Wash. Times' Pruden: Plame "little more than a clerk assigned to clip and paste newspaper and magazine articles"
In a June 19 column advocating a presidential pardon for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Washington Times Editor-in-Chief Wesley Pruden claimed that "[a]s it turns out, [former CIA operative Valerie Plame] was not a secret agent at all, but little more than a clerk assigned to clip and paste newspaper and magazine articles." Pruden added that Plame was "[n]o Mata Hari or Antonia Ford" and that a colleague of Plame's called her "[t]he princess of the pastepot." Pruden concluded that "[s]ince she was not a secret agent, under the law there was no harm, no foul." In fact, in a recent court filing, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald explicitly stated that Plame "qualified" as covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Moreover, Fitzgerald attached to a separate filing a summary of Plame's CIA employment, which asserted that, at the time her identity was disclosed in the media, Plame was chief of a component in the agency's Counterproliferation Division "with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq." The summary further described Plame as having traveled overseas in a covert capacity "at least seven times to more than ten times" since January 2002.
Pruden's claim that Plame "was not a secret agent" exemplifies what Newsweek reporters Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball described in a May 29 article as a "major theme of Libby's defenders": "that, at the time of her outing, Valerie Wilson was little more than a desk analyst who was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- the 1982 law making it a crime to disclose the identity of a covert officer." However, as Isikoff and Hosenball noted, in a sentencing memorandum filed on May 25, Fitzgerald "finally resolved one of the most disputed issues at the core of the long-running CIA leak controversy." From the memo:
It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.
Moreover, in a May 29 filing, Fitzgerald included an "unclassified summary" of Plame's CIA employment, which established that she had headed a counterproliferation operation focused on Iraq and had traveled overseas in an undercover capacity in the five years prior to the disclosure of her identity. From the document:
On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.
While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity -- sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official cover (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
The June 19 column was not the first in which Pruden has characterized Plame as the "princess" or "queen" of the "pastepot," but it is the first time Media Matters identified in which he purported to source the comment -- attributing it to "one of her colleagues." A search of the Nexis database for all news reports* with the terms "Plame" and "pastepot" found three other uses of the label -- all of them in columns by Pruden. In a September 5, 2006, column, he referred to her as "the queen of the clipping scissors and pastepots at the CIA." In an August 18, 2006, column, he called her "the queen of the pastepots at the CIA." And in a November 25, 2005, column -- titled "Pastepot princesses are important, too" -- Pruden referred to her as "merely the princess of the pastepot." In none of those earlier cases did Pruden use quotation marks for the moniker or otherwise indicate he had it heard from someone.
Pruden's column is just the latest attempt by The Washington Times -- in both its news and editorial pages -- to discredit Plame and deny that she was covert at the time of the leak. As Media Matters noted, a July 15, 2005, Times article quoted former CIA operative Fred Rustmann, who supervised Plame for one year early in her career and retired from the agency in 1990 -- more than a decade before Plame's identity was allegedly leaked. According to the report, Rustmann asserted that Plame's CIA employment was not a secret: "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his [Wilson's] friends knew this." But the same article mentioned only one of Plame's neighbors by name: David Tillotson, who told the Times that he "absolutely didn't know" Plame worked for the CIA.
Nevertheless, without naming a single neighbor who knew of Plame's CIA employment, the Times subsequently published editorials on July 19, 2005, and July 26, 2005, and a news article on July 25, 2005, claiming variously that "most," "numerous," and "several" of Plame's neighbors knew about her work. An October 26, 2005, Los Angeles Times article quoted Tillotson as saying he told FBI investigators he socialized with Plame and Wilson and "had no idea" about Plame's CIA employment. And several of Plame's other neighbors have told journalists and the FBI that they did not know she worked for the CIA before syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote about it in his July 14, 2003, column.
From Pruden's June 19 column:
These are the saddest of times and the worst of times for George W. Bush. His war in Iraq continues to truck south, to join the immigration "reform" legislation that took up residence at the South Pole some time ago, and now his remaining friends are urging him to be the stand-up guy Texans are always telling us they are.
Not even the iron fence of secrecy and security surrounding the White House can resist the pressure building on the president to stand up to pardon Scooter Libby, soon to be sentenced to 24 months in prison for lying about a crime that was never committed. He won't be allowed to remain free while his appeal goes forward. This conviction stinks with growing pungency with every day Scooter remains in limbo. The principals are not worried about justice, but about trying to keep the stink off their robes, judicial and otherwise. There are villains aplenty.
The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, was brought in to find out who "outed" Valerie Plame, the dowager bombshell of the Potomac Palisades, revealing her to be an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. Suspicion eventually fell on Scooter, the chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. As incredible as it may be, Mr. Fitzgerald knew all along that it was not Scooter at all, but Richard L. Armitage, the government functionary who actually first identified Mzz Plame. As it turns out, she was not a secret agent at all, but little more than a clerk assigned to clip and paste newspaper and magazine articles. No Mata Hari or Antonia Ford she. "The princess of the pastepot," one of her colleagues called her. Since she was not a secret agent, under the law there was no harm, no foul.
But having spent millions on his luxury fishing expedition (it's not clear what he was fishing for, since he already knew who the "outer" was), Mr. Fitzgerald was desperate for a conviction to turn in with his expense account. He figured he had found a railroad leading to a conviction. Judge Reggie Walton knew what the prosecutor was doing, but judges are lawyers first, after all, and judges, august if not necessarily noble, are eager to be helpful to lawyers trying to cover up their sins and shortcomings. Mr. Fitzgerald pushed ahead, determined to convict someone even if he couldn't find a crime.
* Search terms used: "Plame" and "pastepot" between 7/14/03 and 6/19/07 in News (All).
Now this is just getting ridiculous...
So Armitage is a crimmal then?
You should ask somebody with a background in crimmal law.
And his credentials are .........??????????
Dude,
How many times do we have to explain this? Lawyers, when deciding to take cases, take those cases they determine they have a good chance of winning. One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, that Armitage was not charged was because of Libby's obstruction and perjury. This does not mean a crime was not committed by Armitage, but it does mean that Fitzgerald did not feel he could get a conviction due in part to the lies of Libby.
Let me give you an example or two that might make more sense. If you get pulled over for a potential DUI because you were swerving all over the road. The officer pulls you over and your breath reeks of alcohol. Then, the officer tests your blood at the station and I (or a third person) either break the vial of blood or steal it, am I not guilty of a crime? Of course I would be. I would be obstructing the criminal investigation of your potential DUI case. Now, without the blood results, could the prosecutor win a case by just putting the officer up there and have him testify against you? No. Does that mean that you weren't drunk driving? No, it just means there is not enough evidence for any jury to convict you. Because of Libby's interference there was not enough evidence to convict anyone and that is why its a serious crime.
If you would rather think of Al Capone, maybe that works better for you. Capone and his men seem to have committed many murders. Were they ever convicted? No, but he was convicted of tax fraud because there was more evidence that could be used to convict him. There was so much obstruction by his cronies that murder convictions would have been impossible.
So, before you go down the road of "was there a crime committed by Armitage (or anyone else), remember that a CIA agent who was covert (at least according to her agency and the head of it) was outed, but the underlying story was not able to be told fully because of Libby's perjury and obstruction.
If you don't believe Libby did anything wrong, the next time a friend of yours is accused of anything, you should probably do him/her a favor and obstruct the investigation. That way there is no crime, right?
Oh, so Armitage is a crimmal. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
You can keep beating that dead horse all you want. Only the simplest minded of morons will take you seriously. You are a joke. Armitage convinced Fitz that his outing of Plame was in advertant. Whether that is true you nor I will ever know but he convinced Fitz it was the way the law is written intent is an element of the crime. Armitage is completely irrlevant to the OTHERS who exposed Plame to reporters. It is possibly for more than one person to commit the same crime. Now I know this is simple enough for most people to understand I suggest you ask someone on the shortbus to explain it to YOU tomorrow
Solon ... once again I'm going to call you out on your continued insistence on using the term "shortbus" to try and belittle someone with whom you disagree.
I'm a special education teacher ... obviously, the "shortbus" thing is your lame-ass attempt to call someone stupid.
Well, here's a little tip for you: Not everyone who rides the "short bus" is stupid, or a moron, or whatever label you might want to attach to them. Some kids just learn differently than others.
You're one of the smartest posters here, Solon. But your willingness to stoop to insults and name-calling makes you look foolish and detracts from your message.
My kids have enough to deal with trying to find their place in this world without having to contend with this kind of crap.
Find someone else to pick on.
I appologize. You are completely right. It is insensative. It is an inappropriate vehicle for humor.
SOLON:
Good on you for your retraction and apology. Comparing Rightwingers to learning-impaired children is a gross insult ... to learning-impaired children.
We see Tex has no problem using them as humor toys.
Maybe he struck too close to home for you.
maybe those who claim 'compassion' are lying! They seem to make a habit of lying, what else do they lie about? Even their last president was a liar, even while under oath.
Solon:
Thank you. In rereading my post, I think I might have come on a little strong ... but I wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to the kids I teach. I see the snickers when we're out in public... the "short bus" thing in particular grates on me.
The developmentally disabled, it seems, are one of the last groups it's "okay" to make fun of. Let's take them off the list, too.
The conservative agenda is easy enough to skewer without descending to lowbrow humor and insults.
I will decide how I post. I will decide when I think insults are called for you have no say in the matter. You have made a point about the insensativity of using intellectually handicapped children as a foil but when I think I need a message board protocol manager I will let you know as of now I am not in the market for one.
when I think I need a message board protocol manager I will let you know as of now I am not in the market for one.
WOW! Talk about arogant!!
http://mediamatters.org/etc/terms "Users who disrupt the forums or violate the terms of use will be banned from participating in our forums. " There IS a board protocal manager!
There IS a board protocal manager!
Yes, and it isn't you.
True. Which is just one more reason I am not in the market for another one.
sports guy if any of your kids are reading this and complain maybe you should transfer them to a longer bus
Hey sportsguy, And all those comments are coming from the "compassionate" group. The ones who say the right are arogant and hateful.
I think the truth about the left and right is weeding itself out.
I think the truth about the left and right is weeding itself out.
Spoken by the head weed himself.
They are all guilty. They needed someone to fall on a sword so they would gut the White House. Libby obstructed, everyone else went free. Libby will get pardoned. Bush/Cheney and Rove win. Dems, Plaim and America all lose.
the question here, duncan, is whether plame was "just a clerk". she was not just a clerk, but an undercover operative. so said the cia, who should know.
"the question here, duncan, is whether plame was "just a clerk". she was not just a clerk, but an undercover operative. so said the cia, who should know."
