making stuff. And if you want recent proof, read a good modern book on their participation in the First World War, or just ask the Vietnamese or Algerians how easy it was to get their countries back from the French after World War II. I don't mean to pile on, and this isn't really meant for you Ibble, but Gods this is such infantile crap!
And lastly,
"Further, you're overlooking the effect of the spike in oil prices in the 80s that gave the USSR a hard currency the keep its economy upright until the end the mid-80s--hardly something you can credit Reagan with.
"My point being that if it hadn't been for the oil spike, the Soviet Union might have imploded at the beginning of Reagan's watch. It was this circumstance that effect the timing of when it went under more then anything Reagan did.
Posted by BRUNOWE 03/17/2007 @ 12:37am | ignore this person"
Interesting point of view, but I would be almost as careful of the whole "Collapse" theory of the end of the Cold War as of the Reagan acolytes and their "We won it by spending them into the ground, (especially with Star Wars!) hosannas." In addition to Stephen Cohen's recent article on the dangers of a new cold war with Russia here at The Nation, I would refer you to a similar article in the most recent issue of The American Conservative (3/26/07) by Anatol Lieven, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. What you and Pontificus both leave out of the equation is Russian or Soviet agency in the end of their own system. Lieven Paraphrases Nikolas Gvosdev, the editor of The National Interest, who has noted that where Americans have interpreted the collapse of the USSR and its satellites as a straight Russian defeat at the hands of the U.S. akin to the American victory over the Germans and Japanese in WWII (notice, by the way, how NATO disappears in modern times and the Brits and Soviets, among others, are erased from our memories of the past), Russians view what took place as a deal in which they gave up enormous territories (almost all of them peacefully, unlike the British, French, Portuguese, etc.) and influence in return for security guarantees (since broken by the West) and promises of Western partnership and massive economic assistance (instead, they got shock therapy).
Lieven goes on to write that "In the eyes of Russians, their withdrawal from anti-American strategies in Central America, Africa, and elsewhere was predicated on an assumption that the U.S. and its allies would not seek to destroy their interests n the former Soviet Union. As a former Soviet officer once put it to me, "If we had known what you had in store for us, do you really think that e would have let the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc fall to pieces in the way that they die? We would have fought to the death to hold on to them, and you would have had another world war on your hands." For better or worse, the Stalinists who rule China and Cuba have internalized this lesson all too well, just as the leaders of North Korea and Iran have learned some of the crucial lessons of Iraq, e.g., better to actually have the A-bomb than just be accused of wanting it.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/17/2007 @ 12:28pm
Now posted at:
http://iraqwarepitaphcontest.blogspot.com (Originally posted March 10, 2007) Americans. We must take responsibility for the actions of our government and our corporations. We must act now to make sure our soldiers have not died or been injured in vain. We must admit when we have failed. Learn from our mistakes. And move on to create something positive from our failures. What does the Iraq War mean to you? Where do we go from here? Please submit your own epitaph for the death of the War itself. Post your entry as a comment or send it in an email to americanscare@hotmail.com. Sponsoships and links to web sites that encourage dialogue about the War are also welcome. Weekly Winners and Prizes to be announced. From the tears and ashes of our countryman must come an enlightenment and new dedication to truth and love.
Epitaph for the Iraq War Iraq War March 20,2003 to ASAP
Election tied
Leaders lied America tried And with Pride Americans died Those on each side Were sad & horrified Our nation is petrified But must reverse the tide They're no longer glorified The murderers can never hide
Look out. W has something up his sleeve and perhaps he may move his museum to dubai. Will they have an evidence room and a subpoena room at the W museum? Dubai, Dubya, Dubai: Halliburton moving to Dubai? This is much worse than the Dubai Ports Deal since Halliburton and its employees have intimate and strategic knowledge of all military procedures, personnel, and supply and troop support practices. Secrets that will now be closer to our enemies than our own government. We should cancel all contracts with Halliburton and its subsidiaries and ask for full refunds. All employees should have their passports and visas revoked and all licenses and permits should be put on hold until a complete review can be done. In the future all contracts should have tariffs added when the bidder is incorporated offshore equal to the amount of income taxes that would have been generated by an American based company.
Speaking of Cheney. I finally figured out why President Bush would go through his only two election cycles with Cheney as Vice President when all along Cheney says he won't run for President and is probably not healthy enough. Also if the administration goes sour as it has, it leave them an out. I look for Cheney to step down in the near future and then Mr. Bush can hand pick his successor. Did he make an exploratory phone call to Chuck Hagel? Would that explain why Hagel backed off on his announcement at the last possible moment?
Scooter Libby found guilty on four counts; decides to cut a deal?
Recent clues point to Abbott and Costello as original architects of Plame Leak.
Grand Jury testimony of Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff of the United States (COSTUS) for the Vice President, leaked by Rove-ing reporter (humor).
It is posted at: http://libbyknowswholeakedfirst.blogspot.com/"
Bobbing and weaving, a tangled web we do. Book him, Danno.
Please keep my identity a secret. Double super Secret.
Middle-aged, Middle-of-the-road, Mid-Westerner
We can only hope that Fitz doesn't fizzle.
I think Mr. Fitzgerald's motto should be: "If you do a white collar crime then you will serve blue collar time." Look where he lodged Judith Miller. A few months in a blue collar jail and she was ready to sing. Unfortunately, she says she forgot the words
Posted by MnMnM at 03/17/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by CKA2ND 03/17/2007 @ 12:28pm
hahaha!
i almost did not post that for precisely the reason you cited...
but in world war 2...i would have been lying otherwise. although free french units ant legionaires fought well. prior to the fall of france though, thr french arny was woefully mismanaged and the french soldier was somewhat demoralized (there was also piss poor political leadership). the italians? i think the reason the italians sucked so bad in ww2 is because they were basically decent people who knew they were fighting for the forces of evil. so they surrendered quickly - good for them.
but i had previously made a statement about the training and morale status of european troops of the time and had included the french and italians but had to retract. ww2 was the apogee, militarily, of neither country.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/17/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by MASK 03/17/2007 @ 07:36am
Uh, young WILLIAM, you DO realize that the liberal spin on Osama bin Laden is that WE "created him" when we sponsered the mujahhedin in Afghanistan. Ask around.
you poor poor dummy. Mr and Mrs bin laden created ossama.
You just gave credit/blame for that to....Jimmy Carter and the "liberal Congress"!
you poor little dummy. i would never misrepresent basic biology like you just did.
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 12:37pm
"...but i had previously made a statement about the training and morale status of european troops of the time and had included the french and italians but had to retract. ww2 was the apogee, militarily, of neither country.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/17/2007 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person"
True enough.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/17/2007 @ 12:41pm
You know what? Some of the right-wing liars here remind me of the same a-holes that used to post at a place called LiberalForum.org hoping to spew their bile and make people believe it. One of the was called BitchPhlegm, if memory serves. He liked to repeat the same lies over and over, hoping they would eventually start to sound true, even though the deceptions had been disproven over and over and over again. If it weren't for the lack of multi-colored eyesores and oversized type I'd swear it was him masquerading as Pontificus.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/17/2007 @ 12:43pm
I understand your point that Plame may still have been covert under the technical definition of the law even though no-one was charged with outing her, because those responsible for said outing may not have been aware of her status
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/17/2007 @ 05:35am
then you understand that she was covert.
(this is why scootificus..... is gonna take it in the poopshooticus)
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 12:44pm
I look for Cheney to step down in the near future and then Mr. Bush can hand pick his successor.
he may handpick, but he needs senate approval, and there's the rub.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 12:44pm
You know what? Some of the right-wing liars here remind me of the same a-holes that used to post at a place called LiberalForum.org hoping to spew their bile and make people believe it. One of the was called BitchPhlegm, if memory serves. He liked to repeat the same lies over and over, hoping they would eventually start to sound true, even though the deceptions had been disproven over and over and over again. If it weren't for the lack of multi-colored eyesores and oversized type I'd swear it was him masquerading as Pontificus.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/17/2007 @ 12:44pm
For the real history of the french collapse against the Germans read Marc Bloch "Strange Defeat, a statement of evidence written in 1940", just after he had returned from military service.
Bloch, an eminent historian was a member of the french historian school "Les Annales" named after the eponymous publication. another famous member was Lucien Fevre. Professor Eugen Weber is a modern american exponent of this line of historical thought. pounce.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 12:50pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/17/2007 @ 12:37pm |
yeah - i wonder if he's for real. and not a 1000 lb shut-in with a laptop...who's a brilliant e-trader...whose "bed" also doubles as a gold plated comode...
or just downs 10 chickens a day and has his mother change his diapers...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/17/2007 @ 1:09pm
let it be remembered that the italians, unlike the french and others, did not turn their jews over to the nazis.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 1:12pm
here's a little taste of Bloch's book:
I have already laid sufficient stress on the effects of surprise. I use the word in its strictly strategic sense. the worst cases of mental paralysis were the result of that mood of outraged amazement which laid hold of men who were faced by a rhythm of events entirely different from the kind of thing they had been led to expect.
sounds familiar?
