"Fair Game", by Valerie Plame

[ViolaLee]

Valerie Plame's book is out.

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2007/oct/plame/cover200.jpg

A lot of it was redacted by the CIA. She was interviewed on NPR today. The interviewer asked her to read pages 50, 51 and 52. She can't, they're all redacted. Anyway it should be a very interesting book. Lily reminded me of it tonight when she posted the link to the forged document story about the false story of Iraq and Niger yellow cake. It was in the Oh the hypocrisy thread. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=8822)

Anyway, here's the first chapter of the book. I definitely want to read this one.

CHAPTER 1: Joining the CIA

Our group of five — three men and two women — trekked through an empty tract of wooded land and swamp, known in CIA terms as the "Farm." It was 4 a.m. and we had been on the move all night. Having practiced escape and evasion from an ostensible hostile force — our instructors — we were close to meeting up with our other classmates. Together we would attack the enemy, then board a helicopter to safety. This exercise, called the final assault, was the climax of our paramilitary training. Each of us carried eighty-pound backpacks, filled with essential survival gear: tents, freeze-dried food, tablets to purify drinking water, and 5.56 mm ammunition for our M-16s. The late fall weather was bitter, and slimy water sloshed in our combat boots. A blister on my heel radiated little jabs of stinging pain. My friend Pete, a former Army officer, usually ready with a wisecrack and a smirk, hadn't spoken in hours, while John, our resident beer guzzler, carried not only his backpack but at least fifty extra pounds of body weight. His round face was covered with mud and sweat.

When our point man gave the hand signal, we gratefully stopped, shrugged off our backpacks, and slumped together for a moment against a small protected knoll. Then we fell into formation again and moved toward the landing zone. When we finally reached a clearing at dawn, I could barely make out the blades of an enormous helicopter rotating slowly, and the friendly faces of my other classmates, Sharon, David, and Tex. I heard Pete mutter, "Finally." We all surged forward, energized by relief and hope. I began to imagine the hot shower I would enjoy when this was over. Then suddenly the sharp firecrackers of light from magnesium flares exploded over our heads and the repetitive sound of machine-gun fire sent adrenaline rushing through my veins.

I dropped to the ground and crawled over to Pete, thinking he would know what to do. Despite three months of hard training, my idyllic suburban upbringing had not prepared me for incoming fire and the overwhelming physical sensations that accompanied it. Dragging me a few yards away to a crest of land, Pete pointed at the helicopter. "Get your ass over there!"

Before I knew it, we brushed aside any pretense of military discipline and made a dead run at the helicopter. As we careened down the hill at full speed, M-16s blazing, I caught the eye of a classmate running alongside me. His expression suggested a hint of enjoyment, or at least his awareness of the absurdity of the situation. Soon enough, I threw myself into the open door of the helicopter and caught my breath beneath the noise of artillery and the deafening sounds of the rotors and engines. I shrugged off my pack, and as we were lifted to safety, I marveled at how I came to be at the Farm.

*********************************************** ************************************************* ******* *************************************** ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************ ************* ********************************** ************************************************ ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

********** * *********************************************** **** ******************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************ *********************** ************************************************* ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*********************************************** ********************************************** * ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*********************************************** ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************* ********************** ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

********* ********************************************** ************************************************* ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * As a teenager, I read William Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid, about the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) days during World War II. The OSS was the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency. I loved the book and I found the history intriguing. I began to seriously consider what working for the CIA meant. If I joined, what would I be asked to do? Was it dangerous? Did I believe in what the CIA did? My family had always valued public service and kept a quiet patriotism. On Memorial Day and the Fourth of July we always put out the flag in a big flowerpot. My father, Samuel Plame, was a retired Air Force colonel. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, he was studying at the University of Illinois in Champaign. He remembers that the next day the campus was a ghost town; all the eligible male students had left to sign up for military service. He was soon on his own way to enlist in the Army Air Corps — the Air Force predecessor — in San Diego. He served in the South Pacific during World War II and has a seemingly inexhaustible supply of corny jokes, stories, and songs from his time there. My brother, Robert Plame, older than me by sixteen years, joined the Marines in 1966 and was promptly sent to Vietnam. One day in 1967, as my parents and I returned home from some errands, the neighbors told us that two uniformed Marines had been knocking at our door. We learned that Bob was MIA. My stricken parents assumed the worst and, for a few days, we did not know if Bob was dead or alive. He was finally located on a hospital ship. During a reconnaissance mission behind enemy lines, he had been badly wounded in his right arm. He endured years of multiple, painful operations to restore some sensation in his limb. Incredibly, with just one working arm and hand, he went on to learn how to fly, ski, write, and tie shoelaces. He has been happily married to Christie, a nurse, for nearly thirty years and is the proud father of two bright and beautiful girls. I thought that if I served in the CIA it would extend a family tradition. Still, I had my nagging doubts. Hadn't the CIA tried to kill Castro with an exploding cigar?

"Imagine you are meeting an agent in a foreign hotel room and there is suddenly a loud banging at the door. You hear 'Police, let us in!' What do you do?" This question was being put to me by a kindly looking older woman wearing pearls and a surprisingly bright yellow blouse during my initial CIA interview in Washington. I * * * * * * * ********* * * * * * * * had checked into a modest — well, seedy — hotel in Arlington, Virginia. I had no idea what to expect but the interview the next day, in a beige building in the suburbs of Washington, followed along the traditional lines of "What are your strengths, what are your weaknesses, why do you want to work for the CIA" — until now. This question veered off the conventional path and was more interesting. My immediate thought was that excluding espionage, there is only one good reason for an unrelated man and woman to be in a hotel room together. "I would take off my blouse, tell the agent to do the same, and jump into bed before telling the police to come in." Her barely perceptible smile told me I had hit on the right answer. I thought, This could be fun. I was ready for the next question.