If that's the case, why did the CIA confirm her employment with the agency to Robert Novak? The story is that Plame supposedly "worked" for a front company. Why didn't the CIA tell Novak that they had no Valerie Plame on their payroll?
So this is how the right ignores the rule of law. Who cares if Libby was convicted, right? It must have been a setup, because no sane rightwinger would ever have said "guilty" after hearing all the evidence...
"If that's the case, why did the CIA confirm her employment with the agency to Robert Novak?"
I thought the CIA was urging him not to publish her name.
that is correct. according to novak himself, he talked to a contact at the cia who told him not to publish her identity. novak later said he felt the warning "was not strong enough".
Maybe they should have put a gun to his head and said "please".
If that's the case, why did the CIA confirm her employment with the agency to Robert Novak?
I forgot to include the reply:
Novak said he learned of Plame status from Armitage and a conversation with Rove confirmed her status during Libby’s trial. He contacted the CIA and they urged him not to publish her name.
A better question is do you EVER know what you are talking about?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
Now Novak may have gotten a comfirmation from a CIA source he is famous for his CIA sources but the CIA officially DID NOT CONFIRM here identity while telling him NOT to name her.
"Now Novak may have gotten a comfirmation from a CIA source he is famous for his CIA sources but the CIA officially DID NOT CONFIRM here identity while telling him NOT to name her."
Wrong. Novak clearly wrote that a CIA SPOKESPERSON confirmed that she worked at the CIA. It was done officially.
No he didnt and I posted the words OF the official spokesperson who TALKED to Novak, that is Harlow, and he specifically said he did NOT verify she was an undercover agent. He got that from a soruce NOT the CIA.
Looks like this Harlow is in CYA mode. Unless you have evidence that Novak got it wrong, I'm going with his version since his version appeared contemporaneously.
The fact is that the CIA officially confirmed Plame's employment with the CIA when Novak called. If she had been covert, they would have simply said they have no Valerie Plame on its payroll. That's common sense, little fella.
How would you know? You dont have any. Ignorance you have in abundance moron. Common sense ya got none. Novak already knew she was a CIA agent. They neither officially confirm or deny such an accusation. That is common practice if they EVER denied it then when they DIDNT deny it that would blow the whole thing. He IS the offical spokeperson for the CIA. Novak got his information from a source NOT from the official spokesperson. He NEVER said she was covert though she absolutly was, and never denied it as it is their official policy NOT to confirm OR deny such claims under those circumstances. Since he was urging Novak NOT to publish her name it might have been obvious but that is not the same thing as an official confirmation.
He {Harlow} said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
About the comon sense thing. You just stated that the CIA spokesman told Novak it was Wilson's wife. How many wives did Wilson have?
One more question related to your shooting someone in the back analogy. If one person tells the press Valerie's name and then after a story is written another person tells the press Valerie's name...WHO told the press the name first? WHO is the guilty party?
I dont know what you are talking about I never said any such thing. The whole point of outing Plame to get back at Wilson was saying SHE sent him to Niger. Novak contacted the official spokesman for the CIA to verify this story he told Novak she didnt send him. Neither did I does that mean I am a CIA agent? The guy had to look her up later to even SEE if she was in the company. He then talked to Novak a second time telling him if he was going to write the story not to use her name. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as shooting someone in the back. I dont remember saying anything about that.
I dont know what you are talking about I never said any such thing.
He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. - solon / Tuesday June 19, 2007 09:17:10 PM EST
Getting a tad bit of altziemers disease, are we? Hope you not driving the train today...don't forget, the brake's on the right
Where is the "shooting in the back" part of that quote?
Exactly Autopsychotic has a huge reading comprehension problem
For all, When you enter a Court of Law (including FBI Investigators) and raise your hand, you swear to tell the TRUTH and NOTHING but the TRUTH, SO HELP ME GOD! Why is this so hard to understand.
And for those who say Libby's memory was faulty, my attorney told me if you don't know the answer say"I can't recall". Kind of like Gonzalez did 75 times and he's not in jail yet.
Kinda like Clinton did, and he's not in jail either! Let's keep our standards where they belong, hate to think you only want the republicans to tell the truth AND be punished!
Let's keep our standards where they belong, hate to think you only want the republicans to tell the truth AND be punished!
One or the other is sufficient. What displays the failure of the Justice system for all to see is when the Republicans neither tell the truth NOR get punished for it.
Remind me what Clinton was convicted of, please.
Ah yes, whataboutery, the last, desperate thrash of the loser.
And if Clinton had been convicted in a court of law for perjury you would have your first actual point in the history of posting here. Since he wasnt your unbroken string is intact
Also your last two sentence are a complete non sequitur. Do you mean only the FIRST person to commit a crime is actually guilty of it? So if I wait at a bank until someone robs it then rob it the next day I am not guilty of any crime? By your logic I wouldnt be. Let me appologize to REAL logic for that slanderous comparison
No, that analogy does not work. If there is a crime for exposing a spy, how many times can a spy be exposed? Once, twice? Perhaps YOU are guilty of the same crime since you are exposing her as a spy, too!
The mafia BushCo went out to expose an agent working on wmds and intelligence relating to Iran. Which one got a reporter to publish is irrelevant. They are all guilty and eventually be brought to justice. (we may not see how or when.) Karmic law is exacting.
This is not a sporting event, although you treat it as one.
So, if one person releases a spy's name to someone who does not go public with that information and someone else releases her name to a second person who publishes it, did they not committ the same crime?
Yes it works. Please tell me you arent this intellectually challenged. Until it is publicized that is until it is public knowlege it can be exposed any nuber of times.
"The fact is that the CIA officially confirmed Plame's employment with the CIA when Novak called. If she had been covert, they would have simply said they have no Valerie Plame on its payroll. That's common sense, little fella."
The guy said he talked to Novak twice. In his first conservation with Novak, he didn't know Plame's status. When he found out her status, he called Novak back and reiterated not to publish her name.
KEVIN:
Why do you hate America? Why do you defend partisans who reveal America's intelligence secrets, which harms our National Security? Are you aware President George H.W. Bush said, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
By defending those who exposed the name of an operative whose mission was classified, you, KEVIN, fall under Poppy Bush's definition of TRAITOR. And you do it for PARTISAN reasons alone, betraying your nation.
You should be ashamed, but shame calls for a CONSCIENCE, and the Rightwing are bereft of such an encumberance. So the nation is HARMED, and you partisans defend your traitors ... and AID the terrorists. Congrats.
Our forefathers warned us we would have to fight threats from without, AND WITHIN. God help America to withstand the attacks of her enemies abroad, and the attacks from craven rightwing partisans from within.
There is a famous book out called "The Enemy Within". You should read it, very fasinating stuff. Written by a world famous author, too.
Tremendous facts about the enemy growing within the US. Includes advise on how to deal with it.
I like famous books by world famous authors. They're the best kind of all.
How are you dealing with this enemy, Auto?
I keep them all busy on an ultra-liberal web site. It's amazing how simple minded 'the enemy' is. One simple post can keep some yelling and screaming for days. You can always tell you have them flustered when they start using 'moron' and 'reading comprehension' as dialogue tools. Some of 'the enemy' is down right stupid, but others think they are ultra intelligent.... the prior is more accurate. 'The enemy' has no mental capability, just keep repeating the same lines told to them over and over again, such as "bush lied, soldiers died".
A famous book, yeah about as famous as my uncle Jack, by a famously deranged lunatic, would be a more accurate characterization
Novak clearly wrote that a CIA SPOKESPERSON confirmed that she worked at the CIA.
He had "clearly written" lies before, and he will "clearly write" lies again. Novak lies as easily as others breathe. He is not to be trusted. The very story he "clearly wrote" about Plame "authorizing" Wilson's trip was a lie "clearly written" in the very series of articles in which he "clearly wrote" about Plame being with the CIA.
Novak may "clearly write," but he sure doesn't "clearly think."
I watched the CIA leak hearings, and I heard this gem that day.....I sent this to the Stephanie Miller show, and they talked about this point for two days.
Victoria Toensing stated that Ms. Plame did not keep her CIA identity a secret because she donated campaign funds to Al Gore, and listed her employer as Brewster Jennings. (From what I heard, not one person on the panel called her on this stupid statement!)
Brewster Jennings WAS A CIA COVER COMPANY, created to enable COVERT CIA officers to work under the cover of a fake employer, and have no connections to the CIA.
OF COURSE Plame would tell people she worked for Brewster Jennings, that was the whole idea of the COVER COMPANY....to tell everyone you work for it, and make the company look legitimate.
And Toensing says she was not covert. Is Toensing really that stupid?
Good point on the front company Brewster Jennings. One of the reasons we do not know the extent of the damage from the leak of Plame's idendity is that the CIA's damage assessment is highly classified. The CIA is not in a position to release information related to the number of CIA operatives and contacts whose activities were compromised. It is pure speculation whether lives were lost and a potentially valuable intelligence apparatus destroyed. But, since we are in the dark, the righties are able to claim there is no evidence that the leak did any harm. Maybe in ten or twenty years we will see what harm was actually done and people will wonder why these thugs weren't taken to the gallows. But by then players like Cheney, Novak and Rove will have long since passed away.
Good question, Sceolang.
I would opt more for sinister than stupid, but the one doesn't necessarily cancel out the otherl. It's not stupid to believe that an oft repeated lie will take on the appearance of truth to lazy or uninformed minds. This thread is dealing with that tactic right now.
The reason she said that is because an agent under a deep cover using a fictitious company is not supposed to reveal to the public the name of the fake company (in this case Brewster Jennings that had a fake address in a real building - no physical office and no company actually existed). If the agent is working for a real company i.e. Coca-Cola then that name can be revealed. I asked this question to a friend who works at the CIA and he said if Plame did this it was wrong - meaning listing her company name with Al Gore's donation. I asked him in the context as to why she used her own name and I guess it is common for agents to use their own names. I thought that was odd that they wouldn't have a fake spy name but I guess it is common that they use their real names.
Wrong on all counts. A cover company is the name that is put in the public eye to cover the fact that it is CIA. If one who is there is asked where they work, it is the cover company's name that is given. That is its reason for existence.
Your "friend who works for the CIA" may actually be your friend, but if he said what he did, he's no employee of the CIA.
Easy.....I think Leather's "friend" is the same one he talks to when he is alone in a room.
Leatherhelmut
The use of cover companies, and their various uses over the years have been discussed in the news, in books, in movie plots, and in documentaries. The names of companies can't connected to the CIA or a known CIA agent. If that happens agents lives are placed at risk, and their cover is gone.
Victoria Toensing stated that Plame worked for the Brewster Jennings Company, and that Ms. Plame didn't hide that fact. Her point was that if she said who she worked for she wasn't covert.
