# Plame is out of the closet



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Well, as of this morning it has been confirmed by both Valerie Plame and Gen. Hayden of the CIA that Plame was indeed a covert agent of the CIA at the time of her outing by Administration officials, and a high pay-grade analyst working on Iraqi WMD.

The central theme of the Adminisration supporters has been that she was not covert and therefore the entire Libby trial should have never happened...it was nothing but a political witch hunt.

This admission pretty much renders the GOP talking points inoperative.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

1) So why didn't Fitzgerald bring charges against anyone?

2) Why would a covert CIA operative be so reckless as to recommend that her husband go on a trip to Nigeria to investigate whether or not they were cooperating with Iraq on Nukes and then follow-up that recklessness by allowing him to write his opinions in a NYT op-ed report?

3) I don't see her taking any steps to protect herself from public scrutiny

4) Man she is HOTTTT!!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> 1) So why didn't Fitzgerald bring charges against anyone?
> 
> 2) Why would a covert CIA operative be so reckless as to recommend that her husband go on a trip to Nigeria to investigate whether or not they were cooperating with Iraq on Nukes and then follow-up that recklessness by allowing him to write his opinions in a NYT op-ed report?
> 
> ...


Yes, she is a super secret hottie 

No charges were brought for the initial crime investigation as Fitzgerald couldn't prove any of the multiple leakers knew she was covert. But it's clear now that the investigation was justified.

Wilson was a good fit for the Niger job, and I don't believe he disclosed any secret information in the op-ed. If he's not going to damage national security by stating his opinion why should she try to stop him?

3) What's the point? She's out...

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Wilson was a good fit for the Niger job, and I don't believe he disclosed any secret information in the op-ed. If he's not going to damage national security by stating his opinion why should she try to stop him?


Its not that he disclosed secret information. Its that he was married to a "covert operative" and she is the one who recommended him for the trip. It should have been apparent to both of them that sooner or later someone would want to know how it was that a patent administration critic was chosen to investigate these charges. Furthermore why did he lie and say that it was the VEEP who sent him when in fact it was his wife that recommended him. They were reckless and they have no one to blame but themselves. She outed herself and both of them should shut up and stick to being the toast of the town.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> It should have been apparent to both of them that sooner or later someone would want to know how it was that a patent administration critic was chosen to investigate these charges.


Before the State of the Union address was Wilson a critic? I've never heard this...


> Furthermore why did he lie and say that it was the VEEP who sent him when in fact it was his wife that recommended him.


I don't believe the record indicates he ever said that, it's a false claim. Wilson said repeatedly he was sent by the CIA on request of the VP's office.


> They were reckless and they have no one to blame but themselves. She outed herself and both of them should shut up and stick to being the toast of the town.


Wilson's larger ego doesn't justify Administration actions regarding issues of national security.

And what did Plame do? Work hard and at times put her safety at risk to serve the our country!

Outed herself. Are you just making things up now?

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

If the administration (and let's be honest it was Dick Armitage) purposely outed a covert operative I would agree with you but, as Fitzgerald found out, no one that mentioned her name knew that she was covert and that is one of the pre-conditions to outing someone covert. And while true that she did serve her country faithfully it was still reckless of her to recommend that her HUSBAND go on a SECRET mission to Nigeria on behalf of her employer. As I said before, she compromised her own status by doing so. How do I know? Look at what happened:
He went, blabbered to the NYT and fed the congress a bunch of BS. When people started looking into how someone so opposed to the administration could have been sent on behalf of the administration....Well what do you know. It was his WIFE! If it had been anyone else her name would never have been mentioned.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> it was still reckless of her to recommend that her HUSBAND go on a SECRET mission to Nigeria on behalf of [the CIA]


No, the reckless part was where, despite the fact that he was on a fact-finding mission for the CIA, for Christ's sake, he (and the sycophantic, slathering hoard that strokes him day after day) still thinks it's perfectly acceptable to write an op-ed for the New York Times discussing this oh-so-secret mission.

He ought to be in jail.

My favorite part is where she says that she didn't recommend her husband for the mission (you know, the one he wrote about in the New York Times).

It was some guy.

Who walked past her office.

Her supervisor thought that _Some Guy_'s idea was peachy, so he asked her to write him an e-mail, the one that is now public record, the one where she recommended him.

But it wasn't _her_ idea.

No, it was _some guy_.

Who walked past her office.

_Some guy_.

But can't say who, exactly.

Uh-huh.

They've had a few years to come up with a story and _this_ is the best they can do?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Spence said:


> Well, as of this morning it has been confirmed by both Valerie Plame and Gen. Hayden of the CIA that Plame was indeed a covert agent of the CIA at the time of her outing by Administration officials, and a high pay-grade analyst working on Iraqi WMD.
> 
> -spence


Interestingly, in what I heard of her testimony, she 
was asked if anyone in the CIA had told her, prior to or after her husband's mission, that she was a covert agent. She could not give a straight answer. After trying to tap dance around the question a bit, she did finally just say,"No".

That seemed odd to me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Well, as of this morning it has been confirmed by both Valerie Plame and Gen. Hayden of the CIA that Plame was indeed a covert agent of the CIA at the time of her outing by Administration officials, and a high pay-grade analyst working on Iraqi WMD.
> 
> The central theme of the Adminisration supporters has been that she was not covert and therefore the entire Libby trial should have never happened...it was nothing but a political witch hunt.
> 
> ...


She said she doesn't know her legal status. Well, that's simple if she "was" covert within five years she would know her status. She's playing a game like Clinton did with the "definition of is". People are not covert agents and analysts at the same time. She "was" formerly a covert agent, but at the time Armitage leaked her relationship to Wilson she was analyst and had not been covert in six years.

This is just political pandering and B.S. by Waxman.

Do you really thinking working at the CIA as a WMD analyst is a 'cover' for secret agents? LOL


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> She "was" formerly a covert agent, but at the time Armitage leaked her relationship to Wilson she was analyst and had not been covert in six years.


Well, General Hayden head of the CIA doesn't agree.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> If the administration (and let's be honest it was Dick Armitage) purposely outed a covert operative I would agree with you but, as Fitzgerald found out, no one that mentioned her name knew that she was covert and that is one of the pre-conditions to outing someone covert.


By the evidence presented in the case it wasn't just Armitage, it was Libby, Rove and Armitage. Libby's leaks were pretty much independent from Armitage. I do believe Rove's leak was a confirmation of Armitage.

While it does appear that the Administration didn't "out" Plame as punishment (as some have accused) Libby was clearly working to discredit Wilson on behalf of the VP's office.