*********************************************** ****************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * but I thought if it didn't pan out, I could find something on Capitol Hill or in the Peace Corps. In the meantime, I found a job as a management trainee with a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Washington department store * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . Despite the 20 percent employee discount, I hated working in retail, but it was a way to pay the rent as I continued through months of CIA psychological tests, a battery of interviews, and an exacting, comprehensive physical exam. One question out of at least four hundred in one psychological test still stands out in my memory: "Do you like tall women?" I still have no idea if I got the right answer on that one. Later that summer, I was asked to take a polygraph exam. It was a weird, but relatively brief experience. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * At the same time, the Agency was conducting a security background check on me. Several neighbors reported to my parents that "someone * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * had interviewed them to ask if I had any known drinking, drug, or other problems. ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ************************************************* ************************************************ ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * ******* * * * * * I nervously settled into my chair in a nondescript government classroom in a bland office building in a congested Virginia suburb. I took in my * classmates in our CIA introduction course. Many of the young men were clearly ex-military types, some still sporting regulation buzz cuts. Just less than half were women, but as I later learned, only a fraction of those were destined, like me, to work in the Directorate of Operations (DO). The rest were pegged to become analysts in the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) or administrative/logistical officers and the like in the Directorate of Administration (DA). A few were engineers who would ultimately work in the Directorate of Science and Technology (DST), the Agency's research arm. It looked like I was the * * * * * ** * * by far and this suspicion was confirmed when a tiny woman, nearly as wide as she was tall, took me and three other (male) classmates into her office during a break. She was the DO liaison to the Career Trainees (CTs) — in other words, she would be our den mother as we worked through the initial training. It was hard to believe that this matronly woman had actually been an operator in "the field," but she certainly knew a lot more about the CIA than any of us did. "* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ******************************** ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * PCS meant "permanent change of Station," in other words, assignment abroad. As the acronyms flew around us, it was clear that a paramilitary culture reigned at the CIA.

During our lunch breaks, taken at our desks or in nearby cafes, I got to know my classmates. I couldn't help but feel intimidated — most either had gone to prestigious universities, or had at least a master's degree or some years of military experience. All seemed much more sophisticated, smarter, better traveled, and wittier than I was. Feeling overwhelmed, I vowed to keep my mouth shut and learn as much as possible. Perhaps no one would notice that I had precious little meaningful life experience and was educated at a state school. Over the next few weeks, an interesting dynamic emerged. We had all taken the Myers-Briggs psychological profile test during the interview process. Most of the future operations officers, myself included, scored varying degrees of "ENTJ" — Extrovert, Intuitive, Thinking, Judgmental. ENTJ personality types tend to be strong leaders and feel the need to take command of a situation. The Myers-Briggs description of an ENTJ says that "although ENTJs are tolerant of established procedures, they can abandon any procedure when it can be shown to be indifferent to the goal it seemingly serves...They are tireless in the devotion to their jobs and can easily block out other areas of life for the sake of work. The ENTJ female may find it difficult to select a mate who is not overwhelmed by her strong personality and will." ENTJs appear in approximately 5 percent of the population; apparently, that's what the CIA was looking for in its future operations officers. We were drawn to one another, not just because we would be doing the same training and ultimately the same job, but because we had similar personalities. Wherever the future case officers gathered on breaks, they were usually the loudest, most social, and I thought, most entertaining. The air seemed to crackle with excitement. I began making friends in the class and despite our different backgrounds, we began to form deep bonds. I looked forward to attending the CIA introductory course every day where we learned how the Agency was organized, how intelligence was collected and analyzed, and how the wider intelligence community functioned. One of the most gripping guest speakers was a woman who had served her first tour as a case officer in Moscow. She told us in harrowing detail how she had been surveilled by Soviet intelligence while picking up and setting down "dead drops" — fabricated rocks or other innocent-looking containers with notes, money, and instructions to an important Soviet double agent. She was thrown out of the country (declared persona non grata, or PNGed in CIA lingo) but her agent, the spy for whom she was responsible, was not so lucky. He was executed. We all sat in stunned silence as we digested the huge responsibilities and the consequences of making a mistake.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15528736

[MizzyAndrea]

It seems to be the neocon MO to label anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda as unpatriotic. However, how patriotic is 'treason?'... and was it not 'treason' to OUT a CIA operative?

[ViolaLee]

Yup it was treason alright.

At the time, Valerie Wilson was a covert operative at CIA headquarters — tracking intelligence about Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction.

Wilson says that reading Novak's column "felt like a sucker punch to the gut."

"It just took the wind out of me. Immediately, I thought of the network of assets I had worked with. I thought of my family's safety … and I knew instinctively my career was over. That was it," Wilson tells Melissa Block.

"What was shocking to me was the extent and the recklessness with which these senior administration officials tossed around my name," Wilson says. "They understood what was at stake. They all signed secrecy agreements, as well, to protect the Constitution and national security when they came on board …. They should have known better."http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15528736

[PatrickHenry]

Can you figger the agenda?

Why attack a nation ostensibly for hiding WMD, an at the same time blow a CIA agent's cover as she works against WMD proliferation?

Clue: It's not about WMD...

[BoogyMan]

Hmm, no...charges...filed...dealing...with...the...subj ect...of...the...investigation.

[bobbylien]

She was right and thats all that matters. She should have been given a raise, not outed by the administration for telling them the truth.

[I Like Beer]

It seems to be the neocon MO to label anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda as unpatriotic. However, how patriotic is 'treason?'... and was it not 'treason' to OUT a CIA operative?


It was deplorable to say the least, but it wasn't treason.

[Truth_and_Power]

Hmm, no...charges...filed...dealing...with...the...subj ect...of...the...investigation.


...by...alberto...."my memo says its legal"...gonzales..

[Wndrtch]

It seems to be the neocon MO to label anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda as unpatriotic. However, how patriotic is 'treason?'... and was it not 'treason' to OUT a CIA operative?


Yup!

So go ahead and bring Armmitage up on Treason charges.

While your at it, bring her husband up too, because he named her publicly in a Socialite Rag as well.

[Deadshot]

Ok, let the chips fall where they may.

