13-07-2005 10:27									#62
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc It stumps me as well.

And how would this person know whether or not Plame had been considered covert by the CIA sometime between 1998-2003? Oh wait, it says in the op-ed they don't know, they need clarification. In the conclusion it stated clearly that the CIA needed to clarify Plame's status before legal action was taken against anyone. That hardly sounds like categorical denial that Plame was covert.

And again, how does "questionable" translate to a certainty for you? The conclusion of the op-ed was nowhere near the certainty you expressed.

	13-07-2005 10:48									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

Huh? Is it not unlawful to disclose the identity of a CIA officer?

	13-07-2005 10:51									#64
	Got spare money?

No, it's unlawful to intentionally dislose the identity of a covert CIA officer. However, it has yet to be shown one way or another if either of these were the case. According to the CIA, she was indeed covert, hence why they're even bothering with an investigation. Why investigate otherwise?

	13-07-2005 10:52									#65
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Would it make you feel better if I had stated that given the available evidence claims that Plame was a covert agent are highly suspect?

	13-07-2005 10:56									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'd rather you just state what is known, and it isn't yet known whether or not Plame was indeed covert at the time.

But if the CIA has forwarded it on to a special prosecutor to investigate, wouldn't that indicate that the CIA, at least, thinks she was covert and it was blown?

	13-07-2005 11:00									#67
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Would it make you feel better if I had stated that given the available evidence claims that Plame was a covert agent are highly suspect?

Yes, its more accurate

	13-07-2005 11:01									#68
	Got spare money?

The desk job in Langley tends to speak against her having covert status.

	13-07-2005 11:03									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The desk job in Langley tends to speak against her having covert status.

The law says she has to have served outside the U.S within 5 years. How do you know she didn't do so sometime between 1998-2003?

If she wasn't covert, why did she have a front?

If she wasn't covert, why did the CIA refer this to a special prosecutor for criminal investigation?

	13-07-2005 11:13									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

not at all Dino - you don't understand

Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 13-07-2005 at 11:29

	13-07-2005 14:47									#71
	Got spare money?

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.

Point being Cooper's the ***** here. Not that Rove isn't a ***** its just in this instance all threads of communication originated from Cooper and Rove was attmpeting to prevent the Times from looking like idiots when the final story surfaced. In the long run the WH was right it was a non-story from a lying Megalomaniac Wilson. Course that didn't prevent the Times and every other media source from running the hit piece anyway.

	13-07-2005 16:35									#72
	Remove this text

quote: Ramo, Don't even try, your not funny and obviously not original. The point being Bush in 2003 made the statement that if a person was found to be doing something illegal then that person would be dealt with. For cryin out loud simply look at the ABC newscasts where they have the quote plastered day and night. The 2004 intereview was an affirmation of his 2003 pledge to deal lawbreakers. The question was obviously wrong in that he NEVER pledged in 2003 to fire leakers but moreover DID pledge to "DEAL WITH" lawbreakers. Obviously the important part of his answer to the affirmative was in keeping with his earlier pledge i.e. not to allow memebrs of the whitehouse to break the law. Now if Rove is found to have broken the law including perjury in front of grand jury Rove will be dealt with. Until such time as that can be understood completely it is fully understandable to keep their mouths shut. The ridiculous claims of the press for Roves head ( a promise Never made originally and weakly Nay nonexistently promised in the 2004 press conference) are premature until it is understood to what if any extent Rove broke the law.

Christ, how can you be this dense. The quotes that I'm pointing out. NOT some quote you have in mind, have absolutely nothing to do with breaking the law. Just leaking classified information. And they specifiy firing. Try reading the actual quotes, please. I didn't cite ABC, but very specific quotes.

quote: 'cepting that leaking classified information is a crime Dufus.

Not under the law that the special prosecutor is looking at. It is illegal under the Espionage Act, but the relevant law here, the Intelligence Identities Act, is much more narrow, and deals specifically with outing a covert agent, with a very narrow definition of covert agent, under which Plame may or may not qualify. So, Rove very well may have leaked Plame's identity, while not breaking the law since the Espionage Act isn't used very often. Dufus.

Your hackery is absolutely pathetic.

	13-07-2005 16:43									#73
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: The desk job in Langley tends to speak against her having covert status.

Her employment at a phony energy company tends to speak for her covert status. A desk job afterwards doesn't imply that any previous jobs were CIA fronts (indeed, energy expertese would be reasonable grounds for CIA employment).

	13-07-2005 17:10									#74
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ramo (indeed, energy expertese would be reasonable grounds for CIA employment).