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 1:17pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 12:50pm
france was a mess prior to ww2. the french soldier, who had suffered and fought valiently in ww1, was demoralized before the fighting started. but the free french fought as well as anyone. and the french army was misorganized.
then people ding the french for vietnam, but...um...we didn't exactly "win" either...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/17/2007 @ 1:18pm
"To the contrary, Toensing who is an expert on the IIPA law and not an expert on Plame's status said Plame was "not covert as defined by IIPA". The problem with that statement is that it is misleading in its construct"
No , its not, it is simple and straight forward. You just don't like that fact and want to parse this to find your self a place from which to call Plame covert, but you can't..
According to the LAW, which was designed specifically for situations like the Plame debacle, Plame is not covert no matter what the agency, generals, or govt officials say, or the clowns on this site. You, here want her to be deemed covert, but she, by legal definition is not. We are based in LAW, we tried Libby according to the LAW...sentencing will be according to the LAW... everyone here whines and decries what the the LAW is and cuts and pastes ad nauseum the LAW....and by the definition of the LAW, written and testified by the woman who worked on bringing about the LAW, who gave birth to the LAW in this case, represents covert people in this law,...any 8th grader if given the tape of CSPAN and a written test as to what was said by the experts on the LAW, who wrote the LAW...would have to answer Plame was not covert according to the definition in the LAW, written by a LAWYER and a commitee to design and define covert, according to the LAW.
Sorry, but any LAWYER, worthy of billing, should come to the conclusion, after reading the LAW, would have no choice to conclude...Plame was not covert...once again, I am sorry ,but the emotional ranting and nashing of teeth on this blog alone are wrong.
Nor does one have to be a LAWYER to see this...just watch the committeee hangmen squirm in there seats during her testimony, and what is really telling, is that they didn't want her there in the first place, as she would 'splain to them ..THE LAW.
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 1:23pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/17/2007 @ 1:20pm
as a true blue conservative i find sociopathic tendencies amongst those of the class to which gecko pretends to belong precicesely the problem with the republican party - the club of political/economic sociopathic elites...
the democratic party - alliance of anti-fascists...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/17/2007 @ 1:28pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzcovert...secret.....noncovert.....who knows? we'll watch the movieZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/16/2007 @ 11:25pm |
LOOK! DAVEBARLETT's 16 month old types and watches movies. Dave, what's the kids name? It's obvious the kid is much more interesting than you.
Posted by NEILSAGAN 03/17/2007 @ 02:54am | ignore this person >/i>
Not long ago Neil, Dave was telling everyone that he found the Anna Nichole funeral more interesting than the Libby trial.
So if Dave has been totally encrossed in the Anna Nichole media feeding frenzy, doesn't that pretty much tell you everything you need to know about where Dave is coming from?
Posted by Lillian at 03/17/2007 @ 1:31pm
plame was covert. the cia said so. word parse "covert" all you want.
legally and by definition of the term and on record she was COVERT. so any and all laws that deal with that status apply to anyone who blew her status...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/17/2007 @ 1:32pm
"then you understand that she was covert.
(this is why scootificus..... is gonna take it in the poopshooticus)
Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 12:44pm |
Posts like this,from the WILLs of the world(thank god not many) in the face of the people who wrote and designed the LAw FOR CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THIS lay out completely and succinctly why he wears the beanie with the propeller spinning(a red one)with deserved pride. I, for one, am proud of him.
He is a framer of houses, not a cabinet maker, which is an art..
Now if you just switch the "a" and the "r" around you have another example (farmer) of why PONTI, and all of us on the right, ignore young WILL with smiles and a nod.
In farming, he is the equivlant of a field hand, attempting to lecture the unwashed below him on intricacies of chlorophyll functions on a bio chemical level. No credibility. None. Just simple one line bursts of nonsense..
Go back to the saw dust pile.
Plame was not covert...ergo, Fitz was not able to charge anyone with "outting a covert agent"...and there fore hung the guy he did have, Libby, for the "parking tickets" metaphor. He would have lost his case , in my opinion, on the definition of covert based on the LAW, especially if he had the jury that found Libby guilty...and they were right to do so, according to the LAW.
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 1:39pm
Can you believe Novak? what a maroon. I cannot understand why Faux News can keep him as a source with straight faces. Unless they are a partisan Tool.
this is his argument?
"Also, in 1999, she gave a $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential campaign and listed the fictitious -- supposedly -- cover organization that she was using for the CIA as her place of employment as an analyst."
It makes the point that she was hiding her job, for gash sakes!! "supposedly" fictitious? You neo-cons are really twisted and naive.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 1:40pm
As for "COVERT," how covert can you be if your super-duper secret code name is your maiden name.
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person
Blah blah blah.
Are you telling me that you approve of her choice of secret covert code name?
Posted by WALLSTREET 03/16/2007 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This is just priceless!!!
Hey Wally, I know that probably sounded like a devastating comment when you heard Rush say it, but repeating it really just makes you sound...well...stupid.
Here's a clue for you Wally...when you are 'covert'...
...it doesn't mean "your super-duper secret code name" is a secret...
...it means no one is supposed to know who is your employer and what you are doing for them.
Posted by Lillian at 03/17/2007 @ 1:44pm
According to the LAW, which was designed specifically for situations like the Plame debacle, Plame is not covert no matter what the agency, generals, or govt officials say, or the clowns on this site.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 1:23pm
The law [tinyurl.com]
(4) The term "covert agent" means--
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 1:46pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 1:39pm
I do believe reading Comp 101 is in line for you again. How many more times do you need it explained?
Why is it so hard for you to believe that Cheney plays Hardball? Jesus John, he was trained by Nixon and Haldeman!! He was caught lying in the VP debates, on tape, and in front of the whole nation. His CoC was convicted of lying. He shot a guy in the face and did NOT call the police.
Yea, upstanding guy, that Cheney.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 1:46pm
He is a framer of houses, not a cabinet maker, which is an art..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 1:39pm
maybe about to hundred years ago
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 1:47pm
you are really old
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 1:47pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/17/2007 @ 1:40pm
A partisan tool? On FoxNews?
(Claude Rains impersonation): I'm shocked -- shocked, I say -- to learn that FoxNews would have partisan tools on the air.
As for what you cited from Mr. Novak droppings:
1. There is nothing wrong with a private citizen contributing to the candidate of his choice.
2. And, Mr. Novak, so what if she listed Brewster-Jennings as her place of employment? That was what she was supposed to do, twit!! She was a covert agent.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/17/2007 @ 1:49pm
Key last sentence, remember, we are at war.
(1) The term "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 1:49pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/17/2007 @ 1:40pm
A partisan tool? On FoxNews?
(Claude Rains impersonation): I'm shocked -- shocked, I say -- to learn that FoxNews would have partisan tools on the air.
As for what you cited from Mr. Novak droppings:
1. There is nothing wrong with a private citizen contributing to the candidate of his choice.
2. And, Mr. Novak, so what if she listed Brewster-Jennings as her place of employment? That was what she was supposed to do, twit!! She was a covert agent.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/17/2007 @ 1:51pm
oohh, will. I will give you the benefit that you are a good framer. But I have followed many a framer to find no blocking where it was supposed to be, missing, skipped studs and I have built one railing out of 20 that was in a plumb/square house. The only groups I curse more than framers are Architects and Ann Arbor building inspectors. Sorry. I hope you are better than average. You probably are, you seem very conscientious. Unlike our glorious admin.
John is wrong, again. Framing is indeed an art. It's just that most guys are hacks, in it to Git-R-Dun and move on. Not git-r-dun-rite.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 1:56pm
Didn't the US military accept Will and promote him?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 1:58pm
The Japanese claim there is no evidence to support the claim that they had "comfort women" in WWII.
Deniers! when are we re-invading?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:00pm
Read the LAW as it is written by Toensing pertaining to covert definition and how it is applied to Plame. That is the only source one needs, according to the LAW.
That is all you need to read. The rest is irrrelevent as Will.
and what does WILL prattle out?.."you are really old"...A case for a beanie if there ever was one...
AS far as BUSH and Cheney...these guys have no balls..
They should stand upo and tell Waxman and the rest of the side show that no one from the admion will be participating in their game...there was no crime., no charges and no one found guilty. CASE CLOSED.
I listened to the questions, or rather the statements being read yesterday and it is a joke...it is a political clowning and it is embarassing to think the idiots were elected..all of them..the best and brightest of our land certainly are not in govt...
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 2:03pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person
tell it to the CIA, who clearly stated she was covert.
this is pathetic on your part, of a piece with Saddam was involved with 9/11 and the WMDs were there.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:04pm
"there was no crime., no charges and no one found guilty. CASE CLOSED."
Then what is Libby appealing?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:05pm
Same question for you that i had for PONTI.
Two Palestinians were convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in a terrorism investigation. They were acquitted of any terror related charges. (much like Clinton). Should they be released and have the convictions overturned? Should Clinton have his perjury conviction overturned? He was never charged with an underlying crime.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:08pm
How does an investigator discover crimes based on intent if people lie about knowledge and intent?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:09pm
2. And, Mr. Novak, so what if she listed Brewster-Jennings as her place of employment? That was what she was supposed to do, twit!! She was a covert agent.