[Wndrtch]

Hmm, no...charges...filed...dealing...with...the...subj ect...of...the...investigation.


...by...alberto...."my memo says its legal"...gonzales..



Oh PLEASE!! Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys, including two who were investigating him directly. Gonzales only mistake was that he tried to "spin" it. He should have just said "Yes, I fired them. What's it to ya?"

Most of the ones he fired, were not enforcing our immigration laws. Gee, why would anybody fire them for that?

[Deadshot]

Hmm, no...charges...filed...dealing...with...the...subj ect...of...the...investigation.


...by...alberto...."my memo says its legal"...gonzales..



Oh PLEASE!! Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys, including two who were investigating him directly. Gonzales only mistake was that he tried to "spin" it. He should have just said "Yes, I fired them. What's it to ya?"

Most of the ones he fired, were not enforcing our immigration laws. Gee, why would anybody fire them for that?


Immigration laws that the current POTUS seems not to want to enforce either...hmmmm.

BTW, it wasn't that the attorney's WERE fired, but WHEN they were fired. Doing it in the first few months to get your own people in there is one thing, doing it in the middle of your Presidency - i.e. to your own people - is another. Hence the problem.

If it was no big deal, then why is Alberto gone? Surely without this scandal he would have never left. Even Republicans were calling for his head.

[Wndrtch]

Hmm, no...charges...filed...dealing...with...the...subj ect...of...the...investigation.


...by...alberto...."my memo says its legal"...gonzales..



Oh PLEASE!! Clinton fired ALL US Attorneys, including two who were investigating him directly. Gonzales only mistake was that he tried to "spin" it. He should have just said "Yes, I fired them. What's it to ya?"

Most of the ones he fired, were not enforcing our immigration laws. Gee, why would anybody fire them for that?


Immigration laws that the current POTUS seems not to want to enforce either...hmmmm.

BTW, it wasn't that the attorney's WERE fired, but WHEN they were fired. Doing it in the first few months to get your own people in there is one thing, doing it in the middle of your Presidency - i.e. to your own people - is another. Hence the problem.

If it was no big deal, then why is Alberto gone? Surely without this scandal he would have never left. Even Republicans were calling for his head.


I'm not disagreeing that he should have left, but not for doing something that is wholly within his right to do, which is how the Dems attacked him. Ultimately, He was fired because he tried to "spin" it, and appeared to compromise himself before Congress. Bad form. He should have just owned it, and flipped the bird.

I always thought there were better candidates, that were passed up for political purposes. He was picked because he looked right.

[Deadshot]

I can't argue with your logic. It's different then mine, but I see your point.

But you do realize that in politics when the scales begin to tip it's important to "right" the scales. So while what AG did wasn't wrong, per se, it was easy to make it "look" wrong. Ergo, AG couldn't just flip the bird and move on, his Boss doesn't have that kind of political clout anymore.

The Dems saw an opening, took it, and through more egg on the face of the Administration, in doing so got some splatter on the GOP.

It's politics, where the illusion can be more powerful then the truth. Both sides use it, we just won this battle. :nana:

[lily]

Hmm, no...charges...filed...dealing...with...the...subj ect...of...the...investigation.



Hmm, when someone is lying and obstructing justice how can you file charges?

[preservanation]

lily, what was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?[hr]?????[hr]Plame's fabrication that she was an outed covert agent is totally unsubstantiated.

[BoogyMan]

Hmm, no...charges...filed...dealing...with...the...subj ect...of...the...investigation.



Hmm, when someone is lying and obstructing justice how can you file charges?


If the investigations turned up anything, Fitzgerald would have roasted Libby, and rightly so. But they didn't, so he didn't.

[preservanation]

Witch hunt for Rove, Cheney, Bush.
When it was obvious that Armitage was the gadfly that mentioned to Novak that Plame was the CIA employee who recommended her husband (Joe Wilson for the mission to Niger, and after he first substantiated that Saddam was attempting to secure yellow cake from there, then it was proved he lied about it to the NYT aftrwards) they had to drop the "Wilson is being targeted" by Rove et al thing.
Fitzgerald had to do something to justify the $4 mill he spent, so he "Scootered" Libby on a process crime.
See?
Very easy to understand.

I think the libs should drop this and move on to defending other indefensible positions, like why Hillary is qualified to be the President of the United States.

[lily]

lily, what was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?

The leaking of Plame as a covert agent.

My turn.......what was Libby convicted of?

[ViolaLee]

lily, what was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?[hr]?????[hr]Plame's fabrication that she was an outed covert agent is totally unsubstantiated.
He was investigating the outting of a covert CIA agent by the Bush administration. Armitage, Rove, Libby, Fleisher all told reporters the identity of an undercover agent. They got their information from Cheney and a memo stating her identity as top secret, aboard Air Force one when Bush and Powell were flying.

They thought they could smear Joe Wilson with a story that Plame chose him to go to Niger to check the yellow cake story. They outted her to swift boat her husband.

She was a covert agent tracking WMD in the middle east during a time that we are at war with people in the middle east that want to kill us.

How's that for national security?


During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

Watch the video here (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/)

[preservanation]

Plame lied about her covert status and Toensing said so. She helped write the statute.[hr]

lily, what was the crime that Fitzgerald was investigating?

The leaking of Plame as a covert agent.

My turn.......what was Libby convicted of?
Armitage leaked the name to Novak. He was NOT prosecuted because???
Because 1)there was no crime
2)Armatage did not fit the witch-hunt template . He could not be traced to Rove Cheney or Bush.

Libby was prosecuted because his recollection of when he spoke to Russert differed from that of Russert's. Fitzgerald took Russert's version over Libby's.
There was no underlying crime and even David Boise agrees with me. (remember him? Those who have been following politics for longer than from just the beginning of the Iraq war might)

This whole thing has been exploded for the miscarriage of justice and Bush admin witch-hunt that it was, LONG AGO

lily, whatever your position is on this, I can bet it is indefensible. If you want to cling onto the lies and misconceptions about this case like a drowning polar bear clings to a melting ice flow...you go right ahead.
Personally, I would let go and try to swim towards something with a little more substance and basis in fact.