Regardless if Joe Wilson has a big ego, likes the spotlight, is a blabbermouth or has even changed his story a bit...The fact still remains that it was the reckless-to-manipulative-to-dishonest use of the Niger claims that started this entire thing, and the Administrations disregard for process and security that turned it into a big deal.

It is they were the blame should lie, and not with a CIA officer and her husband caught in the middle.

-spence


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Spence said:


> Well, General Hayden head of the CIA doesn't agree.
> 
> -spence


I missed Gen Hayden's testimony.

Can you provide a quote of just what he said?

Everyone I have heard speak to this has had trouble actually stating a concise, clear answer.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I missed Gen Hayden's testimony.


He wasn't there in person, but had approved a statement which was read by Waxler.

Don't know if it's online in print form.

-spence


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> not with a CIA officer and her husband *caught* in the middle


They _inserted_ themselves in the middle.

The middle of the op-ed page of the New York Times, if I recall.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> They _inserted_ themselves in the middle.


Ok, I'll agree to that.

But if there was credibility to the President's claims in the State of the Union Address there could be a case. Given it looks like the claims were so weak, that in fact the CIA had warned the Administration twice previously to not use them says quite a lot.

I don't think Joe Wilson is perfect, but I do think he was pointing out a very real problem with the Bush Administration.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> While it does appear that the Administration didn't "out" Plame as punishment (as some have accused) Libby was clearly working to discredit Wilson on behalf of the VP's office.


That's politics! Wilson put himself squarely in the middle by writing an op-ed that contradicted his written report (read the link to the WP article). I have no sympathy for someone who goes into the gladiators arena then tries to yell "time" or "no fair" when the tigers are cut free.



> Regardless if Joe Wilson has a big ego, likes the spotlight, is a blabbermouth or has even changed his story a bit...The fact still remains that it was the reckless-to-manipulative-to-dishonest use of the Niger claims that started this entire thing, and the Administrations disregard for process and security that turned it into a big deal.
> 
> It is they were the blame should lie, and not with a CIA officer and her husband caught in the middle.
> 
> -spence


I can't believe you just gloss over their complicity in this whole thing. It could have been completely avoided if 1) Plame had not sent her husband on a mission so sensitive and bound to end up in the political discourse thereby inviting scrutiny of it and her and 2) if Wilson had just done his duty, come back with his report and left it at that. It was exactly his ego that got the ball rolling. He publicly slammed the administration and no president will take that without swinging back. Look at what the Clintons did to any number of political enemies.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I can't believe you just gloss over their complicity in this whole thing. It could have been completely avoided if 1) Plame had not sent her husband on a mission so sensitive and bound to end up in the political discourse thereby inviting scrutiny of it and her and 2) if Wilson had just done his duty, come back with his report and left it at that. It was exactly his ego that got the ball rolling. He publicly slammed the administration and no president will take that without swinging back. Look at what the Clintons did to any number of political enemies.


I agree his ego didn't help, but Plame didn't send him...she simply offered to ask him if he would do the job, afer being asked...acoording to her testimony.

Clinton isn't at question here, it's about how the Administration chose to deal with this critic. They didn't have a good response so they took the low road.

So why does Rove still have security clearance?

-spence


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

No "but Plame didn't send him..."

But, she did much more than "... simply offered to ask him if he would do the job, afer being asked...acoording to her testimony."

As per: REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ

B. Former Ambassador

( )Officials from the CIA's DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.

( )Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

( )The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf . The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region . Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about DELETED during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Now I fully realize everyone has made up their mind here so nothing any of us say to each other will have much effect. However, I have to say I heard Waxman grilling the woman the wrote the legislation concerning covert status. While Waxman was very rude, as he did not like what he was hearing, the woman was very clear, that according to the legislation she wrote, Plame was not "covert". Take that for what you will, Waxman just ignored it and rudely said, "I am not yielding my time to you!!!" Keep in mind, this was a witness and a witness he called. A witness that wrote the legislation in question...so what could she possibly know, right?

Also, for what it is worth, she was working at CIA headquarters. How "covert" you can be when you come and go from there daily is a little beyond me.

The fact remains though, Libby was found guilty of perjury and people must be punished for that act IMO.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apparently, the Hayden thing is totally untrue as well. What Hayden did was read Waxman's statement and not object to his characterization of her. That's a far cry from what was claimed.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> A witness that wrote the legislation in question...so what could she possibly know, right?


I was very curious as to what she would say, but I'd note that she didn't really offer any specifics, rather just kept repeating that "not to the law" comment.

She also has written many opinion pieces where she argues the law wasn't applicable based on information that appears to be not accurate according to Plame's testimony. Perhaps she just doesn't want to flip flop.

I'd also note that the CIA did indeed study the matter and deemed it did deserve a legal investigation. But we all know the CIA is just out to undermine Dick Cheney 

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Apparently, the Hayden thing is totally untrue as well. What Hayden did was read Waxman's statement and not object to his characterization of her. That's a far cry from what was claimed.


Hayden "cleared" the comments about her covert status. Are you saying Hayden would allow something that was untrue?

-spence


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

If "covert" operatives of the CIA drive themselves to work every day, park in the parking lot at Langley, and use their real names in their ordinary, daily lives, to the point where their friends on the cocktail circuit know about their unusual employment and even find it mildly titillating, then whoever is in charge of "cover" at the CIA needs to be fired immediately and the entire system overhauled. 

The law against revealing covert status exists to protect the operative's sources and his value as an agency resource. Not to shield a politically active employee and her husband from politics.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

there is a tiny group of CIA operatives that is really "covert". but there is a large group that is on the border - they work in embassies or in washington, and their families and friends know that they work for the CIA. they hang out at embassy parties, they have offices in the embassy, and pretty much verybody suspects who they are. Plame was of this later group. that doesn't make her "covert" but it does mean that she can't work effectivly once she is truly out of the closet.


her hesitation was due to the whole issue of explaining that issue - "covert" has a different meaning for somebody in her position, in the same way that terms like "agent", "operative" "officer" etc do.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> If "covert" operatives of the CIA drive themselves to work every day, park in the parking lot at Langley, and use their real names in their ordinary, daily lives, to the point where their friends on the cocktail circuit know about their unusual employment and even find it mildly titillating, then whoever is in charge of "cover" at the CIA needs to be fired immediately and the entire system overhauled.


Going back to her testimony, knowledge of her employment was not well known. It would appear to be a fabrication by the same people who said she was a low level clerk.