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/17/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person
indeed.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:11pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 2:04pm
Did you know the wmd's were moved into Syria with the help of the Russians? Whole factories were disassembled, scrubbed clean of bio agents and radioactive dust. Same guy told me that that says Plame was fair game.
time to oil the beanie. ..
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:12pm
The Japanese claim there is no evidence to support the claim that they had "comfort women" in WWII.
Deniers! when are we re-invading?
Posted by CRABWALK 03/17/2007 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person
yes, and the rape of Nanking was consensual rough sex.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:13pm
Architects and Ann Arbor building inspectors.
say whaaat? surely you're kidding?
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:14pm
My, my, John Maash! How old are you? I am old enough to remember the Nixon apologists for Watergate saying Nixon should have burned the tapes on the White House lawn and openly defy Congress and the Supreme Court, not to mention the American people. Checks and balances? Oversight? Totally unnecessary if the President is a Republican. Have Republicans evolved to the point they can commit blatant hypocrisy and spin the lies so that even they believe them without question? Hitler and Stalin would be envious to have such unquestioning, and gullible, followers.
Posted by ohiobogy at 03/17/2007 @ 2:15pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 2:13pm
that never happened. Like the Armenian genocide.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:15pm
JR,
I'm know the CIA officer called her covert, but according to the LAW regarding derfinition of covert and the protection there of, she doesn't fit the bill, as the lady, who wrote the bill, "it doesn't matter who down the hall called her covert", IT MUST FIT THE definition in order to be in the catergory and applied rules for outting.
Plame doesn't fit the bill...IT WASN'T WRITTEN FOR HER STATUS AS DEFINED BY THE LAW ITSELF.
Is she in a tough spot? Sure, did she try to be invisible in her job? It doesn't appear that way..there are many problems with Wilson and his wife, but all the left wants is Bush...maybe in a few years that can come clear to many here, but this is just another get BUSH...my god real agents have been outted and killed and nothing has happened at all...to anyone...here is a blonde fox coming to work in in a convertible JAG, listed in Whos Who party circut, her husband prints an anti ADMIN op ed in the Times(I guess he can) and every one is worried she was trying to stay undercover?
According to samr CIA people and the lawyers who represent them in cases like this, all say no one covert shows up for a desk job...doesn't this bother anyone?
Wanna buy a bridge?
Where is the commen sense here? READ the LAW that applies here. Why is this so hard for you?
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 2:16pm
Read the LAW as it is written by Toensing pertaining to covert definition and how it is applied to Plame. That is the only source one needs, according to the LAW.
did you see her on the stand yesterday? befuddled. she was, by her own admission unaware that Plame HAD been out of the country, the very point she used as a basis for her judgement. case closed. if the CIA says she was covert, she was covert. now give it a rest, Maasch etc.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:17pm
JR, "tell it to the CIA, who clearly stated she was covert.
this is pathetic on your part, of a piece with Saddam was involved with 9/11 and the WMDs were there.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF "
Use this as a point of order...can't rely on CIA to give WMD status correctly in Iraq, why trust them with a LAW definition?
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 2:18pm
Crab,
Then what is Libby appealing?
Posted by CRABWALK 03/17/2007 @ 2:05pm
I am referring to outting an agent...no crime..Libby, apparently lied about a conversation...he outted no one anyway, as Plame was not covert according to the LAW...and Libby was convicted using the LAW as it applies to lying...
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 2:20pm
Architects and Ann Arbor building inspectors.
say whaaat? surely you're kidding?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 2:14pm
I did some work for a city park. the design was approved by the head of the building dept. The inspector failed it. If I had not had a city engineer on my side I would have lost my ass rebuilding. Ultimately it passed. I am now the sole spec'ed supplier of forged items for the parks dept. They love me. The inspectors are goons.
My dad had to rebuild an addition wall because the nails he used were not the same size as the book said. They were better, but not what the book said.
I WAS an inspector for the engineering dept and transportation depts of the same city. I know exactly how these guys think. One of the reasons I fled.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:23pm
Use this as a point of order...can't rely on CIA to give WMD status correctly in Iraq, why trust them with a LAW definition?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person
this is really stupid. there were plenty at the CIA who cautioned on the intelligence. nevertheless it's a complete nonsequitur on your part. they know at the CIA which of their employees is covert.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/17/2007 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person
this is one instance. is that a reason to smear all architects and building inspectors?
my mom was killed by a malpracticing doctor. do I go and smear every doctor? of course not. I would have liked to shoot that doc, point blank.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:26pm
Architects are Philistines. they don't know what a curve is. Except for Gaudi and Victor Horta. They are gods.
http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/tassel05.jpg
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:27pm
JR,
befuddled as she doesn't follow the case as Plames lawyer would..as I understand there was a 5 year trgger inthe LAW and even that was kick over and not applicable. she was never covert, by definition,DEFINITION, DEFINITION IN THE LAW, as described in the LAW, for cases like hers.
She was not covert, secret, maybe, but no covert.
Look it doesn't matter anyway, the dems are going to trot this out right up to election day anyway..My hope is that this goes off in the dems face.
Got to go look at a used car for my son...have a good week end.
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 2:27pm
incidentally, she did not sue, and we did not get a huge settlement.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:27pm
She was not covert, secret, maybe, but no covert.
covert means secret, but it's a start.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:29pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 2:26pm
that is why I wrote "Ann Arbor" building inspectors. I have worked around the world, (well, in the western hemisphere) the only things tat have ever failed inspection were in A2.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:29pm
Jr,
Not according to the LAW..:)
We can agree to disagree and our thoughts will change nothing anyway... Wanna get some more ales?
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 2:30pm
Architects are Philistines. they don't know what a curve is. Except for Gaudi and Victor Horta. They are gods.
oh geez. this is just nonsense now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:31pm
FYI, my bestest friend in the whole world is an Architect. I love him with all my hetero heart. I forgive him.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:32pm
John, I can't believe how deperately you are clinging to the paper thin argument that amounts to 'Victoria wrote the law and Victoria says Plame wasn't covert."
Here's the problem for you John. Toensing may have written the law, and surely knows the exact definition of 'covert' under the law, but she has NO IDEA what Plame's status was, what her assigments were, or what EXACTLY Plame was doing for the CIA. Therefore, she cannot possibly know whether Plame's status fits the legal definition.
Hayden on the other hand, was the Director of the CIA, and knew EXACTLY who Plame was, what she was doing, and her status as 'covert', and he has said, under oath, that Plame WAS covert. That is 'CASE CLOSED', John...for anyone with basic reasoning ability.
All the rest, including the idiocy about Plame working a desk job, is just spin and BS. Plame worked for YEARS at the CIA and was only tied to a desk fairly recently. Prior to that, according to what has been carefully revealed, she traveled overseas on numerous COVERT assignements for the CIA.
Posted by Lillian at 03/17/2007 @ 2:34pm
oh geez. this is just nonsense now.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 2:31pm
this is my opinion based on 15 years of working with clients, designers, architects and builders. Results may vary.
I am just saying I have never worked with an architect that was worth a darn. MHO. I know there have to be some good ones somewhere.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:36pm
Posted by LILLIAN 03/17/2007 @ 2:34pm | ignore this person
right you are, and we have pounded that dead horse into the ground.
a much more rewarding topic would be diplomats at our embassies being CIA spies, which was what the Iranians who took our embassy people hostage back when, charged. correctly so it has been reported.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:38pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 2:03pm
Read the LAW as it is written by Toensing pertaining to covert definition and how it is applied to Plame. That is the only source one needs, according to the LAW.
the US code is the law. And i have posted it for all to read. You on the other hand are unable to find, link and or post the law about which you speak.
is that because you're stupid or is it because you have never actually read it's text yourself?
That is all you need to read. The rest is irrrelevent as Will.
hey one stop shopping. cool... post it
and what does WILL prattle out?.."you are really old"...A case for a beanie if there ever was one...
that's why i made it beanie
AS far as BUSH and Cheney...these guys have no balls..
yup, they are conservatives
They should stand upo and tell Waxman and the rest of the side show that no one from the admion will be participating in their game...there was no crime., no charges and no one found guilty. CASE CLOSED.
ahhhhhh... so you do have something to hide
I listened to the questions, or rather the statements being read yesterday and it is a joke...it is a political clowning and it is embarassing to think the idiots were elected..all of them..the best and brightest of our land certainly are not in govt...
maasch if you are confused about whether they were questions or statements....
don't run for government office
Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 2:38pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/17/2007 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person
this is very different from your earlier statements.but enough.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/17/2007 @ 2:40pm
How about "Most architects are Philistines"?
Stereotypes save time.
right neos?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:40pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 2:38pm
Or weapons inspectors being infiltrated by the CIA.
Or treason by VP's that do bidness with mullahs in Iran. And his kid.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/17/2007 @ 2:47pm
To the cretins who are outside the realm of reality.!!! Plame was covert, the entire middle east net along with the Iran has been destroyed. If a military person did this, they would be tried for treason. If you really want to know the devastation of her outing along with another outing that took down the Iran network, have the President release the reports by the CIA about the consequences of all this, seeing how they love to release information that is politically helpful, have them do the same that would expose the grave results of all this!!!! If you want to live in ideology, go on with your talking points, but when intelligence comes up against ideology and incompetence only truth (intelligence) will prevail.