[I Like Beer]

Plame lied about her covert status and Toensing said so. She helped write the statute.

Armitage leaked the name to Novak. He was NOT prosecuted because???
Because 1)there was no crime
2)Armatage did not fit the witch-hunt template . He could not be traced to Rove Cheney or Bush.


Victoria Toensing worked for Reagan (Deputy Asst. Attorney General), so she's hardly impartial. Wouldn't you agree?

I guess if former Asst. Attorney General, Walter Dellinger wrote a piece saying "Clinton didn't break any laws", you'd believe that?

Preserv, do you have a problem with the following statement. "If someone is conservative, they're telling the truth, if they're a Democrat or a liberal, they're lying."?

Let me quote a passage from Toensing's piece in the Washington Post... In this part, she's saying part of what must be true for a crime to have been committed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2305-2005Jan11.html

A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

In this article, she always claims there is a "question" as to whether she was covert. She doesn't say she wasn't.

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret.

A daunting standard indeed. So, while I concede that no law was OBVIOUSLY broken - it seems pretty clear that this was done intentionally to hurt the Wilsons for the Ambassador's piece which embarrassed the Administration.

I'm curious.... those of you who think no laws were broken. Do you have ANY problems with what the White House did? Do you not think this was retaliatory in anyway? Is this just business as usual and Wilson and his wife had it coming?

[PatrickHenry]

These "conservatives" would justify the Bush Administration murdering little brown kids.

Do you think they blink an eye at blowing a CIA agent's cover?

See, it's not about WMD. It's about winning a political game.

[Wndrtch]

These "conservatives" would justify the Bush Administration murdering little brown kids.

Do you think they blink an eye at blowing a CIA agent's cover?

See, it's not about WMD. It's about winning a political game.


THREAD-BUSTA!!

Valerie Plame was never an undercover agent and never covered under the protection laws.

She was outed by her own husband.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008783.php

Hey Pat here's a napkin, you have a little Kool-aid mustache there, my friend. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to find a little brown kid to murder. :fight:

[preservanation]

Beer:
Victoria Toensing worked for Reagan (Deputy Asst. Attorney General), so she's hardly impartial. Wouldn't you agree?
Preserv, do you have a problem with the following statement. "If someone is conservative, they're telling the truth, if they're a Democrat or a liberal, they're lying."?Right back at you Pickles.

BTW Toensing wrote the statute!
If anyone would know she would.

[lily]

Plame lied about her covert status and Toensing said so. She helped write the statute.

Toensing was also legal council to Cooper and Novak.......no conflict of interest there! I'd look up the transcript of her cross, but I don't think you've been reading the links in this thread, so I'm not going to bother........one more question, since you didn't answer my last one, let me try again.........Just who asked for a special procecuter in the Plame affair and why did he ask for one?

Armitage leaked the name to Novak. He was NOT prosecuted because???
Because 1)there was no crime
2)Armatage did not fit the witch-hunt template . He could not be traced to Rove Cheney or Bush.

If you have absolute proof that Armitage was the first one to say anything, I'd be more than happy to read it. I see otherwise in Viola's post that they got their information from Cheney and a memo. Now if you'd like, I'll give you the link for that.......if you promise to read it.:D




Libby was prosecuted because his recollection of when he spoke to Russert differed from that of Russert's. Fitzgerald took Russert's version over Libby's.

You're joking right?

[ViolaLee]

CIA Director Micheal Hayden and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald both said Plame was a covert agent.

Valerie Plame testified under oath that she was covert and had been overseas on covert missions in recent years before her testimony. Has anyone charged her with perjury? No? Why? Because she WAS COVERT.

That's why a special prosecutor was called to investigate the leak of a covert agent's name.

Why do you people keep believing the lies?

I don't get it.

[Wndrtch]

CIA Director Micheal Hayden and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald both said Plame was a covert agent.

Valerie Plame testified under oath that she was covert and had been overseas on covert missions in recent years before her testimony. Has anyone charged her with perjury? No? Why? Because she WAS COVERT.

That's why a special prosecutor was called to investigate the leak of a covert agent's name.

Why do you people keep believing the lies?

I don't get it.


Then why haven't they gone after Richard Armitage? IF a crime was commited, then arrest the guy. Pick up her husband too. He named her in a magazine.

"Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098

So, if you're so intersted in justice being served on behalf of the Wilson's, then go and get the guy already.

[I Like Beer]

THREAD-BUSTA!!

Valerie Plame was never an undercover agent and never covered under the protection laws.

She was outed by her own husband.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008783.php


Here's a link to the ad in Who's Who
http://wizbangblog.com/images/2005/josephwilson_whoswho.php

He lists his wife's name but not that she's a CIA operative. I don't think the name of his wife was the secret (I assume his family, friends, and acquaintances knew his wife's name). Novak is the one who wrote "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" - does that appear in Who's Who?

On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA, stating that Wilson was under cover and that her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and in her various positions at the CIA, had faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame

Still like to know if you think this kind of retaliation is a-ok?[hr]Right back at you Pickles.


Is that a term of endearment?

Are you coming on to me? ;)

[Wndrtch]

He lists his wife's name but not that she's a CIA operative. I don't think the name of his wife was the secret (I assume his family, friends, and acquaintances knew his wife's name). Novak is the one who wrote "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" - does that appear in Who's Who?

Sorry ILB, we wereposting at the same time. Here's some additional info:

"Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret."

Richard Armatige leaked the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, in the WMD group., Once Novak had that, it easy for Novak to search and find Valerie's name in the "Who's who" rag. If anybody is in trouble, it's Armitage. But he won't ever be charged, because Armitage is a darling of the Left, seeing how he walked out when Powell left.

Still like to know if you think this kind of retaliation is a-ok?

It doesn't matter if I think it's ok or not, it's the way things work today. We conduct "Gotcha" politics today, and you better be godd at playing the game

[suedanim]

CIA Director Micheal Hayden and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald both said Plame was a covert agent.