Covert was their word not mine. While I understand there can be different levels of covert-ness, that doesn't invalidate the investigation.

It was to determine if any laws were broken from the release of classified information. The special prosecutor was appointed once the FBI thought Rove might have lied in his initial interviews about his role.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Hayden "cleared" the comments about her covert status. Are you saying Hayden would allow something that was untrue?
> 
> -spence


I'm saying that your line Hayden confirmed is not an accurate representation.

And that the truth seems to be was an analyst and not a covert agent at the time Armitage spoke to Novak nor for 5 years prior. However she was a covert agent is a true statement.

I doubt Hayden wanted to get deeply involved in Waxman's little theatre.


----------



## Reptilicus (Dec 14, 2004)

At the end of the day, Plame's outing was a piece of pure Nixonian revenge. Everyone involved in the case made matters worse in their own way by not doing the right thing from the get-go, Plame, Wilson, Cheney et al. I just thought the outing lacked any sort of class or imagination.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As predicted, we all have our opinions about this already. Mine had actually been leaning towards Plame but after the testimony, it seems plain to me the legislation being appealed to did not cover Plame's current situation. Given that and the very lame story about how her husband got that assignment really make me shake my head as it have become clear the perjuries that do seem to have been committed were not needed as nothing illegal was done.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Given that and the very lame story about how her husband got that assignment really make me shake my head as it have become clear the perjuries that do seem to have been committed were not needed as nothing illegal was done.


There was a release of classified information which triggered an investigation during which crimes were commited. Just because there wasn't a charge for the initial crime doesn't mean the leaking of her name wasn't illegal.

This talking point makes no sense to me.

Hence the recent Congressional hearing. Sure it was a bit of grandstanding, but the issus of how the Administration has used secret info for political gain is deadly serious. Oversight...

-spence


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> The fact remains though, Libby was found guilty of perjury and people must be punished for that act IMO.


This is the real crux of the matter. Libby was found guilty of what is a serious crime, even if the thing he was obfuscating was not, in fact, a crime.

As Tony Blankley said on Friday, the political operatives in the administration who mucked up what should have been a mundane, legitimate prerogative of the executive (to remove the US attorneys) "should be taken out and figuratively shot" for incompetence.

But incompetence seems to be the watchword for this administration.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

BertieW said:


> As Tony Blankley said on Friday, the political operatives in the administration who mucked up what should have been a mundane, legitimate prerogative of the executive (to remove the US attorneys) "should be taken out and figuratively shot" for incompetence.


I think that's a best case scenario. A number of Senators believe they were intentionally misled in the matter.

It's sounding like the imcompetence may have been in how badly they covered their motives. If this is the case Gonzales is toast.

-spence


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

*Hold on there...*

Actually, a number of Senators claim to have been intentionally misled. It is foolish to infer a politican's beliefs from his claims.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Not to dumb-down the discussion too much, but does anybody else find Valerie really....er.....hot? Something about that spy-gal thing..........
Bill:devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.washtimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> There was a release of classified information which triggered an investigation during which crimes were commited. Just because there wasn't a charge for the initial crime doesn't mean the leaking of her name wasn't illegal.
> 
> This talking point makes no sense to me.


Spence, you hate Bush and you're obviously a liberal. I get it. It's okay. I also find it quite cute that everything the does not toe the liberal line is merely a "talking point".

My statement was no talking point. I find Plame's story, concerning how her husband received the assignment in question, very specious. Lame at best. If you find the identification of a very flimsy tale as a very flimsy tale to be a "talking point", fine with me. It only helps further demonstrate you are as dogmatic as the most fundie of right wingers.

I have stated it appears Libby did perjure himself, that this act was wrong, and he should be punished for it. I am not a Bush-bot, I will not defend the indefensible. You should join my camp and stop claiming every observation that does not fit in with the Air American crowd as an incorrect "talking point".

Cheers


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Spence, you hate Bush and you're obviously a liberal. I get it. It's okay. I also find it quite cute that everything the does not toe the liberal line is merely a "talking point".


Well, for starters I don't hate bush and I'm no liberal. How come anyone who's critical of Bush's policy or style of leadership is branded a liberal?



> My statement was no talking point. I find Plame's story, concerning how her husband received the assignment in question, very specious. Lame at best. If you find the identification of a very flimsy tale as a very flimsy tale to be a "talking point", fine with me. It only helps further demonstrate you are as dogmatic as the most fundie of right wingers.


My use of the term "talking point" is in reference to the notion that Libby shouldn't have been indicted because there was no underlying crime.

This is indeed a talking point, rehashed over and over in just about any right of center article, debate or conversation.

I'm not demeaning your statement, rather stating that I don't get the logic of it.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Well, for starters I don't hate bush and I'm no liberal. How come anyone who's critical of Bush's policy or style of leadership is branded a liberal?


That is patently false as I have been critical of Bush in this very forum. No sane person would brand me as a "liberal".



Spence said:


> My use of the term "talking point" is in reference to the notion that Libby shouldn't have been indicted because there was no underlying crime.
> 
> This is indeed a talking point, rehashed over and over in just about any right of center article, debate or conversation.
> 
> ...


You are quite correct in one thing, you do not seem to have comprehended what I have said. I specifically said (again) Libby appears to have perjured himself and therefore must be punished. End of story on that one. My other point is that after listening to the testimony, it appears Plame was not "covert" under the definition of the legislation being discussed. I come to this conclusion after listening to the lady that wrote the legislation (you can decide to ignore her if you wish, which is what it seems to be you are doing). So since the legislation regarding covert status was not broken, I do find it foolish of people to have perjured themselves meaninglessly.

So simple summation: perjury bad but Plame not covert.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> My other point is that after listening to the testimony, it appears Plame was not "covert" under the definition of the legislation being discussed. I come to this conclusion after listening to the lady that wrote the legislation (you can decide to ignore her if you wish, which is what it seems to be you are doing). So since the legislation regarding covert status was not broken, I do find it foolish of people to have perjured themselves meaninglessly.


Plame was certainly covert to some degree and her employment was classified information. This is important as it's been accused by many that she was simply a desk clerk and her outing wasn't that big of a deal. She did make 90 grand a year, the CIA must pay their admins pretty well 

The initial investigation was to determine if any laws were broken in the release of classified information. The special prosecutor was appointed after the FBI believed Rove may have provided false information.

I completely agree it doesn't make much sense to lie for nothing, so perhaps there was something worth lying about. Clearly Libby (and possibly Rove) had misled (and lied) to cover for the leaking of information and to protect the VP's office. It's quite possible that there was illegal activity but either Fitzgerald couldn't prove it or it was outside the scope of his investigation.