Yet, when Toensing said this, it had been revealed in the media that Brewster Jennings had been a front company for covert agents, and by exposing Ms. Plame as a CIA agent, it also put the lives of other agents at risk.
Tonesing's statment actually supports the fact that Ms. Plame was covert. BEFORE she was revealed to be a CIA agent, Brewster Jennings was simply a company that she and others worked for. Their jobs are believable, because in their real lives, they tell people this is who they work for. Leaking Plame's CIA employment, also exposed Brewster Jennings CIA connection. Get it??? This has been discussed at length in articles, on TV and radio.
The stories the right have told about "everyone knowing Plame was CIA" have been debunked. People thought she worked for Brewster Jennings.
Read closely, Dunc. Never said the person in my account was guilty, just that it looked like it, but no one knew because of other factors. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Is Armitage a crimmal(sic?)? Who the f*** knows? Was Plame undercover? If not, then why did the CIA refer the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution? If you can't answer that question, then the rest of it is just smoke and mirrors.
"So Armitage is a crimmal then?"
I would call him treasonous.
Armitage is a Vietnam War veteran. I find it odd that the same moonbats who say they support the troops are the same ones so eager to attack them.
What does him being a Vietnam War veteran have to due with anything?
I am not suprised that morons like you think because someone was once a soldier that means he can never be criticised for anything EVER or it is somehow disrespecting the troops. Where is that common sense you were talking about earlier?
because someone was once a soldier that means he can never be criticised for anything EVER or it is somehow disrespecting the troops
That's what you think whenever someone delivers an anti-Murtha statement. But, in true liberal fashion, you are able to flip-flop on your standards depending on who you're talking about...Murtha, Armitage, Kerry, North.
No its not. Murtha is attacked for his OPINIONS for those OPINIONS he is accused of not supporting the troops or being anti military for airing his OPINIONS. In THAT context his history of being not only IN the military but tight with the current brass IS relevant. Just citing the fact he was once a soldier to deflect criticism of something Armitage DID is not anywhere near the same thing. Not even a good try.
How Murtha votes relating to troop support is relevent to the issue. THAT is NOT opinion, it is how he IS.
Does support of the troops only happen when they are on the battlefield or should we take those in Congress to task for not supporting larger benefits at home?
Doncha get it, Boyo?
Support for the troops means putting a magnetized ribbon on your car and driving to the mall.
He votes based on his OPINION about what is best for America AND the troops. So it is still a function of a difference of opinion. The demonization is still based on an OPINION I think his votes were a lot more supportive of the troops than opposing votes that is supporting them NOT getting killed. I dont however seriously accuse the other side of hating the troops or wanting to get them killed because they disagree
So, you must love Kerry by that logic, right?
Are you trying to tell us veterans are incapable of criminal activity? There's a huge difference between supporting the troops and willful ignorance.
Randy "Duke" Cunningham was a Vietnam vet, too. Does that mean he sould be given a pass?
No genius. Try and read this slowly so it can sink in. Only Dick Cheney had the clearance level needed to find out Valerie Plame's covert status. Unless he told the subordinates he instructed to leak her name that she was covert, those subordinates didn't break the law. Cheney however did. His defense in the civil case is simply that he's the Vice President and can say whatever he wants.
This would be the "I was only following orders defense?"
And that worked so well at Nuremburg, didn't it?
Unbeleivable. A NOC for the United States of America ,who could get killed as a spy by having No Cover, and this eejit says she is a clerical worker? The disdain these people have for somebody who would put their life on the line for us is just ugly partisanship at it's worst.
Knowing what levels that those in power will stoop to for frivolous political retribution, what a wonderful inspiration it must be to patriotic Americans who are considering a career of safeguarding our nation as part of the CIA, especially the bravest among them who are willing to risk their lives in covert operations overseas.
How is the Agency supposed to lure the finest among us when fiascoes like this one are lurking just one newspaper article away?
"Unbeleivable. A NOC for the United States of America ,who could get killed as a spy by having No Cover, "
Plame's boss at the CIA said she was not a NOC. aLSO, The Los Angeles Times on July 16 reported, "Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said it was unlikely Plame was in danger as a result of being identified. An internal CIA review concluded that her exposure caused minimal damage, mainly because she had been working at headquarters for years, former officials familiar with the review said."
"Plame's boss at the CIA said she was not a NOC."
He probably said she wasn't a NOC because she wasn't serving overseas at the time of her outing.
"Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said it was unlikely Plame was in danger as a result of being identified."
Libby's defense team requested classified and unclassified documents from Fitzgerald regarding a CIA damage assessment report. He responded that he had no such documents because a formal assessment has not been done. I'm sure the CIA did a quick assessment to see if any of their agents were in danger but to this day a formal assessment has not been done.
The quote you offer doesn't say she wasn't a NOC. They might think she wasn't in danger because her current activities were local. But that doesn't mean the operation she was involved in wasn't compromised, or that others were endangered by the leak.
Also, it's bogus to say she wasn't a NOC. Exhibit A in the trial states clearly that she was. ([link to thenexthurrah.typepad.com] />
I think it's time Republicans Get Over It. Your administration put politics ahead of national security. And got caught.
Time magazine reported in October 2003 that Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, said "Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC." This means the "agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments." Time also reported that Plame's cover "probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an 'exceptional officer' but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat."
WOW you were wrong again what were the chances
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."
So she worked as a NOC agent at least seven times since the beggining of 2002. THIS IS WHAT THE CIA SAYS OFFICIALLY TO CONGRESS.
Wrong. Time magazine reported in October 2003 that Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, said "Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC." This means the "agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments." Time also reported that Plame's cover "probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an 'exceptional officer' but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat."
Whatever some guy says to Time Magazine the official CIA summary of her employment GIVEN TO CONGRESS INVESTIGATING THIS VERY SUBJECT says she left the country under non official cover several times since the beggining of 2002. THAT is by definition being a NOC agent. Give this up you are flat out WRONG.
It's not just some guy. It was Plame's boss at the CIA.
Time magazine reported in October 2003 that Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, said "Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC." This means the "agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments." Time also reported that Plame's cover "probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an 'exceptional officer' but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat."
AND HER OFFICIAL JOB SUMMARY given to CONGRESS investigating this very THING said she WAS. What part of OFFICIAL CIA job summary are you congenitally unable to understand????? I dont care what some guy said to Time magazines for his own reasons. The CIA says OFFICIALLY that she WAS travelling as a NOC agent several times in 2002. Get over it you are flat out wrong.
Let's keep in mind that the troll handbook specifies that if you cut and paste the same right-wing drivel three straight times, it magically becomes the truth. Score one for Kevin1007.
Kevin,
One question: Was Rustmann Plame's boss at the time her employment situation was revealed by Novak?
Answer: No. Rustmann hadn't supervised Plame since 1990.
Thanks,open_mind. That was the first question that came to my mind when a "retired, former boss" who's talkin now was mentioned.I was going to look it up, luckily saw your post first.
Funny that the very things that set off my BS detector (and obviously yours) are swallowed whole by those who are getting exactly what they want from the media.
Do it REALLY matter who it was? Surely it is no-one's interests to divulge that someone is working for the security services, whether their job is covert or not? Doesn't that exposure make them a security risk if nothing-else?
I just don't believe that you can sit there and think that it is OK to 'out' people who are working for your country in this manner. The only security people we out in the UK are traitors, and there hasn't been anyone exposed publically (to my knowledge) since Michael Bettaney in 1983.
You can't play the political expediency card here and if the CIA state that she was covert, then no one (not even POTUS) can state otherwise.
KEVIN:
I hope some day you have to go to court and rely on such quotes as you present here as "proof". Once the jury sorts past the "so-called"s and "probably"s, they will realize they are being fed a snow-job chock-full of weasel words that obfuscate and distract from the truth.
The TRUTH is, Plame's job was CLASSIFIED, and no about of "probably"s of "so-called"s will hide the fact that the Bush Administration purposefully exposed a covert agent (confirmed by the CIA), classified (also confirmed by the CIA), and did so to prop up lies told by Bush to the world. They HARMED National Security to cover Dubya's butt, and it backfired. Thank God.
We will be decades undoing the harm caused by this malicious and avaricious administration, populated by partisans who don't give a DAMN about America.
Once the jury sorts past the "so-called"s and "probably"s, they will realize they are being fed a snow-job chock-full of weasel words that obfuscate and distract from the truth.
Ha ha ahah ha ha. One word concerning juries in America---OJ
AUTOPSYCHIC:
As to OJ and "juries in America", you DO realize that law enforcement officials bungled the evidence, and the prosecutor bungled the case? A jury cannot invent PROOF, they are bound to convict or acquit based on the evidence they are presented.
Once the blood evidence was tainted by mishandling, the prosecution's case fell apart. What was that cop THINKING, wagging the evidence vials around the other crime scenes?
The JURY performed great in a difficult case, because when all was said and done, they had NO reliable evidence with which to convict.
Did a guilty man walk free? Perhaps. But was it the JURY, or the botched prosecution, which was to blame? You choose to blame the jury, but fair analysis of the case easily shows the jury did a fine job ... under the circumstances.
I, and thinking persons everywhere, reject your easy and baseless indictiment of the jury system.
On the other hand, if your mechanic botches the repairs, I'm sure you blame THE CAR. Yeah, right ...
you DO realize that law enforcement officials bungled the evidence, and the prosecutor bungled the case?
Oh, give me a break! "if the glove don't fit, you must aquit" ...ring any bells? They had all the evidence they needed and LA's top people on it. Are you telling me they aren't capable of convicting one murderer?
They didn't have all the evidence they needed. Fuhrman didn't help matters either.
So convicting a famous athlete beyond a reasonable doubt in a hugely publicized case with tainted evidence and a racist cop is a piece of cake? I think OJ did it too, but there's more to the result than just the questionable judgment of the jury.
Juries aren't perfect, of course, maybe you should have cited the Menendez brothers instead.
Uh, Psycho, you seem to be arguing against yourself. I remember "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" very well. The prosecution had made those gloves crucial components of their case. In their theory, OJ had worn the gloves while committing the murders, and that's why no fingerprints were found. They hadn't done their homework, checking OJ's glove size. When OJ couldn't get his hands into the gloves, their theory was blown out of the water.
Add to that the fact that a crucial prosecution witness was exposed as a racist and perjurer, and you have injected reasonable doubt into what should have been a slam dunk case.
If I were ever to be wrongfully accused (which I don't think OJ was) I would pray for prosecuters that incompetent. And given what Gorgio and Fredo have done to the Justice Department, I'd probably get my wish, in Federal Court at least.
When OJ couldn't get his hands into the gloves, their theory was blown out of the water.