Valerie Plame testified under oath that she was covert and had been overseas on covert missions in recent years before her testimony. Has anyone charged her with perjury? No? Why? Because she WAS COVERT.

That's why a special prosecutor was called to investigate the leak of a covert agent's name.

Why do you people keep believing the lies?

I don't get it.


Then why haven't they gone after Richard Armitage? IF a crime was commited, then arrest the guy. Pick up her husband too. He named her in a magazine.

"Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098

So, if you're so intersted in justice being served on behalf of the Wilson's, then go and get the guy already.


Go get the guy? Who? So far, we've had a Justice Department under the supervision of Alberto Gonzales. Total cover for the Bush admin and everyone in it. I'm really not surprised no action has been taken, even though George promised publically that anyone responsible for the leak would be prosecuted.

I've never understood how the sycophants deny Plame was covert when George said she was AND announced his determination to find the leaker, fire and prosecute them.

??? Whats up with that?

[Wndrtch]

CIA Director Micheal Hayden and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald both said Plame was a covert agent.

Valerie Plame testified under oath that she was covert and had been overseas on covert missions in recent years before her testimony. Has anyone charged her with perjury? No? Why? Because she WAS COVERT.

That's why a special prosecutor was called to investigate the leak of a covert agent's name.

Why do you people keep believing the lies?

I don't get it.


Then why haven't they gone after Richard Armitage? IF a crime was commited, then arrest the guy. Pick up her husband too. He named her in a magazine.

"Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098

So, if you're so intersted in justice being served on behalf of the Wilson's, then go and get the guy already.


Go get the guy? Who? So far, we've had a Justice Department under the supervision of Alberto Gonzales. Total cover for the Bush admin and everyone in it. I'm really not surprised no action has been taken, even though George promised publically that anyone responsible for the leak would be prosecuted.

I've never understood how the sycophants deny Plame was covert when George said she was AND announced his determination to find the leaker, fire and prosecute them.

??? Whats up with that?


Both the Left and the Right are protecting Armitage. He's known for strateling the line, and for being a great guy. When the hack Dem Politicians found out it was Armitage that outed Plame, they dropped the talking points right fast. But hey, all was not lost. At least they got Scooter tripped-up in it, and laughed as he compromised himself over a non-issue.

[ViolaLee]

Go get the guy? Who? So far, we've had a Justice Department under the supervision of Alberto Gonzales. Total cover for the Bush admin and everyone in it. I'm really not surprised no action has been taken, even though George promised publically that anyone responsible for the leak would be prosecuted.

I've never understood how the sycophants deny Plame was covert when George said she was AND announced his determination to find the leaker, fire and prosecute them.

??? Whats up with that?


Good point. Alberto wasn't about to investigate anything. The Republican Senate and House weren't about to investigate anything.

I understand why the extreme right still thinks she wasn't covert. They've been lied to by Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, Malkin and the rest for so long, they can't see the truth.

:unreal:

[preservanation]

Sudanim:
I've never understood how the sycophants deny Plame was covert when George (Bush[sic]) said she was AND announced his determination to find the leaker, fire and prosecute them.
In the Plame case?
Source?[hr]See,
Fry bigger fish.
This is a waste of the lib's time to recreate the lie.
Take a page from Harry Reid and try to scam in on the credit, and distance yourself from the lie.
It seemed to work for him.
Take a page.

[Elrathin]

Sorry but Plame testified she was Covert. If she wasn't why wasn't purgery charges filed? SNAP you conservatives HAVE NOTHING. She was covert and you guys just can't accept FACT.

[ViolaLee]

It's hard to admit you've been lied to and you've believed the lies for so long. It's like the abused spouse syndrome. They want to keep it a secret from everyone, they are ashamed, and they stay because they are afraid of the unknown. So they just get beat up again and again. And defend the abuser and make excuses.

Plame was a covert agent who worked in the middle east, tracking WMD. She was overseas as a NOC and covert during the 5 years leading up to her testimony. That gives her the status of top secret identity.

[preservanation]

She lied.
According to Toensing and others who wrote the statute...
she (Plame) was not covert.
Keep flipping the pillow, the sand on your head will still be in your hair.

[ViolaLee]

Sudanim:
I've never understood how the sycophants deny Plame was covert when George (Bush[sic]) said she was AND announced his determination to find the leaker, fire and prosecute them.
In the Plame case?
Source?


"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

[preservanation]

If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. Armitage was not a member of Bush's adm. at the time.

Even so, why wasn't he prosecuted if he was the actual leaker of the "crime" that was being investigated by Fitzgerald?
Help me.

[Elrathin]

If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. Armitage was not a member of Bush's adm. at the time.

Even so, why wasn't he prosecuted if he was the actual leaker of the "crime" that was being investigated by Fitzgerald?
Help me.


Plame testified that she was covert, no Pergury charges have been filed, waiting for you to debunk that one.

[ViolaLee]

Here's some background on how they all found out Plame was a CIA agent.

the LA Times reported on August 25, 2005: (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/11/20/256/70760)
After a June 12 Washington Post story made reference to the Niger uranium inquiry, Armitage asked intelligence officers in the State Department for more information. He was forwarded a copy of a memo classified "Secret" that included a description of Wilson's trip for the CIA, his findings, a brief description of the origin of the trip and a reference to "Wilson's wife."

The memo was kept in a safe at the State Department along with notes from an analyst who attended the CIA meeting at which Wilson was suggested for the Niger assignment. Those with top security clearance at State, like their counterparts in the White House, had been trained in the rules about classified information. They could not be shared with anyone who did not have the same clearance.

Less than a month later, Wilson went public with his charges. The next day, July 7, this memo and the notes were removed from the safe and forwarded to Powell via a secure fax line to Air Force One. Powell was on the way to Africa with the president, and his aides knew the secretary would be getting questions.

Cheney told Libby about Plame's CIA status. Powell and Fleischer saw the memo that was placed on Air Force One, that said TOP SECRET and mentioned Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame was CIA. Armitage was Powells chief of staff, and he is the one who faxed it to Powell on the plane.