I'd still like to know how Bush could verbally declassify information outside of the formal process legally. This is behavior that Congress definately should take a look at.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence:

Let us be a touch more atomistic with this and see if I can get you to admit something.

Did the woman that wrote the legislation tell Waxman Plame was not "covert" in regards to the law that was allegedly broken? Please do not tell me you are unaware of this testimony, as you obviously have been paying much more attention to this than I have and I managed to catch this.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Spence:
> 
> Let us be a touch more atomistic with this and see if I can get you to admit something.
> 
> Did the woman that wrote the legislation tell Waxman Plame was not "covert" in regards to the law that was allegedly broken? Please do not tell me you are unaware of this testimony, as you obviously have been paying much more attention to this than I have and I managed to catch this.


Yes, Toesing (sp?) maintains Plame did not meet the exact standards to prosecute under the specific act that she helped write.

But this is somewhat of a moot issue, as the investigation was not just to see if that specific statute was broken. It was to see if any laws were broken in the release of classified information.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Yes, Toesing (sp?) maintains Plame did not meet the exact standards to prosecute under the specific act that she helped write.
> 
> But this is somewhat of a moot issue, as the investigation was not just to see if that specific statute was broken. It was to see if any laws were broken in the release of classified information.
> 
> -spence


Okay, so Plame was not "covert" then in any meaningful manner, was she? End of story there. Libby is still going to jail as he should. End of story there.

All the rest is just political bullshyte IMO.

Edit: Forgot to add....I would investigate Plame's statements concerning on how her husband got his assignment. There seems to be enough conflicting evidence that it is very plausible Plame should also end up in prison for perjury. That investigation will not happen however.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Okay, so Plame was not "covert" then in any meaningful manner, was she? End of story there. Libby is still going to jail as he should. End of story there.


I wouldn't agree. Plame was covert enough that she worked for a fake company and the CIA wouldn't even let her mention she worked there before 2002. She was traveling overseas under cover putting herself at personal risk.

I'd say this is pretty meaningful.

According to the law the Government must be actively working to conceal your identity and you must have been traveling outside of the country in the past five years. Previously Toensing has written that neither of these were true, which was contradicted by Plame's sworn testimony on Friday.

I didn't hear Toensing specifically say what she felt was wrong, just that she wasn't covert to the law. I think one of the problems appears to be that the evidence to prove her status may be classified. If there is a specific reason why Plame isn't covert-enough, I haven't read what it is.

Regardless, to charge someone under this law they would have to have known the agent they were outing was covert...and I don't think there's any evidence that anyone in the Administration knew this. But they did know the information was secret.



> Edit: Forgot to add....I would investigate Plame's statements concerning on how her husband got his assignment. There seems to be enough conflicting evidence that it is very plausible Plame should also end up in prison for perjury. That investigation will not happen however.


I'm not sure there's any evidence that's conflicting. Didn't the Congressional investigation even determine that she did not recommend him for the trip?

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> I'm not sure there's any evidence that's conflicting. Didn't the Congressional investigation even determine that she did not recommend him for the trip?
> 
> -spence


Her story, as near as I can decipher, was that some co-worker who did not even know her husband, who did not really know her well, walked by her one day and said he had recommended her husband. Yes, concrete stuff. I'll buy it, no questions asked.

Really, the logical contortions you are going through to maintain the party line must be growing painful. There is the difference between myself and you. I can readily put forth when the Repubs have gone wrong. You however need to keep inventing new things and raising the level of incredulity to maintain 100% of the new party dogma. In this vein, I noticed you simply ignored my refutation of your line that to criticize Bush earned you the label of "liberal". That is not what earned you the label from me. The inability for you to admit to the slightest hole in the Air America talkingn points is why I know you're a very hard line liberal. Neither party is 100% correct nor 100% wrong. People that try to maintain their chosen affinity is 100% correct display for all to see their dogmatic stances.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Really, the logical contortions you are going through to maintain the party line must be growing painful. There is the difference between myself and you. I can readily put forth when the Repubs have gone wrong. You however need to keep inventing new things and raising the level of incredulity to maintain 100% of the new party dogma. In this vein, I noticed you simply ignored my refutation of your line that to criticize Bush earned you the label of "liberal". That is not what earned you the label from me. The inability for you to admit to the slightest hole in the Air America talkingn points is why I know you're a very hard line liberal. Neither party is 100% correct nor 100% wrong. People that try to maintain their chosen affinity is 100% correct display for all to see their dogmatic stances.


I didn't ignore it, I just didn't feel like adding anything to it.

I happen to be much more objective that you are assuming, and hope the irony of that in context of your last statement isn't lost 

There seems to be much misinformation on both sides, I'm trying to articulate what I believe to be the closest thing to reality (and I happen to hate Air America BTW).

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> *There seems to be much misinformation on both sides,* I'm trying to articulate what I believe to be the closest thing to reality (and I happen to hate Air America BTW).
> 
> -spence


That would be great....if you would just point out where some of the misinformation on the Dem side would be? You have discounted everything I have pointed out so far ("talking points" you know, lol) while I have steadfastly maintained Libby's guilt and well deserved punishment. It is great to say you are attempting to be balanced but I have yet to see it.

Regards


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> That would be great....if you would just point out where some of the misinformation on the Dem side would be? You have discounted everything I have pointed out so far ("talking points" you know, lol) while I have steadfastly maintained Libby's guilt and well deserved punishment. It is great to say you are attempting to be balanced but I have yet to see it.


Well, I guess if I was a real hardcore partisan I'd be accusing the Administration of intentionally "outing" a covert agent to compramise her security as punishment for Wilson's piece.

Obviously Armitage didn't have such intentions and while the Libby/Rove leaks were intended to push the notion of a liberal conspiracy within the CIA...it was not a personal attack.

But make no mistake, I think the Administration has gone way over the line here and has lied in several places to cover up their actions. Given the growing list of complaints this seems to be par for the course. My disdain for the Administration has everything to do with the libertarian in me, not the liberal 

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Well, I guess if I was a real hardcore partisan I'd be accusing the Administration of intentionally "outing" a covert agent to compramise her security as punishment for Wilson's piece.
> 
> Obviously Armitage didn't have such intentions and while the Libby/Rove leaks were intended to push the notion of a liberal conspiracy within the CIA...it was not a personal attack.
> 
> ...


Well Spence, I suppose that is progress. While not admitting to some of the rather flimsy testimony of Plame herself, you at least have gone on record stating you did not think the "outing" (which of course was impossible given she was not covert per the legislation!) was not personal payback.