Posted by was at 03/17/2007 @ 2:47pm
To John Maasch:
You've been listening to right wing talking points too much and it's hurting your argument.
I believe divulging Ms. Plame's identity was a crime, but I'm not going to that it was a crime under the IIPA. Perhaps the leaker, if we ever find out who he is, can be charged under the Espionage Act, for example.
Ms. Plame was covert, but you and Ms. Toensing may have a case in saying that she was not covert as defined by the IIPA. Nevertheless, her employment was classified and she used a cover furnished by the CIA when applying for credit or filling out other official forms. The DCI has stated she was covert.
When blowing her cover was a crime under the IIPA or not is really a narrow issue and something of a red herring. Let's take a look at what I think is true of this matter:
* Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA was classified and she used a cover story to explain her employment. The Director of the CIA stated that she was covert.
* The blowing of her cover damaged counterproliferation operations at the CIA.
* The blowing of her cover was done clandestinely and maliciously by persons whose identities cannot be ascertained with certainty; the principle suspects work in the OVP, although Mr. Armitage of the state department may have dropped the information as well, as did Mr. Rove and Mr. Fleischer.
* Mr. Bush clandestinely and orally declassified parts of the NIE in order to give the leakers legal cover. The only persons known to know of the declassification were Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby.
* The White House made no attempt to find the identity of the leaker, although Mr. Bush said such an investigation would take place.
If we can agree on those facts, then we can discuss them.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/17/2007 @ 2:57pm
The law [tinyurl.com]
(4) The term "covert agent" means--
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
Posted by WILL C. 03/17/2007 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person
Read the LAW as it is written by Toensing pertaining to covert definition and how it is applied to Plame. That is the only source one needs, according to the LAW.
That is all you need to read. The rest is irrrelevent as Will.
and what does WILL prattle out?..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person
Uh John...from what I can see, what Will "prattled out" just before your post...was the LAW...as it is written!
Posted by Lillian at 03/17/2007 @ 3:38pm
Okay, look....instead of wasting time, let's get to the Final Stage, huh?
What comes out of this hearing? Waxman already said it was NOT about "criminal culpability". Fitzgerald couldn't prove who did it, will Henry Waxman? He going to grill Rove and get him to confess like on the old "Perry Mason" or "Matlock"?
What happens at the end? Bush "embaressed"?...whoop-pee. Poll numbers driven to the basement?....no driver needed, take a putter.
Impeachment?...nope, Pelosi AND Conyers put it off the table.
So....what?
Posted by Mask at 03/17/2007 @ 3:57pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/17/2007 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person
Ms. Plame was covert, but you and Ms. Toensing may have a case in saying that she was not covert as defined by the IIPA.
Possibly, but the 'potential' case rests soley on whether or not Ms. Toensing has any idea what Plame was doing for the CIA. From Ms. Toensing's testimony, it is crystal clear that she had NO IDEA what Plame was doing for the CIA.
When blowing her cover was a crime under the IIPA or not is really a narrow issue and something of a red herring.
Bingo Jack..major red herring. John (like most wingnuts) has been trying hard to divert attention from the fact 'the Bushies' outed Plame for purely political reasons, by trying parse whether or not her obvious covert status meets the 'legal definition' of covert under one of the laws that may have been broken...all while trying hard to NOT address the obvious morality of the 'Bushies' who did so.
If we can agree on those facts, then we can discuss them.
Those facts speak for themselves Jack, but recent history suggests that the '30%'ers' aren't ready to become 'reality-based' like the rest of us. Agreement on those obvious facts would require some admition that the Bushies did a 'very bad thing' and it hasn't happened yet, it probably won't ever.
Posted by Lillian at 03/17/2007 @ 4:04pm
What comes out of this hearing? Waxman already said it was NOT about "criminal culpability". Fitzgerald couldn't prove who did it, will Henry Waxman? He going to grill Rove and get him to confess like on the old "Perry Mason" or "Matlock"?
Posted by MASK 03/17/2007 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person
Uh Mask, Karl Rove...questioned under oath...shall we ask Libby what happens when you lie under those circumstances?
Posted by Lillian at 03/17/2007 @ 4:07pm
Posted by MASK 03/17/2007 @ 3:57pm
What next?
Let's see where this leads.
It is possible that the hearings could uncover facts that would warrant impeachment. Speaker Pelosi has never said that if new facts warrant it that impeachment would stay off the table.
Bush's numbers can't drop any further (you're right) and his legacy is assured (worst president ever, and that's got to be embasrrassing).
However, there can be no serious argument other than blowing Ms. Plame's cover damaged national security and was a malicious attack on her husband for blowing the whistle on pre-war intelligence manipulation.
If there is no statute under which those responsible can be prosecuted, then there needs to be one. Making that determination is legitimate legislative business.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/17/2007 @ 4:17pm
Victoria Toensing has hewed strictly to her method and her agenda. It had considerable success and impact. To see how it is done and how it turns out, try this: Say and write at every opportunity: "Victoria Toensing is not a lawyer." Keep doing it. Rebut any evidence to the contrary by repeating it. See what happens.
Posted by Curveball at 03/17/2007 @ 5:18pm
Jack Rabbit is right, the legality of outing Valerie Plame is a Red Herring. Those hanging onto the belief that all is fine because no one was charged with the crime of outing a covert agent, are not looking at what was done purely for political reasons. Put all of that aside and let's deal with the realities of what was done.
1. While we were at war, the Bush Admistration exposed the identity of a covert CIA agent. How do we know she was covert? First of all the CIA has said she was and, second, she testified under oath that she was. That should be enough for everyone. If it's not, then get Cheney, Bush, and Rove under oath. Don't decide that Valerie Plame is lying when those responsible for the actual outing won't even testify.
2. The Administration apparently outed her for political reasons. They wanted to discredit her husband who wrote an op-ed piece disputing the information put out by the Administration regarding Iraq's attempt to get uranium from Niger. Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate and reported back that it wasn't true. The Administration chose to put the information out there anyway as a justification for invading Iraq.
3. Joe Wilson was right. Iraq never attempted to get uranium from Niger. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was reported before we went to war with Iraq that the documents indicating Iraq did try to get uranium from Niger were forged and the signature on the document was one of an official who hadn't been in office since the early 90's. So, when Joe Wilson heard the Administration continuing to use information he had told them was not a justification for war, he wrote an op-ed piece to get the accurate information out there.
4. Joe Wilson was sent to Niger after a request from the Vice President. Apparently, the information he gathered an the conclusions he drew weren't the ones the Administration wanted to hear. Because he wasn't in lockstep with the Administration he and his wife were punished. I find that frightening and you should too.
5. Why attack the character of Valerie Plame? She was serving our country in a capacity understood by none of you who feel free to assasinate her character. She didn't ask for this. She was doing her job, and her career was ruined by this Administration, purely for political reasons. That in itself was wrong. That the career of a covert CIA agent was ruined for political reasons should upset all of us.
Another red herring is the claim that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger at the request of Valerie Wilson. From her testimony it appears he wasn't, but what does it matter? He was qualified. He had been the Ambassador of Niger. He is an expert on WMD's. He was a good person to send. Nepotism occurs when someone benefits simply because of a relationship. It is not nepotism when the most qualified person gets the job or the assignment. Was Joe Wilson the most qualfied? None of us can answer that, but he was very qualfied and I'm sure all would have been fine if he would have backed the claims of the Administration rather than debunking their claims.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I remember hearing about Niger and the false claims made by the Adminiistration months before we went to war with Iraq. When I heard the documents were forged I thought it would make a difference in the support for invading Iraq. I was wrong. I heard little about it for months until it came to light that Valerie Plame was outed because her husband had the nerve to remind us of the truth. Now, nearly four years later we know it he was right and, yet, we are still arguing over whether Valerie Plame was legally covert and whether she arranged to have her husband sent to Niger. That is the problem today. People get too caught up in what doesn't matter, rather than paying attention to what does. We never should have gone to war with Iraq (yes, I was one of the few people in this country that never supported this war). Unfortunately, we now have a mess that we don't know how to deal with. I, for one, wish the Administration and the country had paid more attention to the conclusions made by Joe Wilson before the start of this war. I don't know where we are going from here, but the past can't be changed and we now have a mess to fix. The country was mislead and now many of you would rather spend time attacking Joe and Valerie Wilson rather than looking at the Administration that purposely mislead us.
Posted by lpumphrey at 03/17/2007 @ 6:10pm
Posted by LPUMPHREY 03/17/2007 @ 6:10pm
You make the mistake of thinking that the Niger uranium was a significant factor in the rationale for going to war. It was not. It was never part of intelligence gathered by the US anyway but came from the *Brits through an Italian tip off. The WMD was only part of the reason. The others were the removal of Saddam's regime because of human rights abuses and the potential threat he posed to the region in view of the wars he had initiated with Iran and Kuwait.
Your approach, on the surface, seems credible until one is made aware of what was publicly stated and what could readily have been known before the war. In that context your position is deceptive through the omission of that other information. That information was available at the time to anyone who wanted to know.
