13-07-2005 03:32									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

It got worse for our buddy Scott today. I watched it live:

quote: Q Scott, some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance. Does the President see any need for that? MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think there's a lot of discussion that's going on in the context of an ongoing investigation. This is based on some news reports that came out recently. I think you heard me talk about the importance of helping this investigation move forward. I don't think it's helpful for me from this podium to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think it's most helpful for me to not comment while that investigation continues. And these are all issues that some are trying to raise in the context of news reports. I don't think we should be prejudging the outcome of any investigation at this point. Q But the issues of security clearance and criminal investigations are often on very separate tracks. So does the President see any reason, any necessity, at least in the interim, to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance? MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President -- first of all, let me back up -- some of you asked a couple of questions about does the President still have confidence in particular individuals, specifically Karl Rove. I don't want to get into commenting on things in the context of an ongoing investigation. So let me step back and point out that any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the President's confidence. And in terms of security clearances, there are a number of people at the White House that have various levels of security clearance. And I'm confident that those individuals have the appropriate security clearance. I haven't gone around looking at what those security clearances are. Q But, Scott, are you suggesting -- I think it's pretty clear to everybody at this point you don't want to comment on the investigation. But the President has also spoken about this when asked. So does the President -- MR. McCLELLAN: Spoken about? Q Well, he has spoken about these questions that have come up as part of a leak investigation. So does he retain confidence in Karl Rove, specifically? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence. That's why I stepped back from this and talked about it in the broader context. Now, these questions are coming up in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I stated long ago, you all will remember, that the investigation is continuing, I want to be helpful to the investigation, I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation, and that's why I made a decision and the White House made a decision quite some time ago that we weren't going to get into commenting on questions related to that investigation. Q But isn't the difficulty that you have said to the public, dating back to 2003, affirmatively, Karl Rove is not involved, and now we have evidence to the contrary? So how do you reconcile those two things? How does the President reconcile those two things? MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation. I'm not going to do that from this podium. You do point out some statements that were made. I remember well the comments that were made. After that point, I also remember going and testifying in this investigation. I remember well individuals who are involved overseeing this investigation expressing their preference personally to me that we not get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think that's the way to be most helpful as they move forward, and that's why I'm in the position that I am. I'm not going to get into jumping on every news report as the investigation continues and trying to comment on them, because I don't think that's helpful. So I think you have to step back from any individual news story or individual reports. Let's let the investigation take place. I look forward to talking about some of these matters once the investigation is complete. I welcome the opportunity to talk about some of these questions, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so at this time. Q Let's just -- just one final -- MR. McCLELLAN: And I think the American people can understand and appreciate that. Q Well, we'll see. But I just have one final question on this. The question of whether a law has been broken, a crime committed, is a separate matter. You're not going to resolve that; that's for a grand jury to decide. But we know what the facts are. We know that Karl Rove spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife, referring to the fact that she worked at the Agency. You've heard Democrats who say that -- say today that alone was inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish by having the conversation he did? And does the President think that it was fair of him to do that? Was it fair game? MR. McCLELLAN: Now, that's a question related to an ongoing investigation. The investigation continues, David. I think you know that very well. I've responded to that question. And if I were to start commenting on news reports or things related to the investigation, I'm getting into prejudging the outcome of that investigation. I don't want to do that from this podium. Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point. Q But, Scott, there's a difference between what's legal and what's right. Is what Karl Rove did right? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, you can state the obvious. I understand and appreciate that, and I appreciate you all. I know you all want to get to the bottom of this. I want to get to the bottom of it; the President has said no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does. We want to see it come to a successful conclusion. The best way to help the investigation come to a successful conclusion is for me not to get into discussing it from this podium. I don't think that -- Q Well, wait, wait, wait -- MR. McCLELLAN: Wait -- I don't think that helps advance the investigation. Q All right, you say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working, obviously, on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like, Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story. And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as, Cooper -- the Time reporter -- called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this. So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story? MR. McCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I'll let them speak to that. What I know is that the President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion, and that means not commenting on it from this podium. Q Well, if -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand your question. Q Well, Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They're getting that information from here, from Karl Rove. MR. McCLELLAN: And again, you're asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you've had my response on that. Q At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement -- MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll come back to you if I can. Q -- of September 29th, 2003, that it is simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identify of a CIA operative? Can you stand by that statement? MR. McCLELLAN: John, I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it's not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing. Q So should we take that as a yes or a no? MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Dick. Q Can you explain why -- Q Scott, this was a statement you made, on the record, 21-months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday. Go ahead, Dick. Q Can you explain why the President chose today to break with his usual practice of taking two questions from the American side at events with a foreign leader, and only taking one? MR. McCLELLAN: Just last Friday, I think, with Prime Minister Blair, or Thursday, they did the same thing. Q The practice in the Oval Office is to take two questions. I'm just curious why -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we did that last week with Prime Minister Blair, as well. You're going to have other opportunities to see him this week. Q If he had responded to a question today about Karl Rove, would he have gone beyond your stance here of just not commenting? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're going to have other opportunities to ask him questions. He takes questions on a fairly regular basis, Dick. Q Let me -- let me just do what you did a few moments ago and step back from the context of the investigation to the President's agenda. Does Karl Rove, with all the attention being paid to him now, become a liability to the President, an impediment to his pushing his agenda? MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're asking all these context in -- all these questions in the context of the news reports relating to an investigation -- Q I'm talking about it now in the larger sense of Rove being the Deputy Chief of Staff. MR. McCLELLAN: We're continuing to move forward on our agenda, and the -- we're on the verge of accomplishing some very big things when it comes to the agenda. And -- Q But is Karl Rove an impediment now, with all this attention distracting from that push on your agenda? MR. McCLELLAN: Everybody who is working here is helping us to advance the agenda, and that includes Karl in a very big way. Q Has he apologized to you for telling you he is not involved? MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to get into any private discussions. Q He put you on the spot. He put your credibility on the line. MR. McCLELLAN: And, Helen, I appreciate you all wanting to move forward and find the facts relating to this investigation. I want to know all the facts relating to the investigation. Q You people are on the record, one quote after another. MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants to get to the bottom of it. And it's just not appropriate. If you'll remember back two years ago, or almost two years ago, I did draw a line and I said, we're just not going to get into commenting on -- Q You also made comments in defending Mr. Rove. MR. McCLELLAN: We're just not going to get into commenting on an investigation that continues. And I think you've heard me explain why I'm not going to do that. I do want to talk about this -- Q Do you regret putting yourself out on a limb, Scott? MR. McCLELLAN: I do want to talk about this, and we will talk about it once the investigation is complete. Q Do you regret what you said in 2003? MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Q Do you regret putting yourself so far out on a limb when you don't know the facts? MR. McCLELLAN: David, you had your opportunity. I'll try to come back to you if I can, but I think I've responded to those questions. Q Well, you haven't responded to that. Do you think you went too far two years ago? ... Q Does the White House have a credibility problem? MR. McCLELLAN: Ed, these are all questions that you're bringing up in the context of an investigation that is ongoing -- Q I'm not asking about that. MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's clear that this is coming up in the context of news -- Q We could talk about WMDs, a whole range of issues. MR. McCLELLAN: -- in the context of news reports. And I appreciate those questions. And I think you're trying to get at the specific news reports and wanting me to comment on those specific news reports and -- Q But they're news reports that have been confirmed by Karl Rove's attorney, Scott. MR. McCLELLAN: John, you can keep jumping in, but I'm going to try to keep going to other people in this room, as well. And we can have constructive dialogue here, I think, but that's not the way to do it. Q It's not my job to have a constructive dialogue, Scott. Sorry.