They blew it when they let OJ wear latex gloves before trying his glove on. The gloves fit, as shown when he was asked to pick up a marker. The prosecuter 'dropped the ball' and didn't follow through on that. Instead they went on the defensive trying to explain why the gloves "may have shrunk".
The jury showed what idiots they were when the prosecutors wouldn't forcefully back up the evidence they did have and decided not to believe them. The defense instilled "doubt" into their minds because the prosecutors weren't willing to push the truth as for what it was. They were constantly on the defensive trying to explain and counter-explain all the denials of the defense.
Ultimately, the jury failed. The facts were there but they chose to ignore them. Instead they listened to theories of the defense and believed theory over truth.
So, you don't have faith in our legal system at all? What is your solution?
If you don't like the jury system what would you like? Remember we are SPREADING democracy.
Pearlene,
Take a look at the Laura Bush/Hillary thread too. He doesn't care if Bush is breaking the law as long as it keeps us safe (or whatever Bush tells him) regarding the wiretaps. Sounds like he loves the Constitution too!
Friedbergboy, I am always amazed a the gall of those who talk out of both sides of their mouth. We invade a country (under false pretenses) then change of mission to "spreading democracy. At home we take all of our liberties and drop them like sh** out of a dogs ass and their excuse is "we are keeping you safe". The want to wire tap your phones, dictate who you have sex with and who you marry, tell you which religion is best and those are just a few things. But of course this is all to "keep you safe". And they wonder why they are having such a hard time "spreading democracy".
Pearlene,
The ironic thing is the people who advocate for all the things you mentioned ("invade a country (under false pretenses) then change of mission to "spreading democracy. At home we take all of our liberties and drop them like sh** out of a dogs ass and their excuse is "we are keeping you safe". The want to wire tap your phones, dictate who you have sex with and who you marry, tell you which religion is best and those are just a few things) are all supposedly for small government!
How is it possible to do all of that with a small government?!?!?
You are paranoid. Nobody is tapping your phones and nobody and I mean nobody cares who you are having sex with.
LH,
Would you feel comfortable with someone from the opposing party having the wiretapping powers GWB has given himself?
Nobody is tapping your phones and nobody and I mean nobody cares who you are having sex with.
Except, of course, for Bush's Talevangelist base.
Two words concerning juries in America and OJ.
Mark Furman
OJ is not a word. They are TWO initials for TWO names that would be Orenthal James.
"As Media Matters noted, a July 15, 2005, Times article quoted former CIA operative Fred Rustmann, who supervised Plame for one year early in her career and retired from the agency in 1990 -- more than a decade before Plame's identity was allegedly leaked."
In other words, Kevin1007, Rustmann doesn't (can't) know as much as he claims to know. His "expertise" on the matter of Plame's employment with the CIA is out-of-date and fractional and, therefore, irrelevant and lacking any probative value whatsoever. But if that's all you've got to hang your hat on, go ahead 'n hang it -- it'll fall into the dirt where it belongs every time.
Oh you mean he didnt tell them that she had just gotten back from a secret mission with James Bond in Iran working with undercover agents there and the CIA's entire network was irreparably damaged due to her outing? I mean I bet a whole bunch of people would be interested in that I wonder why he wouldnt say such a thing? Get real she HAD worked as a NOC agent several times since 2002 that is a simple FACT.
Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."
Non offical cover is what NOC MEANS.
KEVIN:
You seem proud of the quote, "it was unlikely Plame was in danger."
Let's put this quote in context, shall we? It was UNLIKELY that a specific person in New Orleans would be harmed by Hurricane Katrina. It is UNLIKELY that a soldier will be killed in Iraq. Many ARE, but most ARE NOT, so this means harm is "unlikely".
The flipside of "unlikely" is that it is still "likely", but not a full 51%, by a subjective assessment. When talking about HUMAN LIFE and SAFETY, you find COMFORT in this statistical edge? You're more of a traitor than I first thought ...
JJ, not surprised, are you? The neocon crowd has been working the cocktail circuit overtime to push for a libby pardon, this is just more drunk regurgitation of the "pardon the patriot" crowd. It's like Scalia using a Jack Bauer antidote to pardon illegal torture. =O
In fact I am surprised that so called patriots like Kevin say she was not a NOC and try to downplay her role. Larry Johnson, a career CIA guy, delineated very clearly that she was in fact a NOC and that her brassplate company was still active, and there has not been an assessment of whether anyone was in danger or possibly killed. Trying to minimize the damage done by Libby, Armitage et al IS treasonous imo. He started out in the CIA with her. Kev, I'll take his word over you and the LA Times.
"In fact I am surprised that so called patriots like Kevin say she was not a NOC and try to downplay her role. Larry Johnson, a career CIA guy, delineated very clearly that she was in fact a NOC and that her brassplate company was still active, and there has not been an assessment of whether anyone was in danger or possibly killed."
Larry Johnson left the CIA in 1989. He would not have been in a position to know Plame's status in 2003.
Johnson is also a proven liar. In a Star-Tribune opinion piece, he wrote that Joe Wilson was right about Saddam's WMD and the Bush administration was wrong. In fact, Wilson also argued prior to the invasion that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them against our troops if we invaded.
"Larry Johnson left the CIA in 1989. He would not have been in a position to know Plame's status in 2003."
He might have known her status (he indicated he knew her status on his blog when the rightwing echo machine started going after her) because he and Plame were friends.
Johnson is a proven liar? Kevin, let me show you what a proven liar looks like. Actually, Jon Stewart will show you.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=88632
Well, I thought I was linking to the clip, but it just gets you to the site. Click on "Double Impact," with Jon Stewart and Tony Snow-job.
Interesting, Kevin, that you dismiss Larry Johnson's authority on this matter because he retired in 1989, yet you trumpet Rustmann as a source more credible than an official CIA report, even though he retired in 1990.
Care to explain the discrepancy? Does that one single year, thirteen years before the fact, account for that much greater familiarity with the circumstances?
Just remember, this talking point is probably spawned by the same troglodyte think tank that tried to downplay American deaths in Iraq by claiming that Baghdad is no more dangerous than any major American city.
One would think that if Plames duties were of a low level clerical nature that ,long ago, many identified sources (co-workers) , would have confirmed this.
Instead, after all this time, we get unnamed sources with, basically, this;
"She couldn't have been covert. As far as I know, she wasn't.Was it a big secret?"
Pruden seems to be at the Ann Coulter level of journalism.
Not only would there have been a quick confirmation of this information, but the CIA would not have asked for an investigation.
My take...
...is that all the right-wing jaw flapping you hear is just an attempt to keep pumping fuel into the smoke generator to obscure the entity that is truely behind all this - The Cloaked Evil Emperor Dick.
More fuel! MORE FUEL DAMMIT!
Washington Times Misinformer Pruden- Aiding and Abetting the Enemy
The CIA initiated the investigation of who "outed" Valerie Plame.
Libby was convicted of perjury.
These are just a couple of more facts that seem to have escaped Purden's radar.
This is one of the many many assaults on America by the current administration.
The FACT that a covert CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction was outed for pure political reasons is beyond description for the lack of care for Americans safety.
The above article by Pruden has a "Beavis and Butt-head" mentality.
Yeah I said "Queen of the Paste Pot" Isn't that funny?!
Disgusting and ignorant and not only covering up for criminals but derailing an operation that was meant to track WMD.
My gawd.
Plame worked in the area of WMD proliferation. Her husband, Joe Wilson, argued that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on our troops if we invaded. If Wilson came to this conclusion via "pillow talk," then it is very possible that Plame is one of those at the CIA who got it so wrong about Saddam's WMD. If that's the case, we should all be happy that Plame is no longer at the CIA.
So, hindsight beats all here?
should we be happy that future overseas contacts will be hesitant to deal with us, because they could be exposed, and possibly killed by their governments?
That would please you moonbats. You oppose intelligence collection.
Apparantly it would also please you MORONS since you seem to hate NOC agents and love to see their covers blown
Watch it, little fella. Just because you're losing the debate, that's no reason to call someone a "moron."
Kevin, if you think you're winning this debate you're in serious need of professional help. Your previous two posts were as cogent as the thrashing of a drowning man. You're on the way down for the third time. Do yourself a favor and don't come back up.
Has Kevin said anything that hasn't adequately been refuted? I don't see it anywhere if that is the case. Maybe Kevin can point it out.
Losing the debate? Man you are even more delusional than I thought. THAT is an accomplishment
Kevin: "Watch it, little fella. Just because you're losing the debate, that's no reason to call someone a 'moron.'"
Yet you have every justification to call people "moonbats"?
That would please you moonbats. You oppose intelligence collection.- kevin1007
A very well reasoned, sensible, and fully documented post. I'm glad you're here, Kevin. Otherwise I might ignore the sorry state of our media, thinking nobody could believe this stuff.
Thank you for your service..
He was also convicted of Obstruction of Justice.
So here we go again, with "a colleague said" "someone close to them said" "somebody said", "some people say"............ Who is the mysterious "somebody said"a top secret source, a message from the dead?I don't expect an answer, of course,most likely the "somebody" is a voice in their head.
Oops....where did my separations go? Let's try this again.
So here we go again, with "a colleague said" "someone close to them said" "somebody said", "some people say"............
Who is the mysterious "somebody said",
a top secret source, a message from the dead?I don't expect an answer, of course,most likely the "somebody" was a voice in their head.Oh forget it.
For some reason my post is messed up......not allowing paragrahs, and putting things in bold. The comment section is showing up with flaws tonight as well. Bugs in the system? Someone else said making words bold, also posts the message.
Yes, the "reply" function is lethally broken. "Preview" & "Post" are misplaced at the top, partially covering the pictographs used for links, and text format. I think that slight misposition of the cursor causes the perception that hitting "B" (or "I") causes the item to post, for one actually trespasses slightly into the active area for post, despite being outside the visible "Post" bar.
Don't give up though, I like many of the things you say regardless of my feelings! Must be the way you do it, bro!
If these liars are typically diligent, this echo will reverberate - regardless of Bungle, regardless of Libby - until a new generation of dumb school kids grow up having heard the lies, and only the lies about Plame and the "underlying crime". At least once per month, in perpetuity, some hate-wing liar will once again decry the injustice done by even investigating the disclosure of her employment, and two or three other liars will join in for the chorus. Too bad I am so opposed to capital punishment, for this might be a case for its application, and to measure the deterrent effect the hate-winger insist it supplies.
MMFA is being a little nutty on this one. Isikoff is the same dishonest reporter who said our troops flushed a Koran down the toilet at Gitmo, yet MMFA cites him as a credivble source.