And about Rove, remember this?

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling a conversation between Libby and his boss, Vice President Cheney, as the leak investigation heated up in 2003. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected." Wells said that Rove was protected because "his fate was important to the Republican party." link (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/24/40523.aspx)

[preservanation]

What did Rove have to with the "outing" of Plame?
Not as though that was a crime to begin with.
If it was, then why wasn't Armitage prosecuted?
It has now been established by ALL that he was Novak's source.

[Elrathin]

She lied.
According to Toensing and others who wrote the statute...
she (Plame) was not covert.
Keep flipping the pillow, the sand on your head will still be in your hair.


She testified under oath she was covert. If she wasn't, then why haven't Purgery charges been filed? Oh yeah, she wasn't lying. Nothing can change that fact. If she lied, she would be brought up on purgery charges. Whre are the charges pres, keep looking, until then you have NOTHING.

[preservanation]

She was wrong (on purpose or not), under the statute in question she was not covert.
By Victoria Toensing
Sunday, February 18, 2007; B01



Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation?

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald charged Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff with perjury on the theory that Libby had a nefarious reason for lying to a grand jury about what he told reporters regarding CIA officer Plame: He was trying to cover up a White House conspiracy to retaliate against Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had infuriated Vice President Cheney by accusing the Bush administration of lying about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Fitzgerald apparently concluded that a purported cover-up was sufficient motive for Libby to trim his recollections in a criminal way. So when Libby's testimony differed from that of others, it was Libby who got indicted.

There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.

If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:

* * *

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES PATRICK J. FITZERALD with ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed, with handling some witnesses with kid gloves and banging on others with a mallet, with engaging in past contretemps with certain individuals that might have influenced his pursuit of their liberty, and with misleading the public in a news conference because . . . well, just because. To wit:

· On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

From FBI interviews conducted after Oct. 1, 2003, Fitzgerald also knew that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage had identified Plame as a CIA officer to columnist Robert D. Novak, who first published Plame's name on July 14, 2003.

· In January 2001, Libby was the lawyer for millionaire financier Marc Rich, whom President Bill Clinton pardoned shortly before leaving office. Fitzgerald, who was then an assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York, and U.S. Attorney James Comey spearheaded the criminal investigation of that pardon.

· Fitzgerald jailed former New York Times reporter Judith Miller for almost 90 days for not providing evidence in a matter that involved no crime. Yet the two were engaged in another dispute: Fitzgerald wanted Miller's phone records, contending that by contacting an Islamic charity, she had alerted it to a government search the day before it happened.

· Fitzgerald granted immunity to former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer without ever asking what he would testify to; he permitted NBC News bureau chief Tim Russert to be interviewed in a law firm office with his lawyer present, while Novak was forced to testify before the grand jury without counsel present.

· Armitage, like Bush adviser Karl Rove, forgot one conversation with a reporter. Fitzgerald threatened Rove with prosecution; Armitage bragged that he didn't even need a lawyer.

· In violating prosecutorial ethics by discussing facts outside the indictment during his Oct. 28, 2005, news conference, Fitzgerald made one factual assertion that turned out to be flat wrong: Libby was not "the first official" to reveal Plame's identity.

* * *

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE CIA for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derrière.

The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame's status were "classified"--Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status -- no law would be violated.

There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure.

* * *

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES JOSEPH C. WILSON IV with misleading the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status, perhaps for the purpose of getting book and movie contracts.

· On July 6, 2003, Wilson appeared on "Meet the Press" hours after the New York Times published his op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which accused the administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat. The piece suggested that Wilson had been sent to Niger at the vice president's request to look into foreign intelligence reports of Iraqi efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium. Wilson told Andrea Mitchell, "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip there." But Cheney said he had no knowledge of Wilson's trip and was never briefed on his oral report to the CIA.

· Wilson has claimed repeatedly -- including on MSNBC's "Countdown" on July 22, 2005 and at the National Press Club on Oct. 31, 2005 -- that he was sent to Niger because of his "specific skill set" and not because of his wife. But Senate intelligence committee documents indicate that Plame suggested his name for the trip, as did a State Department report and a CIA official who briefed the vice president's office.

· Although Wilson has repeatedly claimed that neither his trip nor his oral report was classified, the CIA sent documents about the trip marked "classified" to the vice president's office and to date has not released the essence of the oral report. A source later identified as Wilson claimed in a Washington Post article on June 12, 2003, that documents related to an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal were forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." When Senate intelligence committee staff questioned that, as Wilson had never seen the documents, he responded that he may have "misspoken."

· Wilson has continually played coy about his wife's status. On July 16, 2003, David Corn wrote in the Nation: "Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security -- and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?" Corn acknowledged talking to Wilson but said that Wilson refused to talk about his wife. Yet Corn also published Wilson's rather unsubtle suggestion: "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career."

Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html
You guys have to really pay more attention.
Fitz's case has been exploded.
For some to keep defending the investigation and continue to repeat lies which have been long refuted makes some look silly and just plain uninformed.
My advice would be to cede this one and move on to another avenue to destroy Bush.
There are greener pastures out there for you, this one has dried up and blew away many months ago.
The libs should give it up.
Clinging on to this farce is just further damaging some people's credibility.

[PatrickHenry]

The fact remains that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent who was working undercover to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

And that sources within the Bush Administration effectively destroyed her career and her network for political purposes. The purpose? Her HUSBAND said that the President lied in his State of the Union speech. Did Bush really lie? Who cares?

The point is that the retaliation from the Administration was swift and threatening to national security. The attack on Iraq was ostensibly about a nuclear program. Ms. Plame was addressing that specific problem, proliferation. What other reason for attacking an agent engaged in a vital effort?

Either way the Administration is unworthy of our support. Iraq wasn't about WMD. If it was, Plame's work would not have been undermined. There was always another agenda, and WMD counterproliferation could be tossed aside at will.