	13-07-2005 04:40									#32
	Increase Your PM Length

Is there even a crime here?

	13-07-2005 04:46									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It's not my job to have a constructive dialogue, Scott. Sorry.

Priceless. I can't wait to get home from work to see the video.

	13-07-2005 04:57									#34
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Is there even a crime here?

Probably perjury (which, as you may remember from Clinton's blowjob, is something the GOP takes very, very seriously), possibly more.

But there's also an extraordinary lapse in judgment and breach of security by one of the president's closest advisors which, even if not criminal, is obviously grievously wrong.

And there's the president's statement on record that he would fire anyone involved with this, so his credibility (such as it is) is on the line, too.

Do it the other way: suppose a high-ranking Clinton official -- George Stephanopolous, say -- had outed the CIA agent wife of one of the administration's vocal critics, for no better reason than sheer, nasty revenge:

1) What would the GOP response have looked like?
2) Would you have been as dismissive of that situation?

	13-07-2005 05:06									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly 2) Would you have been as dismissive of that situation?

If it wasn't clear that a crime had been committed, I'd likely had been as dismissive until such evidence had been provided. I don't see why that's even a question.

	13-07-2005 05:27									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc If it wasn't clear that a crime had been committed, I'd likely had been as dismissive until such evidence had been provided. I don't see why that's even a question.

Because you see pro-Bushies dismissing things that they would have frothed at mouth at had Clinton done them -- and vice versa, to be sure. I didn't remember your posts clearly enough to remember if you were in that camp. Always refreshing to see a principled stand.

But I still don't think such dismissiveness is merited. Even if its not a crime, it is the other things I've mentioned -- a serious lapse of judgment and a deliberate security breach in time of war -- and that's still important. If the bar is so low that presidents and their staffs are forgiven everything short of crimes, God help the Republic.

	13-07-2005 05:31									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: It was an intent to show Wilson was a hack. He was not under directives of the admin or DCIA to investigate. His mission(?) was directed instead by his wife. And ultimately his Clouseau-sian inspection techniques led him to believe he was the ultimate authority in yellowcake deals in Africa. NOT!

That was the WH spin, his wife didnt have the authority to create a mission and assign him the task. According to Wilson, his wife merely mentioned him as a possible investigator after the CIA (and WH bigwigs) wanted to send someone to investigate. I believe it was Cheney who asked the CIA to investigate but I'm not sure.

quote: It clearly doesn't matter. If Plame recommended to the CIA that Wilson should be sent to Niger to investigate the uranium industry, who the **** cares? Incidentally, he was perfectly qualified, and his claims have actually borne out, while it turns out that Dear Leader's claims relied on forged Italian documents.

Yup, if I am to believe his investigation was corrupted due to ill-will, I need better evidence than: look at his wife.

quote: You know, Agee sued that last fool who libeled him that way (Barbara Bush) and won. You should retract that statement, since it is false. Agee wrote a book, Inside the Company which did not name names, but rather described CIA operations in Latin America in the 1960s.

Just reporting what I've heard on TV the last few days about the origin of this law. That ain't libel...

	13-07-2005 05:50									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If Rove testified at the GJ he didnt leak anything, then he's in trouble (how was Clinton punished?). But its very unclear that the info was classified and the law requires it. I believe the law says the agent outed had to have been overseas within the last 5 years and probably in a covert position. Its not clear that applies and I dont know if anyone has shown she was overseas in that period. Thats what one of the authors of the law - Victoria Tunstill ? - said on Dan Abrams today. And she said the law was a reaction to Phillip Agee outing agents.

	13-07-2005 05:57									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly -- a serious lapse of judgment and a deliberate security breach in time of war -- and that's still important.

It maybe a judgement lapse but it really isn't clear that it is a security breach because it hasn't been established that the agent is covert or that the government had been taking measures to conceal her relationship with the Agency.

quote: At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert." The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...A2305-2005Jan11

	13-07-2005 06:12									#40
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Looks like Chegitz might be right about Agee's innocense.

quote: "If they had notified their station chief and headquarters, we could have gotten the FBI involved for criminal investigation, but we lost that opportunity," said one former senior CIA official who was involved in handling the matter. "And Agee got away."

This from an LA Times piece described as a hit piece by the people quoting it.

Now, I can understand "And Agee got away" if the guy was on the run and in hiding like Osama, but this guy is not in hiding. It even says he lives in Hamburg Germany.
Two (3?) CIA agents witness a crime and identify the criminal and "he got away" to live in Hamburg Germany because we don't have enough evidence to convict him?
Have the standard for prosecuting a traitor become so tough 2 eyewitnesses, state employees no less, is insufficient evidence? That smells bad...

Combine that with a motive for smearing him and it smells worse.

	13-07-2005 06:18									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yup Dino, Victoria Tunstill said the law was very specific and doesn't apply in this case. She helped write it...

	13-07-2005 06:23									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Is there even a crime here?

Who cares? I was sick of this story two years ago, when the first press frenzy happened...

	13-07-2005 06:23									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc It maybe a judgement lapse but it really isn't clear that it is a security breach because it hasn't been established that the agent is covert or that the government had been taking measures to conceal her relationship with the Agency.

No, the piece you posted was about whether or not it was a crime; she has to have been covert for her outing to have been criminal. But drawing attention to an agent who is not publicly acknowledged to be CIA is always a security breach -- just not always a criminal one.