The CIA itself told Bob Novak that Plame was not undercover. Here's Novak from September 2003:
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
If Plame had been covert, why did the CIA confirm her employment instead of saying they have no Valerie Plame on the payroll. In addition, what covert agent drives to a desk job at Langley every day for five years? That would be a great way to blow one's cover.
Plame's boss at the CIA says that she was never a deep cover NOC. The LA Times in 2005 reported, "Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said it was unlikely Plame was in danger as a result of being identified. An internal CIA review concluded that her exposure caused minimal damage, mainly because she had been working at headquarters for years, former officials familiar with the review said."http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/latimes120.html
Time magazine reported, Time also reported that Plame's cover "probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an 'exceptional officer' but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat." http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/nocnoc.html
Lastly, Plame worked in the area of WMD proliferation. Her husband, Joe Wilson, argued that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on our troops if we invaded. If Wilson came to this conclusion via "pillow talk," then it is very possible that Plame is one of those at the CIA who got it so wrong about Saddam's WMD. If that's the case, we should all be happy that Plame is no longer at the CIA.
MMFA is being a little nutty on this one.
I'm gonna go with "projection" in this case, after seeing your previous posts.
I wonder if there's anything about a CIA agent being outed that is troubling to Kevino. Incredible. And even more incredible are all the people using their influence to get the treasonous little turd out of a jail sentence.
I'm not troubled because she was not covert. In addition, she was one of the incompetents at the CIA who got things wrong about Saddam's WMD. We should all be glad that she is now baking cookies for the twins in Arizona.
Baloney you NEVER know what you are talking about
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
This is no longer in dispute. Only the most committed propagandists are still trying to sell this outright nonsense.
Time magazine reported in October 2003 that Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, said "Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC." This means the "agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments." Time also reported that Plame's cover "probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an 'exceptional officer' but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat."
Keep pushing that same story as if it were the end all of the argument. Some guy for his OWN reasons says one thing BUT THE OFFICIAL RECORD DISPUTES THIS. What part of official record DONT you understand?
Solon, you know full well that the CIA claims Plame was covert, but if they got into a court of law, ALL the evidence is laid out on the table including 1)Whether Plame outed herself when she donated $1k to Gore and disclosed her ficticious company 2)witnesses from the CIA would be called to give details as to her tempory duty travel overseas and expert legal witnesses called for opinions on whether this meets the standards of serving overseas under the law 3)any of the multiple witnesses testimony including all the people already discussed who say she is or isn't covert.
You act like the CIA has the final say on this in a court of law and they don't. A jury could easily decide that her temporary duty didn't qualify as serving overseas or that she was previously outed by herself or someone else.
Your only legit claim is that the CIA produced a court document that in their opinion she was covert.
No they produced her OFFICIAL JOB SUMMARY which said she was covert. IF the question is was she a professional baseball player I would say a list of the Chicago Cubs roster showing she WAS being paid by them as a second baseman would be pretty definitive. None of your oft debunked talking points hold water. Whether she should have listed her COVER company on the document how listing the company that she worked for AS HER COVER could POSSIBLY be construed as exposing her as a CIA agent is unfathomable. This has been gone over a hundred times. If someone wanted to know if I were a conductor on the BNSF railroad and the presented my payroll record showing I was being paid AS a conductor for their railroad apparantly would mean to such intense partisans that it STILL needs to be ajudicated in a court of law. She DID travel overseas as a NOC agent, no matter how long she was there WHILE she was overseas on non official cover she was subject to arrest for spying if her identity were known I posted the LAW ITSELF which defines covert and there is no time described and her operations are STILL SECRET so you dont even KNOW how long her jobs took. Before this you were saying she hadnt GONE overseas in five years and I told you THEN that since it was secret you didnt know that now that they have unclassified this much you are spinning AGAIN without KNOWING what you are talking about. There isnt any reasonable argument that she was not a covert agent anymore. Only those comitted to the propaganda and unconcerned with reality are still trying to pretend she wasnt covert.
Solon........I think getting this through Leather's helmut may be like drilling through concrete. He explained earlier to me, that his "CIA friend" told him that you can't talk about fake cover companies. You can only talk about your cover company if they are real ones like Coca-Cola. Huh?
Victoria Toensing stated at the Plame-CIA leak hearings, that Plame worked for the Brewster Jennings Company, and that Ms. Plame didn't hide that fact. Her point being, that if Plame told others who she worked for she wasn't covert.
Yet, when Toensing said this, it was a known fact that Brewster Jennings HAD BEEN a front company for covert agents....and by exposing Ms. Plame as a CIA agent, it also blew their cover, and put the lives of other agents at risk.
Tonesing's statment actually supports the fact that Ms. Plame was covert. BEFORE Ms. Plame was revealed to be a CIA agent, Brewster Jennings was simply a company that she and others worked for. Their jobs are believable, because in their real lives, they told others this is who they work for. Leaking Plame's CIA employment, also exposed Brewster Jennings CIA connection.
Kevin,
Why do you choose to accept TIME's analysis of Valerie Plame's status over Fitzgerald's court filings? If Fitzgerald knowingly filed false information it could get him disbarred. Since he would be doing it in a sentencing hearing, impacting on their client's life and freedom, Scooter's lawyers would be all over it, screaming for sanctions. Nada.
What would it cost TIME to be wrong, even intentionally? Not much.
Rustman worked with Plame only the first year of her work for the CIA and he is contradicting more recent retirees who worked with her for years and the director of the CIA who says she was indeed covert.
I take it that you cannot respond to them with valid points, so you're force to issue ad hominem attacks.
the treasonous turd she is "outing" is a convicted felon....ooops...can i call him a convicted felon without fear of it being labelled an ad homenim attack
Kevin: "I take it that you cannot respond to them with valid points, so you're force to issue ad hominem attacks."
You have used the term "moonbats" to describe other posters in at least two different posts to this thread.
That high horse of yours is nothing more than a Falabella pony.
Here's a response that does not reach your level of logic Kevin.
OOOOOoooowweeeaaaarghhhhOOohhhjeesszzuuugh, whew!
Sargent! Takem out and shootem!
No surr,I'm not shooting those socks. The last time they overpowered me.
You coward! (whimpering noises) You see you've depressed them. Did you know these socks were mentioned in dispatches?
Right! Shun! Left left left left right middle.
Ahh how impressive, a battalion of british socks on the march.
My darling.
What! Eccles, what are you?
My little darling, here, these are for you, I grew them myself.
A hand full of hair, how sweet. Singes! Put these in a glass of hair oil! Now you General Disaster, you military moron what do you want?
It is spring time. (aside) It is spring time folks. I need some old fashioned lovin!
Right! Granny! Come down!
NNOOO!
This was from the Goon Show 1950's BBC Petter Sellers, Spike Milligan (the well know typing error) on mikes. With all this modern insanity, Kevin, classic insanity seems such harmless fun.
All the valid points have been made. In case you didnt notice you have been taken apart like a cheap watch on this issue. Give it up, lick your wounds and move on.
so plame is BOTH a low level lackey at the CIA AND the person who was important enough to be the singular cause for Bush to get it wrong on WMDs? The first post on this chain is as far as anyone needs to read...
this is getting ridiculous...like that rasslin crap on TV...the more ostentaious the claims, the more attn the WASH TIMES give them
"so plame is BOTH a low level lackey at the CIA AND the person who was important enough to be the singular cause for Bush to get it wrong on WMDs?"
No one said she was the singular cause. Most of those in the Clinton administration got it wrong about Saddam's WMD.
ok lemme get this straight...plame and all of clintons ppl got it wrong about hussein, and THEY made the mistake....and you are glad they are gone...because they got it wrong on WMDs?
But Bush noticably gets a free pass...and he sent the troops to invade under the threat of a mushroom cloud.
is plame the low level lackey or a high profile WMD proliferator that Bush counted on for invading iraq?
can it be both? sure, at the wash times it can
Bush didn't just start gathering intelligence on Saddam's WMD in 2001. He inherited a great deal of it from the Clinton administration and Clinton's DCI, George Tenet.
Then he LIED about other intelligence, and cherry picked other intelligence and IGNORED the intelligence coming from the inspectors IN IRAQ.
Wrong. See http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
No I am not wrong. YOU are as you USUALLY are. I dont care about the 16 words. Nor what that website has to say about it. On Sept 7 2002 he told a group of reporters in a joint press conference with Tony Blair "I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access, an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months from a (nuclear) weapon," No such report not saying that, he pulled it directly out of his ass. Now making something UP to support your argument is a LIE its not a mistake of intelligence its not a misinterpretation. The 98 IAEA reports ACTUAL position on Iraqs nuclear capability was that they had destroyed it in 91 and had seen no evidence it had been reconstituted. THAT IS A LIE. Also he ran around the country telling us that the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used as Gas Centrifuges. Even though our OWN GC scientists had studied those tubes and declared it unlikely they would be used that way at ALL several ridiculed the very IDEA, much LESS that it was the ONLY thing they could be used for Bush lied QED. Its what he does.
The White House said that Bush "was imprecise on this" and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA.
Any questions?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61903-2002Oct21?language=printer
No questions necessary. He said I WOULD REMIND YOU. So now he is saying he was reminding them about some US intelligence that they couldnt POSSIBLY have had access to? Please. NO ONE is stupid enough to take that seriously. He mixed up the IAEA with US intelligence????? The very international agency tasked with this VERY issue with our own intelligence? Except there is another problem. I remember this and that wasnt their FIRST excuse. FIRST they said they meant a different IAEA report but the IAEA said nope doesnt exist, THEN they said they meant a series of London Times articles, except those were run down and didnt make that claim or anything very close to it. So THEN they said they meant an IISS report except it came out two days AFTER his speech which BEGAN I WOULD REMIND YOU. And the IISS report ALSO did not make the claim he made. So I am supposed to take his FOURTH excuse as gospel even though we now know according to both Kay and Duelfer that Iraq had nowhere NEAR that capability in 98? Hey I guess ya gotta carry your water but please stop. Its like the excuses for Iraq, if you come home and find your lamp broken and ask your kid what happened and he says the cat did it. Then you tell him you dont HAVE a cat he says the nieghbors dog did it, then you say none of your nieghbors HAVE dogs do you really have to hear what he says next to know he is LYING? Bush lied, no way out of this. Bush is a liar, its what he does, he lies like most people breathe this is just the most glaring example. I have others. He said they found the WMDs and cited the trucks he SAID were mobile biological labs except Britian already TOLD us they sold them to Iraq for making hydrogen for baloons and we had already tested it and found it had NOT been used for chemical or biological weapons AND the scientists said that without the necessary steam sterilizers or a safe way to remove the hazardous material no one would use them that way. Another lie. The aluminum tubes we have gone over he KEPT telling both Congress and the American people those tubes could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges when he KNEW better as our scientists had already REPORTED differently. Its over the man is an out and out liar its just that simple
Solon,
Your posting on Bush's lies is excellent. Anyone who attempts to refute them is living in the land of OZ. Great work. I have to give you the credit you deserve.