I shall take it at face value that you are coming from a libertarian POV, not a liberal one. Coming from a liberal POV is fine, do not get me wrong, it is just one cannot say they are "balanced" or "objective" coming from such a position and maintain credibility. I guess your future posts shall speak for themselves to demonstrate just how much of a libertarian you are.

Cheers


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> While not admitting to some of the rather flimsy testimony of Plame herself, you at least have gone on record stating you did not think the "outing" (which of course was impossible given she was not covert per the legislation!) was not personal payback.


What was flimsy?

It's still not clear if she really was covert per the legislation, and may never be unless a lot more was declassified. Toesing's accusation seems to be that the CIA wasn't trying hard enough to cover her identity. But while this may be contrary to the law in spirit, it doesn't invalidate her status.


> I guess your future posts shall speak for themselves to demonstrate just how much of a libertarian you are.


For the record I would consider myself a socially somewhat liberal, libertarian leaning centrist.

Which, interestingly enough, puts me in alignment with most of the Republican front runners 

-spence


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Well, I guess if I was a real hardcore partisan I'd be accusing the Administration of intentionally "outing" a covert agent to compramise her security as punishment for Wilson's piece.


Perhaps you can shed some light on this subject for me, Spence, using your socially liberal centrist perspective.

Try for a moment to divorce yourself from your feelings about the Iraq war, or the motivations (speculative as they are) behind the actions of 007 and her manicured husband.

The man was on a fact-finding mission for the CIA. For all intents and purposes, he was acting as a CIA operative, gathering information which, for some unexplained reason, a genuine, trained CIA employee could not do (what do we pay these people for, again?).

We know that _he_ knew that his wife was in the CIA, and he knew he was working at the behest of the CIA.

But, maybe, after he gets back from Africa, after a hard night of drinking and searching his conscience, he gets it into his well-coiffured head that he MUST write all about what he saw and didn't see, between lunch and tea time while in Africa.

Did 007, his wife, _know_ that he was planning to write this tell-all editorial? (Or, really, it was a tell-_some_, considering that he knew next to nothing about all the other pieces of the intel puzzle. Funny, that.)

Did she come to him in his study and plead to him -- DON'T WRITE AN EDITORIAL IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ABOUT YOUR CIA MISSION, HONEY, *IT MIGHT COST ME MY JOB*!!!

Or do these people think that working for the CIA and handling secret information and going on secret fact-finding missions is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE?

Do they not realize that they are SERVANTS when they are acting in this capacity, and that they, therefore have an OBLIGATION to honor the BASIC OBLIGATIONS of secret work -- that you keep it a damned SECRET????

007 should have gotten canned as soon as the morning edition of the New York Times landed on people's doorsteps. Joe Wilson should have been arrested for disclosing the contents of his CIA mission.

Can you give me a socially liberal centrist reason why this should not have happened?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> What was flimsy?


You seriously are asking this? Did you even really bother to read my posts? Hint: tell us what you think of Plame's testimony regarding how her husband was given the overseas assignment.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Excellent post, Phinn.

I had not thought about it from that particular angle.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Did anyone see that Victoria Toensing who wrote the covert law said she clearly was not covert.

Much ado about nothing...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> Did anyone see that Victoria Toensing who wrote the covert law said she clearly was not covert.
> 
> Much ado about nothing...


I have been repeating that endlessly. Apparently it is of no consequence to many. Surprising that!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> 007 should have gotten canned as soon as the morning edition of the New York Times landed on people's doorsteps. Joe Wilson should have been arrested for disclosing the contents of his CIA mission.
> 
> Can you give me a socially liberal centrist reason why this should not have happened?


I can't provide a socially liberal centist reason why Wilson wasn't arrested; but I can give you a tentative legal reason: Wilson broke no law, or none that is routinely enforced by prosecution. Wilson may have reported back to the CIA, he wasn't a CIA officer and took no oath of secrecy as those officers must. The only plausible prosecution could have taken place under the Espionage and Censorship Act, 18 USC 792 et seq. Section 798 might arguably have encompassed Wilson's Op-Ed piece; but when you think about it, Wilson did nothing that isn't done dozens of time every day by officials at every level of the federal government, including the White House. Trading information for access is all part of the Washington game. There have actually been few prosecutions under the Act; although the recent AIPAC case and the McCarthy brouhaha may change this in time. As matters now stand, even if there were a colorable charge against Wilson for his NYT Op-Ed, prosecuting him would have been a nightmare for the Administration - probably worse than the Libby mess. This was hardly The Pentagon Papers; but even if the Adminstration had tried to prosecute Wilson, the Plame business would have served as the rough equivalent of Colson and crew burglarizing the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and this would have buggered the whole deal. As I say this is tentative explanation, but that's how I read the matter. And, as I've noted before, I have little sympathy for Wilson; even less after I recently learned that his uncle is friggin' Pete Wilson. A small case of damnation by association.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You seriously are asking this? Did you even really bother to read my posts? Hint: tell us what you think of Plame's testimony regarding how her husband was given the overseas assignment.


I think the record is pretty clear on this.

- Her husband had done some work in Niger for the CIA on her recommendation in the past

- The CIA got the request from the VP's office and asked Plame if he would go, knowing he had good connections and was familiar with the area

- She asks and he agrees

The only thing I'm aware of that suggests she did request he be sent is a Republican addendum to the Senate report that is disputed by the CIA employee they're basing the notion on. This addemdum has been falsely written about as if it was a conclusion of the bi-partisan findings...which it is not.

Well, that and the VP's office who assert the entire trip was a "boondoggle" meant only to undermine the President 

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> Did anyone see that Victoria Toensing who wrote the covert law said she clearly was not covert.
> 
> Much ado about nothing...


Does Toensing have access to classified information necessary to make this determination? No...

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Do they not realize that they are SERVANTS when they are acting in this capacity, and that they, therefore have an OBLIGATION to honor the BASIC OBLIGATIONS of secret work -- that you keep it a damned SECRET????
> 
> Can you give me a socially liberal centrist reason why this should not have happened?


I don't believe the trip was officially a "secret" trip.

Which brings up one of Victoria Toesing's arguments in this case, that for covert agents to be protected under the law, the CIA must do a better job of hiding their identity. (See W, I do read both sides )

If the CIA was lax in this regard, and it appears they might have been, I see where someone could question the law in spirit. But it doesn't change what still happened.

-spence


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> he wasn't a CIA officer and took no oath of secrecy as those officers must


Might that have been the REASON he was selected?