[Elrathin]

The libs should give it up.
Clinging on to this farce is just further damaging some people's credibility.


Well then where are the purgery charges Pres? If you're so sure, where are the charges against Plame for lying under oathe?

Oh wait, there are no charges because she wasn't lying.

[ViolaLee]

And where is the outrage against CIA director Hayden and SP Patrick Fitzgerald for lying about Plames covert status?

[lily]

She was wrong (on purpose or not), under the statute in question she was not covert.
By Victoria Toensing
Sunday, February 18, 2007; B01


Interesting......an article written by Toensing.....well.......she's a lawyer. If she believes all this as an officer of the court, she should do something about it.


Oh wait........her credibility was shredded when she testified.

· On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

Actually he didn't have to ask the CIA.......as it was the head of the CIA that wanted this investigated. I would think the head of the CIA would know the status of his employess and wouldn't waste governemnt funds if a crime wasn't committed. He wanted to know who put one of his employees in danger........not only her, but every contact she had.........which as we now know her specialty was WMD......so convient.


· Fitzgerald jailed former New York Times reporter Judith Miller for almost 90 days for not providing evidence in a matter that involved no crime. Yet the two were engaged in another dispute: Fitzgerald wanted Miller's phone records, contending that by contacting an Islamic charity, she had alerted it to a government search the day before it happened.

......and Toensing was council to both Miller and Novak.

[ViolaLee]

And as Plame testified, she did have a foreign assignment within five years of the disclosure, not only that, but within 5 years of her testimony, which was 3 years after the disclosure.

[preservanation]

You are all ignoring the obvious and trying to perpetuate the lie that somehow Plame was outed in retribution for Wilson's lies. This is not supported by the facts.
Armitage was the one who brought it to Novak's attention that Plame sent Wilson and that she worked for the CIA.
Is any of what I just said in dispute?
If so, please go back and review the material.

[AlanC]

The facts in this case are as follows:

Armitage, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq is the one who leaked Plame's name to Novak.

Novak, who has been critical of the war in Iraq since its start as a columnist published the information.

Neither Novak nor Armitage were charged with a crime of any kind.

Libby was charged with lying to a grand jury and lieing to FBI investigators. You do know perjury, that crime that Bill Clinton committed?

Valery Plame went to work evry day through the front gate at Langly. That means she was working for the CIA and the government was making no effort to keep her identity a secret. Hence, by the definition of the law she was NOT working in a covert status.

She had been brought back from her overseas assignment because why? Because her identity had been revealed on two occassions to both the Cubans and some some Eastern Block agents in the Italian Embassy in the early 1990's.

There was no crime. And Joe Wilson was outed as a liar as well.

It is heartening though to see such zealous support of the CIA on the part of the left.

[Elrathin]

Again, if she wasn't covert, then why weren't purgery charges filed against her for lying? Answer? She was covert so no charges of lying could be charged against her.

[BoogyMan]

If she was truly covert El, why were there no charges filed against the defendant based on the actual premise of the case?

[preservanation]

AC:
It is heartening though to see such zealous support of the CIA on the part of the left.
Good point!
Where was the left's overwhelmingly support for the CIA and it's sanctity before this incident?
It sure wasn't during the Nixon years.

Truth is the CIA is infested with quite a few libs. One of the aims of the socialists is to take over from within, and not from the outside like they tried in the 60's.
I believe there are many fed agencies and beaucracies which have been actively working against this administration. Infiltration and sabotage.

Where did all those dozens of Bush damaging leaks coming from? Who were the anonymous sources who enthusiastically spilled their guts to the NYT and Wash Post?
Sure weren't conservative Republicans.
Hooo boy!

[Anti-Racism]

Does "Plame" rhyme with "Game"?

[ViolaLee]

She had been brought back from her overseas assignment because why? Because her identity had been revealed on two occassions to both the Cubans and some some Eastern Block agents in the Italian Embassy in the early 1990's.


She was covert, overseas within 5 years of her testimony which was 3 years after her outing. Her status was classified.


If she was truly covert El, why were there no charges filed against the defendant based on the actual premise of the case?

Charges were not filed because according to the law they had to prove the intent of the traitors. They had to be able to prove they knew she was covert and they had to prove she was outted on purpose. They couldn't prove what was in the traitor's minds without someone testifying against them. There was no one to do that. So they had no case.

[Elrathin]

If she was truly covert El, why were there no charges filed against the defendant based on the actual premise of the case?


Who specifically outed her and where is the proof of that? There isn't solid proof of that, however, there is solid proof if she lied right?

And you have yet to answer mine Boogy, why were no charges filed against her, she lied right according to you. So where are the charges? You conservative types love to say she wasn't covert, but she hasn't been charged with purgery WHY???

[preservanation]

You conservative types love to say she wasn't covert, but she hasn't been charged with purgery WHY???

OK, let's say you are right and she was covert and there was a violation of the law.
Why wasn't the original leaker, Armitage, charged with the underlying crime Fitzgerald was attempting to prosecute?
Right back at ya.
This whole thing stinks.

[AlanC]

Who specifically outed her and where is the proof of that? There isn't solid proof of that, however, there is solid proof if she lied right?

Armitage has admitted to Fitzgerald and publicly that he is the source of Novak's information. Novak has stated that Armitage was his source and he published the fact that she worked for the CIA. That is who specifically outed her. Even Janet Reno could have made that case, if there had been a crime committed that is.

[preservanation]

Even Janet Reno could have made that case, if there had been a crime committed that is.
Ah, a Waco reference?
Or Ruby Ridge?
I like it, AC!

[Elrathin]

And if she wasn't covert than she would have been been found guilty of purgury. Too bad no spin can change that one.

[preservanation]

I once I had a dream, I woke up swinging at an imaginary enemy from my sand box where i was taking my nap.
Whew, thank got I woke up!
Seems like the libs are still swinging it the air...
There nap is still going on!
Somnambulism in its most obvious manifestation.

[BoogyMan]

And if she wasn't covert than she would have been been found guilty of purgury. Too bad no spin can change that one.