That brings up the argument as to whether or not they alone were sufficient grounds for the war and whether Congress would have bought that argument. If you are at all familiar with the history of the Clinton years leading up to the **"Iraq Liberation Act" of 1998 you could hardly miss that all the seeds were laid then for the invasion of Iraq, and it certainly could be argued that Congress was influenced far more by that than Bush's so called 16 words. Or even by the flawed Intelligence on WMD that the US intelligence agencies gave to Congress in Oct 2002.
You fellas get all lily white about a spy whose stock in trade was lying and deceit and forget that you also manipulate the facts to arrive at your own political "truth". She has the excuse, if in fact she is lying in some aspects of her testimony, that learned habits are hard to break; what is yours? A pacifist agenda? Political posturing?
*During the 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The British claim has not been substantiated with hard evidence, however the British Government continues to stand by its initial assessment. Critics claim the statement in the speech was a reference to the documents.
**The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/17/2007 @ 8:22pm
The only reason that Bush is getting heat over his Attorney General and Plame is that he is a really nice guy and doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
has there been a more absurd post? Oz, you are out of your depth here, back to the beach.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 11:13am
You've made my day JR. A day at the beach would be lovely but the missus has a few jobs around the house lined up for me.
Nice guy? Unlike you and me he doesn't seem to impugn his opponents motives. He's not like our politicians over here who regard politics as a no holds barred gladiatorial contest to the death. In fact nearly all your politicians seem to be Ladies and Gentlemen, I guess that's what I had in mind with "nice guy". Perhaps it's a cultural thing and I'm missing out on the American idiom but he sure sounds like a nice bloke to me.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/17/2007 @ 8:52pm
If the uranium from Niger wasn't a significant factor or at least part of the rational, why was it mentioned in the State of the Union two months before going to war? By the time it was mentioned in the State of the Union it had already been determined to be inaccurate, so why mention it? Also, what do you mean WMD's were only part of the reason we went to war? What about the smoking gun being the mushroom cloud? The lead up to the war was all about WMD's.
What do you mean a spy whose stock and trade was lying and deceit? Now it's not that Valerie Wilson wasn't covert or that she arranged to have her husband sent to Niger, it's that she's a deceitful liar. Explain yourself on that one.
By the way, when H.R. 4655 was signed by President Clinton, there were still two years left of his term. If the intent was to remove Saddam by invading Iraq, why didn't he do it? Could it be that his intent was to use diplomatic means? Guess what, we are back to being in desperate need of diplomacy to get out of the mess in Iraq. Colin Powell said that if we break it we own it, and we own this mess. Honestly, I don't know the answer to this mess. There is no good solution now.
It amazes me that once again, it comes back to President Clinton. He wasn't in office during the two years before the war, and yet the Iraq Liberation Act signed four and a half years before is the reason we went to Iraq? I don't think so.
Posted by lpumphrey at 03/17/2007 @ 9:01pm
Unlike you and me [Bush] doesn't seem to impugn his opponents motives.
Posted by LRJONES4 03/17/2007 @ 8:52pm
Utterly absurd. Your other points are refreshingly lucid, but Bush the Good Guy, I can't let that go.
Just the other day he said that the Democrats in Congress were handing the terrorists a victory by proposing a deadline for withdrawal of troops.
Granted, he doesn't stoop to nationalreview.com "Democrats Declare Defeat" rhetoric, but what he said is the "presidential" version. He's definitely impugning his opponents' motives, and there are many other examples.
One thing I will give BushCo, they are very good at saying what they need to say to give themselves the room to do what they want to do. I recall that Clinton's opponents said the same thing about him.
You want a nice guy as president, draft Carter. Bush is strictly divide-and-conquer.
Posted by MyParadigm at 03/17/2007 @ 9:58pm
John (like most wingnuts) has been trying hard to divert attention from the fact 'the Bushies' outed Plame for purely political reasons,..'
No proof anywhere and no kind of evidence for this to even get charged...except those here who obviously masterbate to the imagined conversations that Bush and Cheney had about outting a covert(she wasn't covert) to to get her husband back for writing an editorial in the NYT....waste of time except for the dog and pony show.
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 11:49pm
How about an apology to Valerie Plame from, well, anyone?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/17/2007 @ 11:03pm
How about from her husband..he should have stayed home..
Posted by john maasch at 03/17/2007 @ 11:51pm
ok Joe Wilson is sorry that the chimp didn't stay home
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 12:41am
but then we are all sorry the chip didn't stay home
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 12:42am
I think I now understand why all the wingnuts are splitting hairs with whether Ms. Plame was covert.
If they can come to the understanding that she was covert, and that someone at high levels at the Whitehouse (shhhh… I don't want to mention Darth Cheney's name) intentionally released her name to selected reporters (and to Bob Novak too), with the intention of discrediting someone that had the audacity to question the motives of this administration, or intimidate anyone who might have even though of questioning the motives of this administration, they would also have to agree with George H.W. Bush's characterization "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
The wingnuts just can't do that. For if they did, their whole world would fall apart. They would then also have to accept the fact that the vp and those around him are traitors and that Bush, by doing nothing in response to the outing is an accessory to treason. They would much rather debate whether she was or wasn't covert. General Hayden said she was covert, he should know. If he didn't know, I sure that someone who did told the General she was. Good enough for me. All other arguments are Red Herrings.
So, John Maasch will go on ad infinitum about minor interpretations of the law and what Victoria Toensing has to say, (didn't she give $1,000 to the 2000 Bush campaign?).
And Pontificus will still repeat his childish "No she wasn't" to which I replied with my best childish retort "Was so. Infinity!". Which should have finished that line of argument.
Then there is LRJONES4, who by the very fact that he is in Australia and on the bottom of the world and sees thing upside-down, explains a lot of his condescending convoluted and incorrect rhetoric.
They just can't bring themselves to the realization that the Whitehouse, for political reasons, outed a covert intelligence source working on counter proliferation of WDM's.
"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." H. L. Mencken
Posted by COProgressive at 03/18/2007 @ 02:02am
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/17/2007
Well as I said to JR Para, you don't know what our pollies are like ( hardly a lady or gentleman amongst them) but I was smiling when I typed that thinking about which swear word JR would use when he read it. I did sort of qualify the nice guy plug with, until he gets his Iraq appropriation funds.
JR of course grabbed the funny bit because he was not prepared, like Crabs, to tell why he preferred Dem "lies" to the Bush variety.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/18/2007 @ 02:18am
Posted by WILL C. 03/18/2007 @ 12:42am
Willie there is a rumour getting around that the Liberal Center for 2007 is soft caramel with nuts. Is there any truth in that rumour?
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/18/2007 @ 02:22am
John (like most wingnuts) has been trying hard to divert attention from the fact 'the Bushies' outed Plame for purely political reasons,..'
No proof anywhere and no kind of evidence for this to even get charged...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/17/2007 @ 11:49pm | ignore this person
Can't you just picture John with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, chanting that bolded part, over and over, as loud as he can, in a rather feeble attempt to drown out what he so desprately doesn't want to see or hear.
Posted by Lillian at 03/18/2007 @ 03:47am
Oh, and this part too...
"she wasn't covert", "she wasn't covert", "she wasn't covert", "she wasn't covert", "she wasn't covert"...
Posted by Lillian at 03/18/2007 @ 03:49am
Posted by LPUMPHREY 03/17/2007 @ 9:01pm
LP,
I suggest you read the Iraq Liberation Act carefully and dispassionately. That should show you, point by point, that all the basic Bush Iraq rhetoric from his address to the UN in Oct 2002 until now, is not his own invention or that of any of his GOP associates but is derived faithfully from that Clinton era document.
I happen to think that Clinton and the Congress of 1998 got it right so what I'm trying to show is that Bush really continued on the path that was blazed, if you will, during Clinton's presidency. (I think Clinton was one of your better presidents despite his failure in the Rwandan crisis. I like his free trade policies and his Bush like position on Iraq).
It is a matter of conjecture whether Clinton would have gone to war with Iraq post 9/11 but what I am drawing your attention to is the indisputable fact that the members of Congress, who signed up to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, hardly needed any of the faulty pre-war intelligence, including the Niger uranium, to prompt them to give the Bush Administration the authority to go to war. That follows because they had already telegraphed the possibility of that authority in the ILA 1998.
For all the credulous anti-war urgers here I would suggest that the reason many Democrats in this Congress seem to be so ambivalent about troop withdrawal from Iraq is because they remember they were responsible for that document and know very well what is in it.
Here are some of the words, expressions and stated goals from the document that show the Bush war rhetoric did not have its genesis in the Bush Administration:
1. The name of the document, The Iraq Liberation Act. What does that imply in terms of action?
2. (The) United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Why should the US support the Iraqi opposition? Nothing here about WMD is there? It is because of "internal repression" and "external aggression" by the Saddam regime, which by implication, needs to be replaced.
3 The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home.
Get the picture no WMD. What's that fella's name who is always talking about freedom-loving Iraqis. My, My. it's also in the US interest and our allies in the region. Well at least Chimpy can read and his memory seems OK.