Please prove that it wasn't.



> I don't believe the trip was officially a "secret" trip.


Then whoever is in charge of arranging these trips, without even the most rudimentary precautions of secrecy, should be fired and his pension should be revoked.



> The only thing I'm aware of that suggests she did request he be sent is a Republican addendum to the Senate report that is disputed by the CIA employee they're basing the notion on.


007 wrote an e-mail recommending her international-man-of-mystery husband. When asked about it at the hearing, she testified that some unidentified guy at the CIA thought of sending Wilson, that this same unidentified guy told her supervisor of his idea, and her supervisor agreed but asked 007 to document the recommendation in an e-mail, which she did.

So, the e-mail makes it _look_ like her idea, but, she said, there's this context -- to-wit: _Some Unidentified Guy_ -- which explains the whole thing.

Makes sense, right? Sure.

This whole episode exemplifies the masterful propaganda skills that created this entire fiasco. Truly masterful.

You take a CIA employee, sworn to secrecy, select her husband (albeit on the suggestion of Some Unidentified Guy, if you believe that sort of thing) to go on a "fact-finding" mission that is designed from the ground up to find no facts worth knowing.

Then, against all standards of espionage and intelligence gathering, he not only discloses certain (deceptively selected) elements of this "secret" CIA mission, but he discloses them in the _editorial page of the New York Times_. I guess the billboards in Times Square weren't available.

Then, rather than watch as this pair is brought to heel before the Justice Department and/or Congressional hearings charged with oversight of the CIA, we witness the most miraculous transformation -- rather than be treated like the scum they are, they are lauded, praised, and (in typical Democrat fashion) cast in the role of the VICTIM.

The law prohibiting disclosure of CIA officer's identities was written to facilitate the CIA's mission, by protecting their safety and (more importantly) the safety of their sources, not to give these CIA officers the benefit of anonymity _so they can reveal their professional secrets for political purposes_.

Needless to say (although it does apparently need to be said, strangely enough), CIA employees (or their spouses and/or proxies) are not supposed to be revealing their professional secrets for political purposes.

The idea that they are to be protected (for their own benefit, comfort and convenience) while doing so is absurd. I have chuckled out loud a couple of times while considering that the left side of our political spectrum actually wants us to accept this proposition.

It is a testament to the propaganda skills of whoever is running this operation that our glorious news media has managed to gloss over this rather straightforward analysis and transform the entire affair into the neat, tidy story line of "POOR SPY-WOMAN VICTIMIZED BY VENGEFUL CABAL OF RETHUGGLIKAN$."


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> This was hardly The Pentagon Papers; but even if the Adminstration had tried to prosecute Wilson, the Plame business would have served as the rough equivalent of Colson and crew burglarizing the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and this would have buggered the whole deal.


Iraq is Vietnam. Plame is Watergate.

Lord, save us from time-warped Baby Boomers!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Iraq is Vietnam. Plame is Watergate.
> 
> Lord, save us from time-warped Baby Boomers!


Got it wrong again, Phinn.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> 007 wrote an e-mail recommending her international-man-of-mystery husband. When asked about it at the hearing, she testified that some unidentified guy at the CIA thought of sending Wilson, that this same unidentified guy told her supervisor of his idea, and her supervisor agreed but asked 007 to document the recommendation in an e-mail, which she did.
> 
> So, the e-mail makes it _look_ like her idea, but, she said, there's this context -- to-wit: _Some Unidentified Guy_ -- which explains the whole thing.
> 
> Makes sense, right? Sure.


This is exactly what I got out of listening to Plame's testimony. I fail to understand why people cannot see why I refer to this as "flimsy". If anyone wants to believe this bit of testimony at face value, hook, line, and sinker, then I have a nice bridge to sell you in Brooklyn and I'll throw in some Florida swampland free of charge.

Edit: spelling and grammar corrections.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> This is exactly what I got out of listening to Plame's testimony. I fail to understand why people cannot see why I refer to this as "flimsy".


Where's the evidence that suggests otherwise?

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Where's the evidence that suggests otherwise?
> 
> -spence


Today, when I opened my closet, I found a leprechaun speaking to a unicorn. They both de-materialized in front of my eyes. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise or would you like to deem this as a "flimsy" story? I know which one I am picking, but then again, I do not have a party line to defend. I would think a "libertarian centrist" would know a flimsy story when he/she sees one. Surprising you do not.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise or would you like to deem this as a "flimsy" story? I know which one I am picking, but then again, I do not have a party line to defend.


There's sworn testimony by Plame that she didn't recomend her husband. The email in question has been put in context by the CIA, and the bi-partisan Senate committee did not conclude that she recommended her husband.

And on the flip side we have? Not much...I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

Seriously, I'm trying to sort this out with what information is available. I don't see anything that leads to Phinn's grand conspiracy which must have the facts fit around it to work. If the trip was fabricated for partisan gain...why wait over a year to disclose the "no facts worth knowing?". How could the CIA approve such a thing? Oh, yes...they're out to get Cheney 

This entire event is born from a statement by the President that was immediately retracted, and multiple releases of classifed information by his Administration. Without that there's no story.

-spence


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Might that have been the REASON he was selected?
> Please prove that it wasn't.


Actually, the burden of proof is yours to prove that this was the reason. But I'll save you the trouble. Wilson was chosen because the Niger story wasn't thought worth the expenditure of greater resources. He was available, had contacts in the region, and had acted in a similar capacity in 1999 (are the wheels spinning yet, Phinn? "[W]hoever is running this operation" began setting up the Administration long before it came to power; now that's slick.) From the Senate report on pre-war intelligence:



> On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.
> 
> The INR analyst's meeting notes and electronic mail (e-mail) from other participants indicate that INR explained its skepticism that the alleged uranium contract could possibly be carried out due to the fact that it would be very difficult to hide such a large shipment of yellowcake and because "the French appear to have control of the uranium mining, milling and transport process, and would seem to have little interest in selling uranium to the Iraqis." The notes also indicate that INR believed that the embassy in Niger had good contacts and would be able to get to the truth on the uranium issue, suggesting a visit from the former ambassador would be redundant. Other meeting participants argued that the trip would do little to clarify the story on the alleged uranium deal because the Nigeriens would be unlikely to admit to a uranium sales agreement with Iraq, even if one had been negotiated. An e-mail from a WINPAC analyst to CPD following the meeting noted "it appears that the results from this source will be suspect at best, and not believable under most scenarios." CPD concluded that with no other options, sending the former ambassador to Niger was worth a try.