	13-07-2005 07:28									#44
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Its a lame duck administration with or without Rove now.

This is the way the world ends,
not with a bang,
but with a whimper.

	13-07-2005 08:12									#45
	Remove this text

Now I see why Plame matters, Wilson said Cheney wanted an investigation of the Niger yellowcake issue. In response to this, Rove said it wasnt Cheney as Wilson claims, but his wife at the CIA. They were rebutting a claim made by Wilson, not getting him back. Thats what Newt said on O'Reilly tonite and it makes sense.

	13-07-2005 08:21									#46
	Put an end to popups!

its despicable to blow the cover of an intelligence officer any way you look at it

	13-07-2005 08:27									#47
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

So is lying to embarass an administration you don't like. Hard to give a **** when both sides are playing dirty...

	13-07-2005 08:42									#48
	Tired of ads?

there are many ways to deal with that and keep it inhouse

	13-07-2005 08:52									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, if Rove's lawyer is telling the truth, Rove never wanted the information to get out in the first place.

quote: In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame." First the e-mail. According to a report in Newsweek, Cooper's e-mail to Time Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy said, "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper said that Rove had warned him away from getting "too far out on Wilson," and then passed on Rove's statement that neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor CIA Director George Tenet had picked Wilson for the trip; "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." Finally — all of this is according to the Newsweek report — Cooper's e-mail said that "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly that there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..." A few days after sending the e-mail, Cooper co-wrote an article headlined "A War on Wilson?" that appeared on Time's website. The story began, "Has the Bush administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps." The story continued: Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices. Plame's role in Wilson's assignment was later confirmed by a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out." "Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife." Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp

	13-07-2005 09:06									#50
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Yay, Jon Stewart has it covered.

	13-07-2005 09:34									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse its despicable to blow the cover of an intelligence officer any way you look at it

She wasn't undercover.

	13-07-2005 09:39									#52
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sounds about right, Drake. Innocent mistake...if that... Even makes Rove look decent, trying to warn a reporter before they make a mistake. Ironic...the friendly warning was turned into a conspiracy with many fooled, including me. Reporters are like cops - both have jobs requiring a highly suspicious mind.

	13-07-2005 09:43									#53
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc She wasn't undercover.

Really?

quote: The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

	13-07-2005 09:49									#54
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Sounds about right, Drake. Innocent mistake...if that... Even makes Rove look decent, trying to warn a reporter before they make a mistake. Ironic...the friendly warning was turned into a conspiracy with many fooled, including me. Reporters are like cops - both have jobs requiring a highly suspicious mind.

Even if technically correct, which I'm highly skeptical, it appears Karl Rove either outright lied to Scott McClellan or McClellan outright blatantly lied to the press on this matter. This is extremely serious and no laughing matter.

	13-07-2005 09:53									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Mordoch Even if technically correct, which I'm highly skeptical, it appears Karl Rove either outright lied to Scott McClellan or McClellan outright blatantly lied to the press on this matter. This is extremely serious and no laughing matter.

Don't forget lying to the grand jury, too.

Even if it wasn't leaked with the intent to out an agent, the fact that it did so should result in Rove losing his security clearance. Hell, he should have it suspended while he's under investigation. Why should someone under investigation for a security breach be permitted to retain his security clearance in the meantime?

	13-07-2005 10:13									#56
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Really?

Yes.

quote: Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

	13-07-2005 10:19									#57
	Tired of ads?

The only thing that matters is that the press is inscandal mode and pressing the admin. therefore weakening its hands.

Its great to see the cowardly corporate press turn on this WH, even for this small moment. There are so many things this admin. should have been crucified for before, but if this is what gets the press' blood boiling, well, go for it.

Hang them out to dry boys

	13-07-2005 10:19									#58
	Put an end to popups!

If she wasn't undercover why did they have a front...?

	13-07-2005 10:20									#59
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Yes. quote: Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

How does that support your categorical assertion that she wasn't covert? This just says it's in question, it doesn't disprove it. And the CIA source in my link says she was indeed covert, or at least qualified under the statute (which means she could have been covert status as far back as 1998).

Let's see, what do I believe more...supposition on her status from an op-ed, or a quoted CIA source? Dilemma, dilemma.

	13-07-2005 10:25									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Let's see, what do I believe more...supposition on her status from an op-ed the person that wrote the law in question, or a quoted CIA anonymous source? Dilemma, dilemma.

It stumps me as well.