Thank you Achris I appreciate that. My posts because of the tactics I use make me seem much more hostile than I really am. I have always thought you were a good poster even when we disagree. Dont take the things I post too seriously.
Are you willing to concede that Libby may have possibly done the teeniest something illegal maybe?
I think Fitzgerald was just doing his best Nifong impersonation…Early in the “investigation” Fitz found out who really “leaked” Plames name, Richard Armitage, yet despite having evidence that cleared Libby of the leak he continued to “investigate” for the reason the whole thing was started in the first place…to embarrass the Bush administration. Once he knew it was Armitage that should have been the end of it. Instead, he kept that little secret to himself and rode the “investigation” to a trumped up secondary charge which would have never happened in the first place had it not been for the BS “investigation”. It was all political…Libby was trapped...Libby is an innocent pawn who should have never been convicted in the first place and should be pardoned now.
Again, we see the absurd assertion that because one person leaked information, nobody else could. It's not a murder by a single bullet.
It's all political? Didn't Bush appoint Fitzgerald? If Bush appointed someone who was a partisan operative against his own administration, then he's dumber than even I give him credit for. Very impressive, indeed.
CB, you enter a COURT OF LAW and raise your hand on the BIBLE and SWEAR to tell the TRUTH and NOTHING but the TRUTH. You lie and then what happens, you get to go home? Be careful, you will release thousands who have been convicted of the same thing. Remember be carful what you wish for, YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT!
Even if everything you said was true (which its not), is lying under oath a crime?
perjury is a crime. sadly for you Bill did not commit perjury. really, your agenda is pretty obvious
I am hoping you meant to reply to Kevin and not me, we are on the same side here :).
Thanks for bringing up Bill...'nuff said.
It seems there is only one honest Republican poster on this board today -- that would be Jeter2. It seems no other Republicans posting are willing to even entertain the slightest illegality on Libby's part.
Fitzgerald knew the leaker early on (the leaker that someone actually thought it was interesting enough to report) so yes Libby was a political pawn. But the jury convicted him so he deserves to go to prison. On the other hand that could be reversed by his appeal. I would only say if he truly lied and obstructed justice he should do the time. Do I think he will get pardoned? Probably, but I think it depends on the political climate in 18 months.
AGAIN the mindless talking point that there could be only ONE leaker can someone please explain to me what the grace period is? Once a crime has been committed how long is it that I can do the same thing until it becomes a crime AGAIN? Or is it just an incredibly stupid dodge that you have to be a deluded wingnut to understand?
Wow, CB, I don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh at all now.Do you actually transcribe this stuff, or is it through repetition?
What did they do with that intelligence? Did they start a war?
You are flat out WRONG which I have shown with sources from the OFFICIAL CIA TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS. Novak did not GET official CIA verification of Plames employment he had a CIA source. She WAS covert and left the country as a NOC agent several times since the begining of 2002.
Isn't Pruden that neo-Confederate at the Moonie Times?
Here is what Novak actually said on CNN:
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
The CIA confirmed Plame's employment at the CIA (an odd thing to do if she were truly covert) and said that she was not a covert operative (which explains why they were able to confirm her employment with the CIA).
the cia referred this matter to the DOJ. plame was covert, and we know this because the CIA made the claim.
where do you find that the CIA said she wasn't covert, and how do you account for the CIA referring this to DOJ?
And see if you can answer without saying LEEEBURAL MEDIA
Give it up. All these talking points are dated, refuted and inoperative. They have been utterly destroyed. Time to move on, I suggest the direction toward reality
"The CIA confirmed Plame's employment at the CIA (an odd thing to do if she were truly covert) and said that she was not a covert operative (which explains why they were able to confirm her employment with the CIA)."
The CIA agent who confirmed her employment should be thrown out of the CIA (maybe he was).
And what type of agent would be willing to talk to a pro-war right-wing partisan hack like Novak?
So, Kevin, tell me why the CIA cared and wanted the investigation?
Tman: Pruden "little more than a distorter of information in order to demonize political opposites."
All that's been destroyed is the myth that a mother of twins who drove to a desk job every day for five years at CIA HQ was a covert agent. Any moonbat who has bought that myth can't have an IQ north of 80.
Kevin, it's time for your medication.
A lattitude you can only dream of achieving.
Its ok kevin we already get that you are stupider than brass bubblegum you dont have to work so hard to prove your vast ignorance its already on display. The official record says what it SAYS and that is she WAS covert and she DID travel as a NOC agent several times during 2002. Nothing you have said comes within miles of addressing that the OFFICIAL RECORD says directly that you are wrong AGAIN.
Brass bubblegum? Priceless. Would the brand be Bazooka?
the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a “covert agent” must have been on an overseas assignment “within the last five years.” The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say…. “Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage,” she wasn’t a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents’ identities.”
...
The CIA took affirmative measures in the sense that Plame had NOC cover through a front energy company which the agency created and for whom Plame ostensibly worked during her overseas postings in the 1990s.
But, when she returned to the United States in 1997, she didn’t continue to maintain the NOC cover by working at an office identified as the dummy front company. Rather, she drove through the gates of Langley every day for about 6 years on her way to a desk job at CIA HQ.
Does the fact that the CIA maintained her as “covert” on paper simply by not revealing her previous work and continuing to keep handy her NOC cover in case it might be of use (such as when need to for an occasional overseas trip for a discreet purpose) also mean that she still falls under the protections of the statute when anyone with a camera could stand on the road leading to Langley and take her picture driving in and out of the CIA?
I think these were the difficulties Fitzgerald faced in trying to determine whether he had a prosecutable case under the Intelligence Identities Act, in addition to the question of intent that you mentioned.
I think this difficulty is revealed by how much he danced around that question. He knew that the CIA wanted to assert that she was covert, but he also knew that the CIA took actions inconsistent with that assertion.
.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/05/29/the-msm-covers-for-plame-once/
"the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a “covert agent” must have been on an overseas assignment “within the last five years.” The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say…. “Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage,” she wasn’t a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents’ identities.”
I think Bruce Sanford needs to reread the act he helped write because it doesn't that. And I think you should go and read the law yourself instead of relying on him as a crutch.
It should be "it doesn't say that".
You may well be correct, but I'd suggest that you reference the supporting documentation if you think that is the case rather than rely on me.
Not that I doubt you but just because you say so is not very compelling.
So the person who is saying that the statement doesn't exist in the law has to provide proof? That would be posting the entire law, it seems, as you're asking to prove a negative.
It would be easier if you posted the relevant portions that support your point, obviously.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_426.html
(4) The term "covert agent" means - (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency - (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; orDont see any residency requirement here. Dont see anything which mandates a specific LENGTH of time you have to be outside the US. This is from the relevant law according to findlaw. I would say you posted some partisan spinning from a partisan because the LAW ITSELF doesnt back up this contention
"I think this difficulty is revealed by how much he danced around that question. He knew that the CIA wanted to assert that she was covert, but he also knew that the CIA took actions inconsistent with that assertion."
In his court filings, Fitzgerald said that he could not charge Libby or anyone else with the underlying crime because he could not determine if the leakers (Armitage, Rove and Libby) knew Plame's covert status at the time they leaked her name.
You dont understand the job. Many covert agents drive to Langley every day when not on assignment. Try this simple experiment go to Langley, a company town and take photos of cars driving into CIA headquarters and see how fast you end up in a small dark room with a bright light and two Virginia Farmboys asking you pointed questions. Even were this true like Josh Micah Marshall said it is about like catching a bank robber red handed then asking the bank to prove they really earned the money. The CIA says she was covert her OFFICAL JOB SUMMARY says she was covert. She travelled overseas as a NOC agent I dont care how long she stayed anytime she is traveling under NOC she is in danger and has no immunity. Not to mention her network. Those she worked WITH in other countries whose life could be in danger now it is KNOWN she was a spy. You dont care. In your partisan zeal you dont care. Its ok the CIA was damaged its ok the life of her contacts were put in danger none of this matters to you. ONLY spinning for a felon like Libby matters only the propaganda matters not lives not intelligence only the propaganda. Good luck with that.
Solon,
Dang!!! I have a newfound respect for you. I haven't seen someone tear up another in a debate like this since the 96' Clinton-Dole debates (no sarcasm intended). You go gir----oops boy. Quite honestly, I have learned alot from you on this subject. Thank you.
Kevin started out with Novak as his source of intelligence, then moved on to Armitage, with a little Vietnam and you don't support the troops moonbats, moved forward to the Times, call Larry Johnson a liar, Michael Isikoff a liar and ended with "it's all Clinton's fault". PRICELESS
Did Clinton invade Iraq? Did Clinton tell Bush that Saddam had wmd's? Did Clinton also tell Bush that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? Listen I haven't won the lottery yet, do you thinks it's Clinton's fault?
When will it be Bush's fault? When will Bush be held accountable? Does the presidency under Republicans come with a probation period of 7 years?
In the end, Libby swore to tell the truth and NOTHING but the truth under oath in a court of law. A jury of his peers found that he lied, they convicted him and Judge Reggie sentenced him to 2 1/2 year with a $250,000 fine. PERIOD!
PEARL:
Let's not forget, these Rightwingers who claim CLINTON believed there were WMD's, TOO, and so this excuses Bush ... forget one little detail:
In 1998, in response to reports of WMDs in Iraq, Clinton launched the largest bombing raid since VietNam. EVERY suspected location of WMD storage or production was hit HARD by these raids, and if the intelligence which directed these raids was anywhere near accurate, Clinton TOOK ACTION to wipe out the threat.
Was Clinton successful, when he took action against WMD threats in Iraq? The proof's in the puddin', and puddin'-head Dubya was unable to find ANY WMDs left in Iraq.
So, Clinton was convinced TOO that there were WMDs? Sure, and he TOOK ACTION to end that threat ... and it WORKED.
Tex, I have always wondered who the 29% that STILL approve of Junior.
Tex,
Then why did Hillary vote to authorized the use of force?
Don't you think Bill, if he knew any different, would have alerted Hill to that fact?
AA, does your wife listen to everything you tell her?
Pearlene,
That is confidential information. If I told you then she'd have to kill me. ;-)
AA: You can clearly be trusted with classified information (as long as your better half is around). This administration clearly cannot.
Another American:
Our Congress made one error, and it was a FATAL error to a great many. Plus, it was an error that should inform all future actions.