4 My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
George why did you go to the UN and get that resolution about Iraq? Think I read it in Bill's ILA 1998. Well George why did you think it necessary to remove Saddam? Same reason, shucks not only Bill but also the 1998 Congress told me it was necessary.
5. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
Yeah Bill but when are you going to get to a better reason for removing Saddam; like WMD?
6. These (elements of US policy) include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security.
Thought this idea of reconstituting Iraq's weapons was just a Cheney scare tactic he made up? Looks like he can read too.
You ask why didn't Clinton go to war on that information? Most likely for the same reasons that Bush didn't until after 9/11.
As far as Plame goes she along with her husband were and are political players. Was she was lying in her testimony? Who knows. But there seems to be some doubt about her version of her involvement in her husband's trip to Niger.
That she offered the opinion that the Admin outed her was an indication she is a compromised witness. With no names given, that in most jurisdictions, is hearsay. That spies are experts at lying and deceit is a pretty good reason, for the less credulous amongst us, to take that into account when considering her as a reliable witness. That is only stating the obvious.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/18/2007 @ 04:24am
LRJONES
Bush & Co. didn't mention the Iraq Liberation Act at all during the rampup to Iraq. All we heard was reference to Iraq's putative weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida. If they didn't mention the ILA, you can hardly cite it as relevant to Bush's reasons to invade.
Further, there is nothing in the ILA to support invasion rhetoric. The ILA speaks specifically, and only, of supporting Iraqi opposition groups with support for media broadcasts ($2,000,000 limit) and military supplies ($97,000,000). There are provisions regarding humanitarian assistance and support for an international tribunal to charge and try Hussein. There is nothing about direct military action in fact, the ILA states " Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act ." The section mentioned was the part about providing military supplies.
As far as Plame goes she along with her husband were and are political players. Was she was lying in her testimony? Who knows. But there seems to be some doubt about her version of her involvement in her husband's trip to Niger.
That she offered the opinion that the Admin outed her was an indication she is a compromised witness. With no names given, that in most jurisdictions, is hearsay. That spies are experts at lying and deceit is a pretty good reason, for the less credulous amongst us, to take that into account when considering her as a reliable witness. That is only stating the obvious.
Actually, her statement that the administration outed her was merely a restatement of known facts. It is a matter of record that Armitage, Libby and Rove spoke to reporters. It cannot be proven that they knew she was covert, hence the lack of criminal charges but there is nothing compromising in her assertion. Second, they were both career officials, not political players (donating money to one campaign or another doesn't make them political). The fact that you have to use her former CIA status as an argument re her credibility instead of any actual facts regarding the specific controversy only shows that you're grasping at straws. THAT is only stating the obvious.
Posted by brunowe at 03/18/2007 @ 07:48am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/17/2007 @ 11:03pm
Sure...call Richard Armitage and tell him to do it.
Posted by Mask at 03/18/2007 @ 07:58am
Oh boy, the vast right wing conspiracy keeps expanding. Now the IBD editorial board is also parroting my talking points. What power I have!
Blonde Faith
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 16, 2007 4:20 PM PST
Political Theater: The congressional testimony of Valerie Plame, the 'spy' who became a Vanity Fair cover girl, was staged to embarrass the Bush White House. It actually completed Plame's exposure as a fraud.
When all was said and done, the least preposterous sight at Friday's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing could be found in the audience: namely, the woman dressed in hot pink who kept standing up behind Plame during her testimony to show the television viewers her 'Impeach Bush' T-shirt. Plame: Politics and publicity.
Plame: Politics and publicity.
That woman was a lot more honest about what was taking place than Mrs. Joseph Wilson, who looked like the cat who ate the canary when Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland asked her whether she and her husband are Democrats.
After giving her husband's Republican family background, she said: 'I would say he's a Democrat.' As for herself, she conceded: 'Yes . . . I am a Democrat.'
As if we all didn't know.
Plame's 'cover' as a CIA employee was so secret she was listed in her husband's 'Who's Who in America' entry. Her cover was 'blown' in 2003 by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Armitage was never charged with a crime, because she was no longer a covert agent. So special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald instead went after Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, for his bad memory.
Plame's fellow Democrats, led by committee Chairman Henry Waxman of California, spent much of their time waving at the cameras a new version of the Clinton administration's 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' flowchart. The chart featured a big, black box labeled 'UNKNOWN,' representing the mysterious personage who told Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney about Plame.
Gee, the republic must be in mortal danger if someone is giving CIA secrets to the vice president and a senior presidential adviser.
Plame repeatedly answered questions about her official status at the CIA with an unconvincing 'I'm not a lawyer.'
Then she claimed that the smoking-gun e-mail she sent to her superiors recommending that her husband be sent to Niger -- after which he wrote a New York Times op-ed questioning Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material in Africa -- was taken 'out of context.'
Far from being a 'covert agent,' Plame and her husband are a politically motivated PR partnership. She's negotiating a book deal for her life story, titled 'Fair Game,' for which Simon & Schuster has reportedly paid her a $1 million advance. She appeared with Wilson on the cover of Vanity Fair just months after being 'outed.'
Just why was Plame, who listed her CIA cover company as her employer when she gave to Al Gore's campaign, riding a desk in Langley, Va.? The Washington Times' Bill Gertz has reported that U.S. officials said her identity was first disclosed to Russia by a Moscow spy in the mid-1990s. She returned to the U.S. in 1994 because the CIA suspected her cover was blown by turncoat Aldrich Ames.
By placing Plame under the hot spotlights, Democrats have unwittingly caused her story to melt before the public.
Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2007 @ 08:19am
Seems Ms. Plame was so covert, even she did not know she was a secret agent.
Plame repeatedly answered questions about her official status at the CIA with an unconvincing 'I'm not a lawyer.'
Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2007 @ 08:29am
Gee, and that email she wrote, the one recommending her husband for the trip? She and HMAN say that that was all 'taken out of context'. Proof? Because she says so, that's why. Everyone at the CIA is just mistaken, it seems, except for Ms. Plame. Perhaps they are also parts of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy as well? Get on it, Mr. Corn! Flap those moonbat wings and make it so!
Then she claimed that the smoking-gun e-mail she sent to her superiors recommending that her husband be sent to Niger -- after which he wrote a New York Times op-ed questioning Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material in Africa -- was taken 'out of context.'
Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2007 @ 08:32am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/17/2007 @ 09:54am |
this is a lie. he did so in front of TV cameras, but then nearly everything from this poster is a lie, including the the and the and. whom am I quoting?
Yes, JR, we're all liars, all of us who give you such a hard time. Now take your little pills, have some milk and go nighty-night.
Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2007 @ 08:35am
Posted by HMAN23 03/16/2007 @ 9:33pm
Who gives a shit if she suggested Wilson?
I do, because if she did, and both Wilson and Plame deny she did, it means that they're lying. The other day you said all of her superiors at the CIA who said she recommended her husband for the trip were misled by 'a junior staffer who wanted to take his story back'. Horseshit, they have an email from Plame that clearly shows her recommending him for the trip. Thus, she is a proven liar. I would say that goes to the issue of her crediblity, wouldn't you?
Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2007 @ 08:39am
mrs. wilson's story is about as relevant as ann nichole smith's. who cares? besides the dems who want to try and take another whack at Bush. Yes he's a crappy pres but if your going to attack the administration at least pick a relevant talking point that is supported by facts.
Posted by theworminator at 03/18/2007 @ 08:57am
Plame repeatedly answered questions about her official status at the CIA with an unconvincing 'I'm not a lawyer.'
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/18/2007 @ 08:29am
It doesn't matter what Plame or her lawyers or Toensing, who wtote the law thinks, what is important is what people like ..
Lillian
Will c Zero Frombirdshitforbrains
And all usual kooks and nuts here think...see, they are the experts, they know all the insides and out side workings of Washington, they know all the players thoughts and plans...
PONTI, all you have to know is Bush and Cheney...
Those 2 words mean everything and the entire kook section here will spout out all kinds of "facts and truths", no one else knew, including, secret plots to get the Iraqi oil for Cheneys buddies,
But Jefferson and cash? .. No big deal...he's on a commitee and that doesn't bother them..
Sandy Burger and stolen docs? Stolen our of archives?..settled, not big deal.
President lies? Of course Bush should be impeached for lies..although none are prooven, charged, filed..ect..
Bring up the one president who did lie, on tape, and they complain you are bringing up past and that was sex anyway..
hypocrits galore.
I for one hope all these kooks in congress do is hold endless hearings and no repub menmbers should show except one guy reading the same statement at each meeting..
"This is a political witch hunt and we will not participate. Thank you." And then leave.
No whitness should appear or if they do answer the Hillary.."I don't recall"....screw em.
Posted by john maasch at 03/18/2007 @ 10:51am
I put LRJONES on ignore when he told me that bush could solve all the worlds problems if the Democrats would just let him.The idea that one person could solve even one of the worlds problems is a tad naive to say the least.The idea that bush can solve them all is naive to the point of still believing in super heroes.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/18/2007 @ 10:59am
"The idea that bush can solve them all is naive to the point of still believing in super heroes."
I know many who feel the same way about the entire democratic party, especially their list of candidates...