There's your conspiracy, Phinn, right there. Grab your deerstalker and have at it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> There's sworn testimony by Plame that she didn't recomend her husband.


And sworn testimony is always to be taken at face value? 

Seriously Spence, you might think you are a "libertarian centrist" but by continuing to defend this fairly tenuous story to the nth degree, your bias is showing. Any reasonably objective person should be able to admit that maybe Plame is telling the 100% unadulerated truth but that the story is a rather contrived sounding one at best.

I shall leave the conversation at this, please feel free to get in the last comment. All we have done is restate the same thing to each other for about three pages now, that is enough for me.

Again, my bottom line summation:

1) Perjury is bad, Libby should go to prison.

2) Author of "covert" legislation stated Plame was not covered by the legislation, ergo appealing to it is a red herring.

3) Plame might be telling the truth but her story over not committing nepotism is pretty hard to believe.

A true centrist would agree to this IMO.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I'm not sure what you think the quote you provided is supposed to prove. 

The notes were written at a point in time when the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA (Plame's department) had already selected Wilson, had already decided to sell the Niger mission to the State Department's INR, even though the INR thought it was pointless at best, and "other meeting participants argued that the trip would do little to clarify the story on the alleged uranium deal because the Nigerians would be unlikely to admit to a uranium sales agreement with Iraq, even if one had been negotiated."

All this shows is that people who were involved with this dog-and-pony show had, as it was unfolding, already deduced that Wilson's mission served no legitimate purpose. 

Naturally, you have chosen to ignore everything concerning Wilson's inexcusable decision to go to the newspapers, and his wife's complicity in his doing so.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> 1) Perjury is bad, Libby should go to prison.


Agree, although you gotta feel for the man 



> 2) Author of "covert" legislation stated Plame was not covered by the legislation, ergo appealing to it is a red herring.


Don't agree for reasons stated above, unless Toensing or someone can articulate why.



> 3) Plame might be telling the truth but her story over not committing nepotism is pretty hard to believe.


Don't agree for reasons stated above, unless someone can provide definitave evidence, I don't see why Plame and the reporting I've seen that her story was confirmed by others at the CIA shouldn't be believed.


> A true centrist would agree to this IMO.


Being a centrist doesn't mean you force yourself to the middle. For me it's trying to assess equal volumes of information from both sides to determine a position. There's so much disinformation on both sides it's nearly a full time job to make any sense of it. Perhaps it's a waste of time, but obviously for some it's also a hobby.

I'd even note that today Byron York of the National Review is quoting David Corn of The Nation on the matter...now that's bi-partisan cooperation! 

-spence


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Spence said:


> Don't agree for reasons stated above, unless Toensing or someone can articulate why.


If she had been "covert' under the act, one would have expected Fitzgerald to seek an indictment of Armitage (the actual leaker); that he didn't can suggest that Fitzgerald didn't think she was protected under the act either.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

one thing that I don't understand, and I would be happy if anybody does - how is it that, when the worlds only superpower, needs to have somebody check out if a rougue state has been buying a restricted material from an african country, the person that they chose to send is a retired ambassidor? frankly, I have met and dealt with some embassidors in my life - they are sort of like spokespersons, a little like asking ronold mcdonold to actually run a buisness, or unkle sam to storm a hill. doesn't the CIA or some other group in the govenrment have anybody better for this?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I'm not sure what you think the quote you provided is supposed to prove.
> 
> The notes were written at a point in time when the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA (Plame's department) had already selected Wilson, had already decided to sell the Niger mission to the State Department's INR, even though the INR thought it was pointless at best, and "other meeting participants argued that the trip would do little to clarify the story on the alleged uranium deal because the Nigerians would be unlikely to admit to a uranium sales agreement with Iraq, even if one had been negotiated."
> 
> ...


I haven't ignored anything. I haven't defended Wilson or Plame in any post on this board, or any other, and I have no interest in doing so. You wondered aloud why Wilson wasn't prosecuted and I provided you with a preliminary answer. Deal with it or don't. I don't give a phuck. And while I'm at it, let me connect the dots for you regarding my earlier post: As I noted, very few persons, of any status, have been prosecuted under the Espionage and Censorship Act for leaks of classified information to the media. (FYI, the "they shouldn't have done that" statute hasn't been enacted yet.) For instance, CIA analyst Mary McCarthy has been accused of leaking classified information regarding the East European black sites to the WaPo. She was fired, but not prosecuted (yet) and probably won't be. However, one person who was charged with violating the Espionage Act for the disclosure of classified information to the press was Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg's conduct fell squarely within the purview of the Espionage Act: he disclosed thousands of pages of "top secret" documents to the NY Times, precisely the kind of information protected under the Act. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act, as well theft and other related crimes. Ellsberg knew that he was violating the Act when he gave the documents to the Times, and he expected to spend the rest of his life in prison. But the Nixon gang phucked up the prosecution by burglarizing his shrink's office. A similar situation exists here. Let's say the Administration had wanted to try to make a case against Wilson under the Act - in lieu of the he "shouldn't have done that" statute. It would have been very tough, given the precendential history but let's say they had wanted to make a go of it. Well, that idea went out the window with the Plame affair; they phucked up and shot themselves in the ass, just like the Nixon mob did with Ellsberg. So either the Administration knew it couldn't make a criminal case against Wilson and decided to pull their little stunt; or they blew it. The point being that if an administration wishes to prosecute leakers it really should not engage in extra-judicial self-help when doing so. Makes the whole enterprise much more difficult. This controversy is a tempest in a teacup, as far as I'm concerned, but so long as it pisses off pholks such as yourself I'm delighted.

Oh, and the item I quoted from the Senate report indicates that people involved in the "dog and pony show" at the time thought Wilson's mission to Niger would serve no useful purpose; not no legitimate purpose. Nice try. As for what I was trying to "prove" with the quote: figure it out yourself. You know, from the context. And I propose a deal: as neither of us believes in god, I'll save you from the time-warped boomers if you save me from the witless 13th generation.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Rocker said:


> If she had been "covert' under the act, one would have expected Fitzgerald to seek an indictment of Armitage (the actual leaker); that he didn't can suggest that Fitzgerald didn't think she was protected under the act either.


Well, there were multiple leakers...Rove, Libby, Armitage and I believe the Press Sec. Armitage was the first.

But to actually file charges under the act in question he would have had to prove Armitage knew she was covert. I haven't seen anything that indicates anyone knew she was covert.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> I have met and dealt with some embassidors in my life - they are sort of like spokespersons, a little like asking ronold mcdonold to actually run a buisness, or unkle sam to storm a hill. doesn't the CIA or some other group in the govenrment have anybody better for this?