This Congress TOOK THE PRESIDENT AT HIS WORD. They had no way of knowing, at the time, that they were not dealing with an honorable or rational man. He SAID he would exhaust all other possibilities and alternatives to WAR, he SAID he would work with the UN, he SAID that war would be a "last resort".
He LIED. Boldly, clearly, and to us all, including Congress.
Further, he bolstered his words by keeping information FROM our representatives, and showing them ONLY that which backed up his suspicions. This Cherry-Picking was as dishonest as the LIES he directly told Congress.
So, the fatal error AMERICANS made was to TRUST this deceitful and malicious president. He lies easily, and manipulates information to which he alone is entrusted to make FALSE and INCORRECT assertions as if TRUE and BEYOND QUESTION.
We have never before had such a terrible man as president, and he has surely done great damage to the office of the president for many decades to come. But that damage is nothing compared to the families he has destroyed by unnecessarily ordering our soldiers to their deaths (and maimings) ... BASED on what he knew to be LIES.
I would say SHAME on those who trusted this man, but they cannot be blamed. We HAVE to trust our President, until he proves untrustworthy. That is the nature of our system of government, and we hope that everyone placed into the Presidency is WORTHY of the title. Bush IS NOT.
Tex,
You are suffering from a clear case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Your assertions are only true to the extent that you exclude any and all information that counters your already formed opinion. You seem to uncritically accept every allegation against Bush put forth by MMFA and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary.
Like so many here who have the same syndrome, many of you conjured up a vast right wing conspiracy of the media and/or anyone who says anything that counters your Bush hating preconceptions.
Time and time again I read posts where everyone who voted for Bush is under the influence of right wing lies and everyone who believes other than the Bush lied canard has to be some brain dead, unthinking, automan.
So it doesn't matter what arguments or what proofs are posited by some of us to show the other side, your mind is made up.
Thank you for again making that clear.
What you have made clear is YOU are suffering from Bush Idolotry Syndrome. One of the symptoms of which is to be immune from all FACTS or reality itself that says anything not conforming to your delusional fantasies of the greatness of Bush the dimmer. Its ok, we have seen it before the best treatment is to see your proctologist for a cranial rectal extraction
Solon,
My note above applies to you too.
Thats fine my post doesnt apply EXCLUSIVELY to you either. It DOES however definitly apply to you
"Tex,You are suffering from a clear case of Bush Derangement Syndrome."
I'm afraid AA is right, Tex. Bush Derangement Syndrome is defined as "an unhealthy attachment to reality, the rule of law, and the Constitution of the United States."
Kevin: "All that's been destroyed is the myth that a mother of twins who drove to a desk job every day for five years at CIA HQ was a covert agent."
Then I can't help but wonder why the Bush crime family has not sought out their own "Fitzgerald" to bring Plame to trial for perjuring herself before a Congressional committee?
It would be a slam dunk considering the mountain of evidence you've amassed, would it not?
Who was it that was talking about ad hominem attacks, again? Just because you're losing the debate doesn't mean you have to do that, little fella.
I recently interviews some of Pruden's friends and they told me Pruden likes to put on a dress, cover his genitals in peanut butter and have stray dogs lick it off as he sings the theme song to "fame" as loud as he can.
Keep in mind, this is from a friend of his. Wow...Pruden is one crazy mofo. Couldn't you at least get him for animal cruelty?
Please, someone please print this in the newspaper so it magically becomes true....
If Libby was a Democrat the right wing presidential candidates would have "We Must Rid our Government of the Scooter Libbys!!!" as a central slogan to their campaigns.
If Libby was a Democrat the same clowns writing the "poor Scooter" articles would be calling for Libby's execution for treason.
If Libby was a Democrat Fox Noise would be calling for Libby's execution (for treason & sedition) 24/7.
If Libby was a Democrat Tony Snow would use his bullsh*t sessions to take cheap shots @ Scooter Libby in between lies.
If Scooter Libby was a Democrat Hillary would be known as the "Scooter Libby sympathizer" & painted as a potential Scooter Libby-type who would, if elected president, sell out America via treason and/or sedition.
So right wing hypocrites, please STFU about Scooter Libby.
We get you are merely using him to make a political point.
At the end of the day you all could care less about this scumbag traitor.
You forgot one...
If Scooter Libby was a Democrat you'd all be defending him.
Has any conservative on this thread criticized Libby at all? I haven't seen one conservative poster condemn Libby's perjury or obstruction of justice convictions. Perhaps I missed that.
I can say I really don't care what party corruption comes from and I can link to posts that demonstrate my equal opportunity bashing if you like.
What you say may indeed be true. It is entirely speculative and I don't really care much about points made on such things.
Open_Mind,
I can't speak for other Conservatives though I'm regularly included in the "Conservatives/Republicans blah blah blah" or "All Conservatives/Republicans blah blah blah" accusations by some of the posters here. Turn around is fair play? A few nights ago I tried explaining this to JuliaJayne MMFA's Poet Laureate. I told her that one should always include *Some* or *Many* to distinguish you don't mean *All*. A simple request which she couldn't quite get the hang of. Thought I was being a bit of a whiner.
Of course I wouldn't put you, Solon, Magnolia or Monk in the *All* category--you each have proven to be fair in the past....but I do hope I've made my point to the Limerick Lady ;-)
I sincerely believe however that SOME of the D/L posters here would defend ANY Dem/Lib just because they seem to be programmed that way. Rep/Con=Bad ---Dem/Lib=Good. And of course that works the other way round. Some of the R/C posters would defend ANY Rep/Con because they too are programmed that way.
I personally didn't pay much attention to the Plame/Wilson and eventually Libby issue until Hardball began following the trial pretty extensively [I'd always hoped it would have been Novak that got hauled off to jail]...I don't think I posted too often on any Libby threads until recently when I basically said [paraphrasing] : Libby was guilty, I didn't care if Bush pardoned him, though I wouldn't if I had such power, and that the process had worked & the verdict should stand.
Now a Conservative has criticized Libby on this thread.
Point taken. If I had read your exchange with Julia, I would have agreed with your position.
Sorry if I was a little testy. I guess I can feel better knowing that it underscored a point I agree with.
Open_Mind,
I didn't take your post as "testy", you had every reason to point out that not ALL Liberal/Democrats would defend a corrupt Dem/Lib and to question if ANY Conservatives/Republicans would CONDEMN a corrupt [in this case Libby] Con/Rep.
I normally always clarify that I don't mean *all* Democrats/Liberals...but I couldn't help trying a bit of an experiment here by implying *all*. And seeing the reaction I got from you, Solon, Monk, Pearlene & Magnolia, Graydogs, Brabantio & Daganium, I hope you *all* understand how I feel being lumped into one catagory [ALL Conservatives] by some posters here.
This actually began when a poster [Harliquin] wrote that Conservatives [paraphrasing here]: were racists, hated Gays, etc. I wrote to him asking him not to put *all* Conservatives into one evil group. He wrote back that we were *all* one evil group. So I called him a Moonbat and decided that one of these days I'd pull the *all* description and see what happen. And now I have ;-)
Yesterday was the perfect time to try this as it was one of those snarky days on most of the threads.
Thank you for agreeing with my position on this. It's appreciated. But then again you've always been fair concerning my points even when we don't agree :-)
No I wouldnt.
SOLON:
As a Liberal, I personally would call for a full investigation, and litigation if justified.
Libby got the benefit of a TRIAL with EVIDENCE and FACTS ... not talking points, not rightwing spin, not unaccountable quotes from a TIME article, not partisan lies ... but FACTS. And he was convicted.
Clinton had benefit of trials as well. Paula Jones ... thrown out of court. Impeachment ... found NOT GUILTY.
After all the screech-monkey talk and hysteria has built to a deafening roar, the TRIAL cuts to the FACTS, and a decision is made.
Scooter is GUILTY. The FACTS presented in the trial are ACCOUNTABLE, whereas what somebody may (or may NOT) have said to a reporter at TIME has no bearing or weight.
The Rightwing have entered the DEEP DENIAL phase of their reign of ever diminishing power, and the loss is making them more nuts than usual.
Tex,
I think you are attempting to mimic MMFA.
Jones and Clinton settled out of court while the dismissal ruling was being appealed. Clinton ended up paying $850,000 to Jones if I remember correctly.
An impeachment is a political process and not a jury trial. Senators are not required to adhere to the evidence in formulating their vote. I do believe 3/4 of the Senate has to vote to remove the officeholder from his/her office.
So there are similarities and differences with regards to Libby and Clinton and the prosecutions against them. However to put forth the argument that Clinton was exonerated is a bit much.
“Jones and Clinton settled out of court while the dismissal ruling was being appealed. Clinton ended up paying $850,000 to Jones if I remember correctly.”
The judge threw out the case because it had no merit. And instead of going away, Jones said she was going to appeal. With that, she got what she wanted all along ($$$).
“An impeachment is a political process”
No. The republicans rammed through an indictment because they had the majority. As long as you have the majority in the House you can indict the president on any charges you want. The Democrats can indict this current president on a number of charges that have more merit than the charges against Clinton but for some reason they won’t do it.
“So there are similarities and differences with regards to Libby and Clinton and the prosecutions against them. However to put forth the argument that Clinton was exonerated is a bit much.”
Alrighty then… he was found not guilty in the Senate (the republicans couldn’t manage to gather a majority on either count even though they had a five vote advantage).
Loonz,
No offense, uour post didn't counter any of the points I made.
As an aside, (and correct me if I am wrong,) I do believe you need 3/4 of the Senate to vote guilty to remove someone from office through impeachment.
Actually I believe your point about a lack of exoneration was countered. With the failure of the impeachment, what more could possibly be done to provide "exoneration", in this particular arena? Anything?
AA,
You are correct in saying a super majority is needed to remove the president. I believe, however that the s-m is 2/3, not 3/4. Moot point, however. The Senate voted to acquit, 55-45 on Article I, and they deadlocked on Article II. Not even a simple majority.
I remember seeing t his great sign at a protest on t.v a year or two ago. It said "somebody please bush a bl## J** so we can impeach him". Priceless.
Jeter, you're wrong I'm afraid. At least for myself and for others who have spoken up. I think this is the vast difference between most liberals that I know and most conservatives I know. Repeatedly, when this administration and people within it have been found to be have done wrong, I hear constant defenses for them put up by good hearty republicans. On the other hand, when something bad comes out about democrats and has been proven out, I also hear denunciations from liberals that I know. Here's the thing. I don't like criminals from either side.
I don't think any liberal on here would have defended Scooter if he had been a democrat. But as others have said, you can be sure that there would be plenty of republicans yelling and screaming about hanging him high for treason and such. I mean, look at how much they hopped up and down about charging the NY Times with treason for writing the story about domestic warantless wiretapping.