Direct and official CIA employment seems like it would be a big no-no for someone with a need for cover, yes?

	13-07-2005 17:14									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Direct and official CIA employment seems like it would be a big no-no for someone with a need for cover, yes?

While its a debatable decision, it actually could potentially work well as an undercover strategy. After all, foreign intel agencies would figure there is no way she could have been a covert agent before if she was officially employed by them now.

	13-07-2005 17:34									#76
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Isn't every day

A Bad Day to Be Scott McClellan

	13-07-2005 17:52									#77
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Isn't every day A Bad Day to Be Scott McClellan

That was my first thought when I saw the thread title too.

	13-07-2005 18:03									#78
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Direct and official CIA employment seems like it would be a big no-no for someone with a need for cover, yes?

It seems like I was mistaken. At the time of the leak, Plame was still under non-official cover working for the energy company.

	13-07-2005 18:15									#79
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Interesting comment from ex-CIA analyst Larry Johnson:

quote: The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie. For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove. Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed. The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her. The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate. They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world. But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford. The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses. At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

	13-07-2005 18:16									#80
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, if Karl Rove thought that there was nothing wrong with releasing the identity of Wilson's wife, then why did he insist that it be on "double super secret background"?

And then why did he deny being the source of the leak, despite the fact that the White House was "determined" to find and punish the leaker?

There's no getting around it. Rove knew what he was doing was at least wrong and almost certainly knew it was illegal. And he did it knowingly and maliciously to discredit someone who spoke out against Bush's policies.

To prison with him.

	13-07-2005 18:19									#81
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Point being Cooper's the ***** here. Not that Rove isn't a ***** its just in this instance all threads of communication originated from Cooper and Rove was attmpeting to prevent the Times from looking like idiots when the final story surfaced. In the long run the WH was right it was a non-story from a lying Megalomaniac Wilson. Course that didn't prevent the Times and every other media source from running the hit piece anyway.

I'm sure those were Rove's motives.

Every so often, one side or the other does something that really is in no ways justifiable. In this instance, there really can be no defence of Rove. Even under the unlikely case that Plume was not a "covert" agent (don't you think that a grand jury would first establish that a crime had been committed?), the act is still morally wrong. And I won't even mention the WH's backpedaling. Point being, you win the partisan hackery award. Let me be the first to congratulate you.

	13-07-2005 18:56									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ramo It seems like I was mistaken. At the time of the leak, Plame was still under non-official cover working for the energy company.

Sorry, having a cover doesnt make her a NOC.

I very much doubt that she was a NOC or that she was a covert agent at all (in the sense intentioned by this law).

OTOH, even though she was an analyst (IMO) and not an operative (although that is not required), I believe that she was 'outed' in a deliberate manner and that is worthy of investigation. Even if an agent is not truly covert, it is a security risk to bandy about the names of intelligence personel. Outing her in this manner must have broken other american laws and, at an absolute minimum, was unethical and worthy of dismissal for the guilty party(ies).

	13-07-2005 19:17									#83
	Inflate your Upload Space

I didn't say that having a cover makes her NOC. I said that she was NOC, and that the energy company background was her cover. For instance, according to the Hill:

quote: CIA agents work under different sorts of “cover.” There’s “official cover” — like when an agent is assigned to a U.S. embassy under the guise that he or she is a foreign service officer. Then there’s “nonofficial” cover — like when your business cards say you’re a manager at Acme Overseas Energy Corporation, but you really work for the CIA. Plame is in that latter category.

http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/073003.aspx

And as Johnson said, in the post above:

quote: A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed. The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her. The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

	13-07-2005 19:36									#84
	Tired of ads?

Another interesting thing I found:

quote: Plame "ran intelligence operations overseas," said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief. Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said. [...] Cannistraro called Plame's outing a "dirty trick." "Her assets may be at risk," he said. "I think that's what justified the probe."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/st...5p-110377c.html

She wasn't an analyst, but ran operations.

	13-07-2005 19:41									#85
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: In the long run the WH was right it was a non-story from a lying Megalomaniac Wilson. Course that didn't prevent the Times and every other media source from running the hit piece anyway.

As an addendum to my above post, the above is simply wrong. The facts of that matter are that Wilson was selected for the mission to Niger in part because a memo from his wife established his qualifications for the mission. Equating that to "his wife authorized the mission" is utterly crap. While in Niger, he determined that Saddam Hussein was not and could not be getting uranium from Niger, which was the point of his June 6th editorial. His findings proved that the documents that were being thrown around by the Bush administration saying that Hussein was getting uranium from Niger were false. His findings were also ignored by the Bush administration, leaving him with no recourse but to go public.