I have a former ambadassor in my family, he's a brilliant man. Much smarter than Wilson I'm sure 

But Wilson's connections and experience in the region were actually quite good they say. I'd wager the CIA believed he could leverage his connections to rapidly assess the situation and get out.

-spence


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

eyedoc2180 said:


> Not to dumb-down the discussion too much, but does anybody else find Valerie really....er.....hot? Something about that spy-gal thing..........
> Bill:devil:


Probably the best looking 43 year old female government employee, considering the likes of Linda Tripps out there.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> 2) Author of "covert" legislation stated Plame was not covered by the legislation, ergo appealing to it is a red herring.


I hate to break the news, but the opinion of committee counsel is hardly the last word in determining whether or not a particular statute is applicable to a particular set of facts. The courts interpret the law, not those who draft it, especially not counsel who assists legislators in drafting the language of a statute. There are not many cases interpreting the IIPA, so the legislative history may be helpful if a court is called upon to decide whether or not it actually applied to Plame (well, not if Scalia can help it, but that's another story); but ultimately a court will decide this, not Ms. Toensing


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> Did anyone see that Victoria Toensing who wrote the covert law said she clearly was not covert.
> 
> Much ado about nothing...


Actually I think I might understand this now.

Toensing initially (before the hearings) had argued Plame wasn't legally covert as she hadn't served outside the USA within 5 years of the leak and that her employment wasn't classified.

This of course was contradicted by Plame under oath and by the CIA.

Toensing's argument on Friday that Plame still wasn't _legally_ covert is based on the notion that a covert agent must actually _reside_ abroad during that time.

But the law states clearly that the agent must have "served" outside of the USA...it doesn't say anything about "residing."

So I'm not sure if Toensing was attempting to mislead Congress, or if she is speaking to the initial intent of the law in spirit, but not as it's written.

Regardless, it would appear that Plame was legally covert as the law is written. Given how rarely this law has been used there may not be much of a precident. Granted, I'm not an attorney.

So this is a very valid issue. I hope the Congressional committee can make some sense out of it, as I believe they intend to follow up with Toensing.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I've reviewed Plame's testimony and the latest facts of the case. I see nothing that Rove did wrong. I see that nothing Libby did related to the case wrong (perjury is wrong). 

I am really of the opinion that Wilson (and maybe Armitage) should have been charged.

IMHO, Wilson, knowingly endangered national security in order to lie for political purposes. His article has been proven to be a lie. He had to know he was lying, he had to know he was picking a fight with the WH, and he had to know his wife's involvment (however peripheral) would come out and her connection to him would result in her cover being blown.

It's clear Wilson did this solely for personal gain and political reasons. The book, the movie, etc. all fly in the face of "I can no longer do the work I was trained to do." As though they were now hurting. At least Plame spoke about damage to someone other than herself. For that I commend her. Wilson I think is a self-centered, egotistical jerk that should pay for what he did.

Armitage I think was negligent with classified information at best.

I see no attempt to "smear" Wilson or "discredit" Wilson at all. I do see a defense against the accusations Wilson made and answers to logical questions - why did you send him? who is he? etc. etc.

I still believe Fitzgerald should have and could have handled this whole thing in about a week or two. Why he didn't seems like politics to me, as well.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Does Toensing have access to classified information necessary to make this determination? No...


She wrote the law. What more of an expert do you need?

Plame was well known by everybody to be an agent in Washington.

Typical beltway BS. They are to death about these non-events but ignore Sandy Berger stealing classified documents!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Artisan Fan said:


> Typical beltway BS. They are to death about these non-events but ignore Sandy Berger stealing classified documents!


The most under-reported story in the past few years. Talk about a compromise of national security!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I've reviewed Plame's testimony and the latest facts of the case. I see nothing that Rove did wrong. I see that nothing Libby did related to the case wrong (perjury is wrong).


The case was referred to the Justice Department to determine if anyone broke any laws in the release of classified information. A special prosecutor was appointed after the FBI thought that Karl Rove had provided misleading information in the process.

The prosecutor Fitzgerald was very clear in stating that a primary reason nobody was charged with any crimes about the leak, was because Scooter Libby was obstructing the investigation...and later found guilty on 4 of 5 counts (including purjury).



> I am really of the opinion that Wilson (and maybe Armitage) should have been charged.


Wilson wasn't even in the scope of the Fitzgerald case. Armitage came clean ASAP and told the truth about his story! Amazing what that does.



> It's clear Wilson did this solely for personal gain and political reasons.


Then why did he wait over a year until Bush used the Niger claim in the State of the Union Address?



> I see no attempt to "smear" Wilson or "discredit" Wilson at all. I do see a defense against the accusations Wilson made and answers to logical questions - why did you send him? who is he? etc. etc.


Not valid as the intel community doesn't appeat to think the accusations were all that credible in the first place!


> I still believe Fitzgerald should have and could have handled this whole thing in about a week or two. Why he didn't seems like politics to me, as well.


Remember the timeline. Some of the statements of Libby (and Rove) that were thought to be inconclusive were given before Fitzgerald was even appointed.

Or do you think a prosecutor should abandon a case with the knowledge that people many have misled the investigation?

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> The case was referred to the Justice Department to determine if anyone broke any laws in the release of classified information. A special prosecutor was appointed after the FBI thought that Karl Rove had provided misleading information in the process.
> 
> The prosecutor Fitzgerald was very clear in stating that a primary reason nobody was charged with any crimes about the leak, was because Scooter Libby was obstructing the investigation...and later found guilty on 4 of 5 counts (including purjury).
> 
> ...


Huh?

Wilson would clearly be within the scope of investigating why Plame's cover was blown. In fact, he is the only one for whom the statute seems to apply. He knew her status and he could foresee his actions outing her and he had malicious intent to undermine national security. If he was not included it seems like a clear bias by Fitzgerald. You are correct that the timing reinforces that Wilson's actions were purely for political and personal gain. I don't see how this is in doubt/debatable.

While I think Libby's perjury is proven, I do not think your conclusion about the obstruction is accurate. We know what happened and Libby did not prevent the truth from coming out in the end. I have not seen any material obstruction beyond the perjury and I said weeks ago I think one charge and ten years with no pardon will suffice. If you wish to keep the fantasy that Cheney and Rove were behind it that's your choice. Rove and Cheney both gave testimony to Fitzgerald. So, Libby did not prevent Fitzgerald from knowing what they knew.


----------