For those who think Democrats would defend Libby if he was a Dem...let's not forget Rep. William Jefferson. I have heard numerous Progressive radio shows speaking harshly of Jefferson.
I often hear Progressive radio criticize other Democrats....even my Progressive magazines have tough articles criticizing Democrats. The Nation recently had an article looking at Senator Clinton's big business, and right wing lobbist connections. It was very tough on her. I also read comments from the left on MMFA critical of Democrats.
It looks like the reply-comment section is still messed up this morning.....preview and post are now over the tool bar.
Last night they were covering the comment box and words disapeared under the box when typing. HTML garbage was scattered on the page, and under Boehlert, it wouldn't post without a title...and that bar was UNDER the comment box. Yikes!
Nope, I wouldn't.
Jeter do you think Libby did something wrong?
Absolutely Monk [please scroll up & see my post to Open_Mind]
- jeter2 / Wednesday June 20, 2007 09:41:49 AM EST
The guy was guilty. And while I don't much care what Bush does [Presidents have issued questionable pardons before], I hope he doesn't intercede & the guy does his sentence.
For me Jeter, not true.
I defended Clinton and would defend him today because what he did with Monica was only Hillary's business. Can you image if each and every screw up in ones marriage was displayed for the public?
If Libby was a Dem and he lied under oath especially regarding Natl Sec. issues, "do not pass go straight to jail", however if Libby lied about an affair, not my business.
Here's a question for you;have you ever seen anyone defend William Jefferson on here? I haven't.
Brabantio,
The only thing I remember is a poster here, the resident Moonbat named Harliquin, trying to claim that what Jefferson did was "human nature" as opposed to the evil conspiratorial actions of Conservative/Republicans.
Other than that, at least about Jefferson, I don't recall anyone defending him.
P.S. Please read my post to Open_Mind, it may explain better where I was going with this.
I was familiar with the framework of that discussion previous to my posting. I probably should have specified that earlier, but I thought maybe the thrust of my question would be self-evident.
I agreed with the criticism about Harlequin's overgeneralizations, as you may recall. That being said, there's at least some basis for the statements, based on the posts of people on this very forum, such as LH, AA, Edross, Kevin1007, Rinohunter, CB, cannonbal, etc. The "gays can't get married" line is supported by the sentiments of at least a few of those I listed, plus who knows how many others on various threads for instance.
But I hadn't seen anyone defend Jefferson. That's my point, that the positions that Harlequin applied to everyone on the right are much, much more mainstream on that side than defense of Jefferson is for the left.
I'm not sure what Harlequin's "human nature" comment was supposed to justify, I wonder if the difference they're going for is that Jefferson's actions were individual as opposed to the K Street project, for instance. That's not much of a defense for Jefferson, and if it was intended that way I would argue against that in no uncertain terms.
Just can't convince a person with facts if he's determined not to know them. The right wing fog machine still spinnning on and on, and caring not who they slander. Julia, we need a limerick about now!
I posted this link in response to one of Kevan's 5 o'clock comments, but I think it's something everyone who's up should see. Actually I think it's something everyone in the country should see.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=88632
Whoops! I thought I was linking to the clip, but this link just gets you to the site. Click on Daily Show, "Double Impact". It's Jon Stewart outing Tony Snow-job.
That was great, thanks,
HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEOMCRATIC!!!
You forgot one...
If Scooter Libby was a Democrat you'd all be defending him.
I can only speak for myself: I would not be defending a traitor under any circumstances. I don't care what political party he/she is associated with.
All I know is if Scooter Libby was a Democrat, Fox "News" would be running 3 hours documentaries called "American Traitor" about 6 times a week.
The same idiots who are claiming Plame was not convert (if Libby was a Democrat) would be setting up 'Help Valerie Plame' websites.
If Scooter Libby was a Democrat the Republicans in congress would be trying to pass bills calling for the immediate execution of criminals found guilty of treason & sedition.
If Scooter Libby was a Democrat, nobody would even know who Armitage is (or would give a crap).
Hey, this is the Washington Times. What do you expect????
It's all a game to the reicht-wingers who post here. They don't care about any of the people involved. Their sense of fair play and common sense are dulled, and to prevent these from ever rearing their heads, they pretend to believe that Valerie Plame was not covert, and that she isn't a real person.
So I guess Valerie Plame committed perjury when she said, under oath, that she WAS A COVERT AGENT. Please view the first minute of this video to see her blatantly lie in front of the Committee of Oversight and Government Reform:
[link to movies.crooksandliars.com]
So when is there going to be a Libby style trial to convict her of this outright lie and blatant disregard for the law and this committee? It would be a slam dunk case Right? I mean the Washington Times said she is just a clerk and "princes of paste-pot" and they are always correct on the facts. How dare she lie under oath to this committee about her clerk status at the CIA. This is an outrage!
[link to movies.crooksandliars.com]
Sorry Here is the correct link to the video
www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/29/plame-was-a-covert-agent/
I watched the CIA leak hearings, and I heard this gem that day.....
Victoria Toensing stated that Ms. Plame did not keep her CIA identity a secret because she donated campaign funds to Al Gore, and listed her employer as Brewster Jennings. (From what I heard, not one person on the panel called her on this stupid statement!)
Brewster Jennings WAS A CIA COVER COMPANY, created to enable COVERT CIA officers to work under the cover of a fake employer, and have no connections to the CIA.
OF COURSE Plame would tell people she worked for Brewster Jennings, that was the whole idea of the COVER COMPANY....to tell everyone you work for it, and make the company look legitimate.
And Toensing says she was not covert. Is Toensing really that stupid?
Kevin-O-Seven is being disingenuous again. He linked to a TIME magazine article and mined a single quote from it that seemed to back up his argument...yet, if you read the whole article, it becomes clear that Kevin is full of crap. I think Kevin spends his days wading through Troglodyte websites, gathering RightWing talking points just to dump them here for our amusement. But, give the guy a break...he went to spy school.
Holy smokes! I know nothing of any of the Washington papers, but if this is a recent column from someone who is supposed to be in charge of a medium that is supposed to have any journalistic integrity - we are all in trouble.
This guy just outfoxed Fox.
The Washington Times has no journalistic integrity. It's owned by a Korean nutjob who thinks he's Jesus. Really.
Definitely not to be confused with the Washington Post, even today.
If Ms. Plame was just a paper pusher, it makes it hard to believe she could have exerted the pull needed to send Mr. Plame to Niger. Therefore the allegation of the leak itself seems to have been an unbelievable lie to begin with. There is an inherent contradiction in claiming both that she was too insignificant to worry about the secrecy of her employment and also that she had the pull to name Wilson as the one the CIA would send.
John Henry, I hadn't thought about it in that light, thanks.
As with most of the Right Wing lies, this one dissolves under the harsh light of logic, as you have so eloquently demonstrated.
Please Mr. Bush pardon our great patriot. Pleeeeeese! I can’t imagine a better parting gift, in lue of life preservers, to the 29% who are enjoying the (Republican) party deck view of all those pretty icebergs.
Does anyone really believe that Richard Armitage "accidentally" revealed Plame's CIA connection. The word sent out from the veep's office to let the word go out to the press and at least three good foot soldiers obeyed that order - Rove, Libby and Armitage.
I am suspicious of that myself. Especially considering Armitage was a member of PNAC, the group that was at the vanguard of the argument for pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Some have claimed that Armitage is a dove and therefore his leak is not purposeful. I haven't seen any compelling evidence of that or whether it is even relevant to the legal determination of the alleged criminal act.
Well its hard to believe however he convinced the one person he HAD to convince that is Fitzgerald. Its possible Fitz wasnt really convinced either but felt it might convince a jury.
I've had a feeling since Armitage's name first came up that he was a patsy, keeping higher ups from getting nailed.I'm not sure if he was willing or not, but I also don't know for sure if Libby was thrown under the bus or volunteered for martyr duty.
My readings indicate that Armitage has a private security company which is providing security in Iraq. I would think his company is making money on the Iraq war. I find it disturbing that the suggestion that he is not a neocon has been left to stand in the major media when he is signer of the PNAC letter. Putting the story in the best light Armitage was given this information although he was supposedly known as a terrible gossip. I think we make a mistake when we focus on the narrow issue of whether or not the specific act was violated. these people all were reckless(at a MINIMUM) in not asking the CIA if it was OK to release the information to the press before they released the information. Would a high ranking official do this if he/she were both competent and serious about the need to preserve intelligence secrets. "His wife sent him" is a collateral attack and not a substantive rebuttal of Wilson's limited comment on the single issue of the Niger lead. The Wilson story to me is unequivocal proof that the real meaning of the war on terror is to justify the Iraq intervention.
Just because I've never seen it mentioned:
I find it ironic that Darth Cheney, whose spouse, offspring and inlaws infect the Executive branch and shadow govt (Reich wing think tanks, PNAC), chose to go after Joseph Wilson on the grounds of nepotism.
It's rather easy to put everything into context. Valerie Plame testified under oath before Congress that she was a covert agent. Enough time has passed that she would have been indicted for perjury if this were not the case. You know about perjury - just one of the reasons why Scooter Libby is going to prison. And before you right-wingers get y0ur panties in a bunch about activist judges coming down on poor Scooter - the judge was appointed by Bush.
People who put their lives at risk for this country deserve respect. That would include Joe Wilson, who was our ambassador to Iraq during Gulf War 1, whose personal heroism saved the lives of his staff, and includes Valerie Plame, who as a covert agent had an inherently dangerous job.
For the good of this country and the universe, people should stop lying about them.
It's interesting that those who object to the Libby conviction on the basis of "who leaked to Novak" ignore the law. If someone divulges the name inadvertently, or not knowing that Plame was undercover, they are guilty of no violation. The state of mind of the leaker is an important thing. We do not have an Official Secrets Act, which holds the reporter liable, whatever his state of mind. So, the crucial question is, was this a politically-motivated operation done with full knowledge of the damage that would be done? If that's the case, and if the VP ordered it done, then Cheney belongs in jail for a good long time. Plame had status, and it's next to impossible to believe that Cheney didn't order her "termination." However, that's can't be established by evidence. Plame's status is clear. It's the state of mind of the person who ordered this operation -- presumably Cheney, but maybe higher -- that was clouded by Libby.
I think he should do his 30 months in Guantanamo. They tell us they have some highly effective ways of making him talk.
If Plame was just a clerk then why is the CIA trying to prevent her from publishing her book? It is so beyond obvious she was covert all the drool from the apologists of the treasonous Libby just fall flat!!LOL
Good point. And I thought all the arguments had been made--many times.
The desk jockey argument just has no legs, there is so much evidence she was covert its crazy!