Posted by john maasch at 03/18/2007 @ 11:16am
To Ponti
You've become self-parody.
Citing the IBD to show that these aren't just Bushie talking points is a little like citing Stormfront to prove that there really is a sinister Jewish conspiracy and it's not just a bunch of anti-Semitic whackjobs who say so.
Who are you going to cite next as an authority? Ann Coulter?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/18/2007 @ 11:58am
If David Corn was a serious journalist, he would divert his attention from that burlesque show in DC and try to find out how Valerie Plame's identity was uncovered in the first place. He can start by looking at her former place of employment.
Surely it must bother you Mr. Corn that the CIA may have had a hand in this?
So while you're in DC watching the dog chase his tail, the real leakers have moved on to their next target(s).
Posted by ACook at 03/18/2007 @ 12:30pm
Posted by ACOOK 03/18/2007 @ 12:30pm
Read his book.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/18/2007 @ 1:37pm
Might be good fiction.
Posted by john maasch at 03/18/2007 @ 2:12pm
"Read his book."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/18/2007 @ 1:37pm
Frank, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, I listen to Neal Boortz from WSB here in Atlanta. And, I'm not interested in reading David Corn's book either, I just want to know how serious is he about finding out how Valerie Plame's identity was revealed in the first place. In other words, how did Libby find out who she was before Dick Armitage beat him to the punch.
Also, Valarie Plame will never receive an apology from neither Scooter Libby or Dick Armitage. Even though Libby was talking to Judith Miller, he didn't get the chance to reveal her identity and Armitage doesn't care because he was out the State Department right after the 2004 election. And since he admitted to being the "leak" the Wilsons won't be able to collect a dime from him.
So when I read the other posts, I have to agree with John Maasch on this one, it's a dog and pony spin show and Henry Waxman and company are not the slightest bit concerned about Valerie Plame identity being exposed as opposed to giving off the impression that they are as serious as they claim to be to their liberal base in this so-called investigation. Right now she's the flavor of the month. This sorted tale will get buried when the next "crap that smells to high heaven" hits the fan.
Posted by ACook at 03/18/2007 @ 2:17pm
Yup, we've arrived at "Wild Cornered Animal" stage, and the only way this CRIMINAL CABAL can even attempt to save their own selfish asses is by launching a false flag attack against the US Navy off the coast of Iran and another against the US "Homeland" in order to justify the nuking of Iran AND the imposition of MARTIAL LAW here at home.
We don't have time to wait for impeachment. These people need to be arrested, and removed from their ability to make war against the American People, and the rest of the world.
All have committed FRAUD & TREASON.
"Protect & Defend The Constitution"
Those who have sworn the oath have a legal and moral obligation to do so. Failure to uphold that obligation makes you complicit. Silence and neutrality are no longer options. Reveal the truth.
Posted by plunger at 03/18/2007 @ 3:09pm
Willie there is a rumour getting around that the Liberal Center for 2007 is soft caramel with nuts. Is there any truth in that rumour?
Posted by QuagmireJONES4 03/18/2007 @ 02:22am
Oh quagmire
you hamsters are so stupid that you think the great liberal center is a food item.
maybe that's why you have such a low regard for human life. People have no higher value then dessert
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 3:57pm
oh maasch here maadch maasch massch
I see you still can't figure out how to post Toensing's law. and we're not giving you any hints this time
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:02pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/18/2007 @ 08:19am
scooootificus! investers business daily? BWAH Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
ok scootificus... here's a question for you before you take it in the poopshooticus.
When valerie wilson was listed in Who's Who as joe wilson's wife, did Who's Who happen to mention that she worked for the CIA?
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:05pm
Plame repeatedly answered questions about her official status at the CIA with an unconvincing 'I'm not a lawyer.'
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/18/2007 @ 08:29a
really.. then it should be easy for you to link or cut and paste the full question and the full response.
wait wait wait wait, i take that back. you're scootificus... taking in the poopshooticus. You'll need extra time.
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:08pm
Then she claimed that the smoking-gun e-mail she sent to her superiors recommending that her husband be sent to Niger -- after which he wrote a New York Times op-ed questioning Iraq's pursuit of nuclear material in Africa -- was taken 'out of context.'
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/18/2007 @ 08:32am
scootificus, this seems to be a trend. Instead of posting the text of her tesamony, we are suposed to trust you.
but you lie scootificus... you lie
(and you take it in the poopshooticus)
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:11pm
Yes, JR, we're all liars, all of us who give you such a hard time. Now take your little pills, have some milk and go nighty-night.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/18/2007 @ 08:35am
well we the words. But why do I get hte feeling that the light isn't on behind your eyes scootificus?
is it becuse they are clinched so tight from what's going on in the poopshooticus?
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:13pm
I do, because if she did, and both Wilson and Plame deny she did, it means that they're lying. The other day you said all of her superiors at the CIA who said she recommended her husband for the trip were misled by 'a junior staffer who wanted to take his story back'. Horseshit, they have an email from Plame that clearly shows her recommending him for the trip. Thus, she is a proven liar. I would say that goes to the issue of her crediblity, wouldn't you?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/18/2007 @ 08:39am
scootificus scootificus scootificus. I can see how this whole sordid episode is painful for you. You thought the chimps wanted to have nothing to do with the poopshooticus. They ran on it after all. Then there was jeff gannon. Following that mess there was a whole series of gay porn activity in the hamster congress. And now you, scootificus himself, has to take it in the poopshooticus.
your mad.. really
and we feel for you baby
Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:20pm
correction scootificus... we see the words. We're just laughing so hard it's a little tough to type them out
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 4:22pm
Posted by JACK ASS 03/18/2007 @ 11:58am
Citing the IBD to show that these aren't just Bushie talking points is a little like citing Stormfront to prove that there really is a sinister Jewish conspiracy and it's not just a bunch of anti-Semitic whackjobs who say so. Who are you going to cite next as an authority? Ann Coulter?
Jackass,
Would you rather I posted the editorials from the WSJ, the Washington Post, the former deupty AG who helped write the IIPA that every moonbat in town claims that someone (no-one knows who) violated, or from Clinton's impeachment lawyer David Boies, that all say the same thing as the IBD? Or are they on your Vast Right Wing Conspiracy list also? I'll give you a clue: if you think everyone in the world is crazy, you might have a problem.
Posted by pontificus at 03/18/2007 @ 7:48pm
I'll give you a clue: if you think everyone in the world is crazy, you might have a problem.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/18/2007 @ 7:48pm
scootificus, what if you think conservatives are crazy?
Posted by Will C. at 03/18/2007 @ 9:40pm
To Ponti:
[A]re they on your Vast Right Wing Conspiracy list also?
As a matter of fact, two of the three are. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has always been of an archconservative tilt, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they would fall in line with the White House. Under the sorry stewardship of Fred Hiatt, the editorial page of The Washington Post has been little better.
I am not familiar with Mr. Boies' piece.
Now, let me drill this into you:
Regardless of the definition of covert under the IIPA, Ms. Plame was covert under by any common standard. The DCI said she was covert and she and her husband for several years gave a cover story furnished by her employer (the CIA) to explain her source of income. The fact she was employed by the CIA was classified information.
As I stated last night, I once held a TS security clearance. I was an ELINT specialist (98J) in the US Army 30 years ago. Had I divulged the information that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA, I could have faced a court martial.
Blowing Ms. Plame's cover, whether it was a violation of the IIPA or some other statute, damaged the CIA's counterproliferation program. Not only do we now know that Ms. Plame employment at as an energy consultant at a firm called Brewster-Jennings was a cover, but that anybody else associated with that firm was at the time employed by the CIA. Ms. Plame is correct in stating that whole networks were ruined.
It was part of my training 30 years ago to learn that senetive information is to be guarded for reasons like that.
I consider the discussion around the IIPA, as if that were the only standard by which Ms. Plame's status as a covert operative could be judged, to be a red herring. It is only an attempt by the White House and Mr. Bush's minions, including the poster known here as Pontificus, to minimize Ms. Plame's contribution to counterproliferation and to falsely imply that she was not covert at all, that no crime could possibly have been committed and no damage to US national security was done.
Any one who says that no damage was done to the CIA's counterproliferation program as a result of blowing Ms. Plame's cover, as you did last night, doesn't know what he's talking about.
It is certainly within the purview of a congressional committee to determine whether present laws are adequate to cover the exposure of Ms. Plame's cover and, if not, what changes there should be in existing laws or what new laws should be written.
If you or some other representative of right wing thought, or what passes for thought among right wingers, wants to contribute something constructive to this discussion, then I have a few questions:
First, if White House and OVP staffers were just trying to get facts out why did they not just set the record straight in an above board manner? Why did Mr. Bush declassify a part of the NIE in a way that only three people knew about it for months? Why the leaks to "friendly" reporters like Judy Miller? Why not just call a press conference and announce to the world that the White House has certain issues with Mr. Wilson's piece in The New York Times and while he might have been right about this he was wrong about that and the other. If you are going to argue that they just couldn't get the facts out in a normal, straightforward way, then you must think the Bushies are more godawful stupid than I do.