Says who El, was she being scrutinized at all? No.

Once again as in the previous response you try to setup a scenario with no answer, yet fail.

Show me where the charges have been filed for ANYONE involved with this case for outing a covert agent. I would love to see a coherent answer to why there were no charges filed that actually dealt with the case.

[preservanation]

You are a patient man. Boog.
An enviable quality.

[Elrathin]

And if she wasn't covert than she would have been been found guilty of purgury. Too bad no spin can change that one.


Says who El, was she being scrutinized at all? No.

Once again as in the previous response you try to setup a scenario with no answer, yet fail.

Show me where the charges have been filed for ANYONE involved with this case for outing a covert agent. I would love to see a coherent answer to why there were no charges filed that actually dealt with the case.


Yes but according to most conservatives she lied UNDER OATH. that is a felony, no charges PERIOD.

[preservanation]

Wilson wrote in a 2003 New York Times column that the CIA sent him to Niger after Vice President Dick Cheney made a request to investigate a report of a Saddam-Niger connection. Wilson said he found no evidence of an uranium deal. (Which Wilson then admitted was not true).
The Wilson column brought news media inquiries about the trip. Several administration officials, in explaining that the White House had no role in sending him to Niger, told reporters his wife worked at the CIA and had recommended him.

In other words, there was an explanation for discussing his wife other than the allegation from Wilson that the White House outed a covert officer purely to punish him for his New York Times column, they say.http://www.examiner.com/a-634742~Plame_s_testimony_shifting__source_says.htm l
Once a liar....?
Or does that only need apply to some, according to Bubba and the Queen?

[AlanC]

Elrathin

She only said it in a Senate hearing. I doubt there was anyone in the room that would have recognized the difference between truth and lie, much less try to charge someone with it.

The statement is so obviously false that it never did merit any attention, much less charges. That is what made the whole prosecution of Libby such a farse. If you wanted to throw Libby in jail, you would have had a much better case when he was Mark Rich's attorney when Clinton was selling a pardon to Rich.

[lily]

Elrathin

She only said it in a Senate hearing. I doubt there was anyone in the room that would have recognized the difference between truth and lie, much less try to charge someone with it.



The senate hearing was made up of a panel of both Democrats and Republicans......now I can see why Democrats wouldn't want to bring up perjury charges.......but what would the Republicans gain from not doing so? This is still an electricly charged item and with elections and points to be made, if there was something there, then politicly speaking why waste the opportunity?

[AlanC]

Lily,

It is my opinion that the Republicans cost themselves dearly to pursue the perjury charges against Clinton in both public support and in votes. I believe the same thing will happen to either side if they try to push any aspect of the Plame case any further.

This is not a case that resonates with the vast majority of the electorate and there is really nothing to be gained from continuing to press this, again for either side.

All issues have a shelf life and the expire date on both Joe Wilson and his wife is way past gone. Politically speaking, there is no opportunity here for Dems or Republicans

[lily]

Thanks Alan........I think that is the most reasonable and thought out response in this entire thread.........not only that, but it makes sense!:thumbsup:

[BoogyMan]

If she was truly covert El, why were there no charges filed against the defendant based on the actual premise of the case?

Charges were not filed because according to the law they had to prove the intent of the traitors. They had to be able to prove they knew she was covert and they had to prove she was outted on purpose. They couldn't prove what was in the traitor's minds without someone testifying against them. There was no one to do that. So they had no case.


If they couldn't prove it why do you parrot the claim and calling them traitors Viola?

[I Like Beer]

Still like to know if you think this kind of retaliation is a-ok?

It doesn't matter if I think it's ok or not, it's the way things work today. We conduct "Gotcha" politics today, and you better be godd at playing the game


This is what is so disgusting to me. Liberals and conservatives TEND to look the other way when their side does something unsavory like this but we react with outrage when the other side does it.

Why do we hold our opponents to a higher standard than we set for ourselves or our allies? That is backwards to me and leads to an 'end justifies the means mentality'. We can act in a dishonourable way as long as we win - is that it?

To me, we should hold ourselves and our beliefs (or political affiliation) to the highest scrutiny. After all, if we're right, they should stand up to scrutiny - right? If they do not, we should reevaluate them.

It seems to me we're all too willing to forgive the transgressions of our side in order to win in the end. To me, that's just wrong.

[Wndrtch]

Still like to know if you think this kind of retaliation is a-ok?

It doesn't matter if I think it's ok or not, it's the way things work today. We conduct "Gotcha" politics today, and you better be godd at playing the game


This is what is so disgusting to me. Liberals and conservatives TEND to look the other way when their side does something unsavory like this but we react with outrage when the other side does it.

Why do we hold our opponents to a higher standard than we set for ourselves or our allies? That is backwards to me and leads to an 'end justifies the means mentality'. We can act in a dishonourable way as long as we win - is that it?

To me, we should hold ourselves and our beliefs (or political affiliation) to the highest scrutiny. After all, if we're right, they should stand up to scrutiny - right? If they do not, we should reevaluate them.

It seems to me we're all too willing to forgive the transgressions of our side in order to win in the end. To me, that's just wrong.


I agree with most of your sentiments here. Altho, can you name me a Republican that was wrpped-up in a scandle, and kept his "job" through the next election cycle? Most times (not all, granted), a Republican doesn't survive because he will either loose support of the party or his voters won't show-up to vote for him.

[ViolaLee]

If she was truly covert El, why were there no charges filed against the defendant based on the actual premise of the case?

Charges were not filed because according to the law they had to prove the intent of the traitors. They had to be able to prove they knew she was covert and they had to prove she was outted on purpose. They couldn't prove what was in the traitor's minds without someone testifying against them. There was no one to do that. So they had no case.


If they couldn't prove it why do you parrot the claim and calling them traitors Viola?
Because they OUTED a classified CIA agent.

[BoogyMan]

Because they OUTED a classified CIA agent.


You freely admit they could not prove the claim, yet you parrot that claim as if it were true.

Egads....