To recap, "it was a non-story" is crap. The story was that the Bush administration was basing the necessity for a war in part on demonstratably false intelligence. "Lying megalomaniac Wilson" is also crap. He never said that he debunked the claim that Hussein was getting uranium from Africa, that is a charge made up by the GOP. That being said, all Bush would have had to do was find those pesky WMDs. And boy, did that happen.

	13-07-2005 20:12									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I didn't say that having a cover makes her NOC. I said that she was NOC, and that the energy company background was her cover. For instance, according to the Hill: http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/073003.aspx And as Johnson said, in the post above:

If she walks in through the door at Langley (for example) she is not 'a NOC' even though she has a non-official cover. Therefore, she shouldnt really be covered by the intent of the law. As I said before though, that's somewhat beside the point.

I have no reason to doubt his word, but I'm a little suspicious of Johnson. He is "known" as a former CIA agent yet he is identifying Plame as 'a NOC' not an analyst with non-official cover.

Its just SOP in the intel world to never admit anything of this nature even in the face of overwhelming proof. So either he's playing with words 'a NOC' vs NOC (for some reason) or he's screwed up and confirmed something that shouldnt be confirmed. In my experience, that is almost as wrong as what the others have done.

	13-07-2005 20:20									#87
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Vanguard Well, if Karl Rove thought that there was nothing wrong with releasing the identity of Wilson's wife, then why did he insist that it be on "double super secret background"?

Yup. And this makes the notion that innocent-little-Rove was just being a nice guy and "warning" the Times very suspect. If that were the case, he could have just spoken off the record to Cooper. The way he did it indicated that he very much wanted his information on Plame out in the press. So I fail to see why Cooper is an "*******" for doing precisely what Rove wanted him to do.

Also, Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame was "fair game." And the Washington Post reported in 2003 that two admin officials had shopped the Plame info around to 6 journalists. That, to me, looks very much like their intent wasn't anything so noble as warning a paper, but rather deliberately spreading information to undermine Wilson's credibility.

	13-07-2005 20:22									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: If she walks in through the door at Langley (for example) she is not 'a NOC' even though she has a non-official cover. Therefore, she shouldnt really be covered by the intent of the law. As I said before though, that's somewhat beside the point. I have no reason to doubt his word, but I'm a little suspicious of Johnson. He is "known" as a former CIA agent yet he is identifying Plame as 'a NOC' not an analyst with non-official cover. Its just SOP in the intel world to never admit anything of this nature even in the face of overwhelming proof. So either he's playing with words 'a NOC' vs NOC (for some reason) or he's screwed up and confirmed something that shouldnt be confirmed. In my experience, that is almost as wrong as what the others have done.

If you believe the ex-chief of counterterrorism at the CIA, Cannistraro, she was definitely not an analyst, but she ran operations (so, her assets would be endangered by the leak). See my prior post.

And what exactly is wrong with what Johnson said? He doesn't endanger a single person with what he said; Rove OTOH possibly did.

	13-07-2005 20:49									#89
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo If you believe the ex-chief of counterterrorism at the CIA, Cannistraro, she was definitely not an analyst, but she ran operations (so, her assets would be endangered by the leak). See my prior post. And what exactly is wrong with what Johnson said? He doesn't endanger a single person with what he said; Rove OTOH possibly did.

Assuming she was 'a NOC', its not impossible that the cover-up/attempt to portray her as an analyst was instigated in order to protect her contacts (or at least cloud the issue) once it was realized the seriousness of the leak.

Rove (or whomever) may have believed her to be an analyst at the time of the leak. Although it is wrong to publicize the name of any agent of any kind it was hardly a threat to national security. Once she was outed though, bells and whistles may have gone off amongst those few who knew that she was not an analyst. The agency may have been interested in downplaying her function.

Again, lets assume she was 'a NOC'. Now every intel agency in the world knows it (as opposed to believing it) because its been confirmed by people who were in a position to know (but shouldnt have said). Johnson and Cannistraro should have known that and kept their mouths shut. Like I said, it's SOP.

	13-07-2005 21:00									#90
	Tired of ads?

That's assuming anybody would believe any such attempts to recast her as an analyst. If foreign intelligence services have had contacts with Plame's assets during this time, they know that their intelligence is compromised anyways. They're not going to believe any half-assed cleanup operation recasting her as an analyst. Besides, I don't think that the Agency would use rightwing opeds trying to protect the Admin as a vehicle for such a recasting. It's a blatantly ludicrous idea.