Second, in order to get the facts out, why did Ms. Plame's cover need to be blown? I really don't understand why that was necessary. Only in the context of maliciousness directed at either Ms. Plame or her husband does that make the slighted sense, or indeed can one make any sense of the ham handed cloak and dagger nature of leaking information to "friendly" journalists rather than simply making public any information contradicting Mr. Wilson's findings in Niger.
That should keep you busy and out of trouble for a while.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/18/2007 @ 10:01pm
ACOOK, something is definetely not adding up. First you said this...
And, I'm not interested in reading David Corn's book either, I just want to know how serious is he about finding out how Valerie Plame's identity was revealed in the first place. In other words, how did Libby find out who she was before Dick Armitage beat him to the punch.
But then, you said this...
I have to agree with John Maasch on this one, it's a dog and pony spin show and Henry Waxman and company are not the slightest bit concerned about Valerie Plame identity being exposed...
You see, John couldn't care LESS about Plame's identity being exposed. He's been arguing that Plame was NOT covert and that exposing her wasn't 'wrong'.
If YOU understand that Valerie Plame was a covert agent in the employ of the CIA, and you truely care that 'somebody' exposed her identity (and did so for political reasons) then...
...welcome to the 'liberal side' of this issue.
And, when you say...
"Henry Waxman and company are not the slightest bit concerned about Valerie Plame identity being exposed..."
...you give the impression that this is an important point to YOU (as it is to me!) If that's true, then you need to seriously rethink your "I have to agree with John Maasch on this one..." because John has made made crystal clear that HE doesn't care one whit about either fact that Plame's identity as CIA was exposed OR about who 'exactly' did the exposing! I know you undoubtedly consider yourself to be on the 'conservative' side of the aisle...but, in reality, it appears this is NOT an issue to be divided along 'conservative vs liberl' lines. This appears to be more like one of those 'right vs wrong' issues.
For the record, If I'm reading you right, I share your concern that 'somebody' exposed Plame's CIA identity...and did so for political reasons. And whoever that 'somebody' is, deserves to be, both exposed, and punished as well.
Posted by Lillian at 03/18/2007 @ 10:16pm
post-Spring Break Big picture:
1) Fitz, a smart man trying his best to stay more or less nonpartisan, declines to waste his breath, time and integrity in front of Waxman! Right move! He got what he wanted (nailing the press) out of the Libby trial regardless of what happens from here on out!
2) Plame lacks credibility! Now, IF she didn't frolic in post-leak publicity and wasn't married to Joe Wilson, she would be less bimbo-like!
3) The Dems think that Cheney is running in `08....Evidence? After the first 100 hours as the majority, their agenda? `Defeat' the administration and cut off Dick C's chances! Smart!
4) The new Congress' approval rating remains below that of Bush...Hmmm, wonder why? Maybe #3) is not so smart!
5) Let's not forget the `new' non-scandal....after all, with more Dems in Congress, got to keep them busy doing something; especailly with 5-day work week now.....GO after an Hispanic AG!
Posted by Happy at 03/18/2007 @ 11:44pm
To Frank Grits:
To understand the logic of the Bush babies, you must at least have an appreciation of their underlying principle. I'm not saying you have to accept it. I don't.
The priciple states: No ranking figure of the Bush regime can do any wrong. It's a variation of an old Italian motto, il duce ha sempre ragione (the leader is always right).
So, let's see.
* If Valerie Plame were covert, then blowing cover would be wrong.
* The blowing of Ms. Plame's cover was done by Libby, Rove, Fleischer and Cheney.
* Therefore, Libby, Rove, Fleischer and Cheney did something wrong.
* But no member of the Bush regime can do any wrong.
* Libby, Rove, Fleischer and Cheney are members of the Bush regime.
* Therefore, Libby, Rove, Fleischer and Cheney can do no wrong.
Since the two conclusions contradict each other, we must conclude by reductio ad absurdum that Valerie Plame were not covert and had no cover to blow, otherwise we would contradict the great underlying principle of the universe, that no member of the Bush can do wrong.
Now, looking at it that way, it's simple. Or just simple-minded.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/18/2007 @ 11:57pm
Oh, right, Happy
Cheney, with an 18% approval rating, is going to run for president. And the Democrats are afraid? To have him as an opponent in 2008 would be a real gift.
And, of course, the Democrats will go after Gonzo because he's Hispanic. The fact that he's a political hack and a liar have nothing to do with it.
Am I reading you right or should we suggest to The Nation that the adopt a sarcasm emoticon for posts like yours?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 03/19/2007 @ 12:09am
I see Pontificus was on his hamster wheel all weekend.
Here's the secret, Pontificus - no matter how fast your little legs go, you still wind up in the same place.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/19/2007 @ 09:27am
What we saw on Friday of interest are two points that should make conservatives cringe: 1) They are now making a technical defense of Plame's outing, not covert "under the law". Remember conservatives don't believe in getting off from technicalities. 2) The second major principal violated by conservatives here is "taking personal responsibility". It would seem at the least that W or Cheney or Rove owes the Wilson's an apology. They did out her at political retribution. It did damage national security (even if you believe she wasn't covert "under the law" the firm that employed her was a CIA front company and outing her destroyed that cover).
Finally, watching this group destroys any credence to the oft repeated, progressives/liberals can't be trusted on national security matters. It would seem anything progressives/liberals do on national security pales in comparison to the damage done by the conservatives.
Posted by parheel at 03/19/2007 @ 10:13am
Outing Plame destroyed our number one covert operation that tracked Iranian Nuclear acquisition and development. The front company of Brewster Jennings was our number one source of intelligence in this area.
Forget Wilson, Smear, etc and focus on the result of her outing. A very important intelligence operation was destroyed precisely in an area that we need good intelligence. This was the war mongers plan from the start and it is TREASON. GoOd intelligence destroys their scapegoat of Bad Intelligence so it is obvious they needed Plames operation taken out. bUSHIES HAD DISCUSSED PLAME before Wilson's article appeared in the NYT.
TREASON! The NUMBER ONE IMPEACHAbLE OFFENSE. If the dems and media can't get Bush over this one we are fucked. Why this is not at the top of the Nation homepage is beyond me because it is treason so clearly and simply, and it is a straw that can bust Bush's back.
Posted by vultureman at 03/19/2007 @ 10:55am
As I have stated many times before, you and many people on the left with your knee-jerk anti-Bush agenda, have chosen to argue the technical definitions of the law rather than the spirit of the law in order to further your own partisan ends.
Damn! Those "technical definitions" in the statute can be such a drag, huh? Jeez, and I thought it was only liberals who gave weight to such ideas as the "spirit of the law" as opposed to the clear text of the statute.
Under the IIPA, "covert" is defined as "(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency-- (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."
You never took up my challenge to tell me which part of this definition Plame did not meet. Your muse, Ms. Toensing, never really explained either.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/19/2007 @ 12:45pm
Hman,
I have always been curious...why do you poo poo the very person who designed and wrote the law that is being appied to Plame..I don't want Plame to suffer anymore , and I don't think she is at all thses days..hell, a windfall has already left the station for her address..
Anyway, why is the woman who with Goldwater, conceived and hand wrote the bill ignored by the left when she says this was not and is not deigned for employees like Plame...and there are a number of things disturbing about her behavior and Wilsons..
AGAIN, WHY IS WAXMAN AND HIS CIRCUS NOT ASKING FOR ARMITAGE?
PS
I have an appointment in Boston Thurday and I arrive on Wed nite ..how far is Providence, RI? from downtown Boston?
Posted by john maasch at 03/19/2007 @ 1:08pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/19/2007 @ 1:08pm
I am not poo-pooing Toensing's qualifications, although I think you and others overstate her authority a bit - she did not design, author or write the statute BY HERSELF here - she played a role - maybe even a large one, but the statute underwent debate in Congress and Congress mandated certain sections be changed - including the definition of "covert."
My objection is with her conclusion - she has dug her heels in on Plame not being covert and seems reluctant to admit error on this clear factual point. She went out on a limb several years ago and is simply squirming now. For years, Toensing claimed Plame was not covert based on her opinion of what she saw in the public eye - she never said it was because of the "spirit of the law" or what the law was intended to protect.
She admits she has NO first-hand information on Plame's status apart from anything in the public. And when the information from Plame (and more importantly Hayden and the CIA) comes in, putting Plame within the meaning of covert - as defined in the statute - she says Plame's role was not the sort of "covert" she intended to be covered????
Given the amount of changes that the definition of "covert" underwent - changes that BROADENED the defintion - her recent attempt to NARROW the defintion seem fairly disingenuine. The statute says what it says - it is ridiculous to think that Congress intended to play some "how covert or like James Bond" was she after the fact. You are either covert or you are not. If there was a specific carve-out important enough for Toensing and Congress, it should have been part of the statute - it was not, so her new argument is baseless.
Wednesday night is no good for me - some other time perhaps. In any event, Providence is about 45 minutes to an hour from Boston.
Posted by Hman23 at 03/19/2007 @ 2:38pm
I really wish you'd stop pluggiing your book. Enough already - we all recognize that you are an intrepid and well-informed reporter.
Posted by frusso at 03/19/2007 @ 2:40pm