home

Valerie Plame: "I Was Covert"

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:18:34 PM EST
Tags: Valerie Plame Wilson (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


Think Progress has the transcript and video of Valerie Plame's statement to the House Committee investigating the leak of her identity this morning. (Full hearing video is here.)

I’ve served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States, until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14th, 2003, after a leak by an administration official.

Today I can tell this committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq’s presumed weapons of mass destruction program.

While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

I loved my career, because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer. And I was dedicated to this work.

It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked. But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all the value of my years of service, were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.

< Stupid Arrest of the Week: 7 Year Old Handcuffed, Arrested for Riding Dirt Bike | Tony Snow: Backtracks on Harriet Miers as Orginator of U.S. Attorney Firing Idea >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Valerie Plame: "I Was Covert" | 108 comments (108 topical)
    Again? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:08:30 PM EST


    OK (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    Under oath she says she was covert and didn't recommend her husband. The CIA says she was covert, novak said she was covert, the DoJ says she was covert. But nooooo, you shrill shills refuse to beleive it. Fine.

    all of you 'covert' doubters should call your congress critters and get her indicted for lying to congress.

    Now instead of constantly regurgitating wrongwing talking points, do something!

    Then why didn't Fitz arrest Armitage?? (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    Really??

    Better yet, since Armitage confessed, why didn't he just say the investigation was over???

    And was she under oath??? I missed that.

    And when will her husband testify??

    And can you link to Novak saying she was covert??

    Parent

    Since Armitage confessed (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:48:39 PM EST
    ...why didn't the president fire him, or remove his security clearance?

    After all, HE CONFESSED to leaking classified information, and the president said that no one who did that would continue to be part of his administration.

    Did Mr. Bush lie about that?

    Parent

    Is Armitage a Presidential appointee??? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:05:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure n/t (none / 0) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:18:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Proof?? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:49:46 AM EST
    Proof??

    I truly don't know, he is a DOS employee, and I don't think he was appointed by the President.

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#68)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    Are you saying that if GWB wanted Armitage fired, he couldn't make it happen?  Because that would EXCEED
    HIS AUTHORITY?

    Jim, Jim, I'm only a doctor.  I can't force you to think.  But if that is your BEST argument, why even bother?

    Parent

    Under Oath (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by mack on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:43:53 PM EST

    And was she under oath???
    I missed that.

    Pay attention next time.

    The first paragraph from Valerie Plame's opening statement:

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Valerie Plame Wilson and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the committee on oversight and government reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information.

    Link

    Parent

    a life... (1.00 / 3) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    Uh.... some of us have a life beyond watching political theater on TV...

    Evidently you don't.

    And thanks for the help...

    Parent

    And some of us ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:58:02 PM EST
    ... are willing to read a paragraph before spouting nonsense.

    The CIA, Waxman, Plame, the DoJ all knew she was covert and any attempts to keep spinning otherwise just show an extreme disregard for the truth.

    BTW, remember the 'investigation' that bush called for ... it never happened.

    Just like WMDs, a 9/11-AQ connection, 'we know where they are'

    Parent

    Plame was covert (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    and outing her was a crime.

    Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

    Patrick Fitzgerald:

    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

    Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

    The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

    Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

    Valerie Plame:
    "In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified," Plame sad in her opening testimony.
    more (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    When special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby in October 2005, he said that Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified information. (He repeated that at the trial.) And in a January 2004 letter to Democratic Representative John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the CIA noted that the Valerie Wilson's CIA employment status was "classified information."
    [...]
    Representative Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), the committee chairman, read an opening statement in which he said that Valerie Wilson had been a "covert" officer" who had "served at various times overseas" and "worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States." Waxman noted that the CIA had cleared this statement. And during the questioning period, Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings (news, bio, voting record) reported that General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, had told him, "Ms. Wilson was covert."


    Parent
    That isn't the question. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:57:30 AM EST
    eported that General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, had told him, "Ms. Wilson was covert."

    The question is, when she ceased being covert.

    See my comment with the law shown.

    Parent

    still with the wrongwing talking points (none / 0) (#105)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    and still wrong:
    She also disclosed that she had made "several secret" trips abroad in the last few years to gather intelligence on unconventional weapons, which she said proved that those who said she did not have covert or undercover status when her identity was disclosed were incorrect.


    Parent
    Jim can't give it up (none / 0) (#106)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    his world view would be utterly destroyed.

    When he responds to you, I suspect it will be the same nonsense he gave me earlier. You can check out my response here to see what will be coming.



    Parent

    Sailor and Molly B (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department," Ms. Wilson testified

    If she wants to claim that, fine. But the facts are that it was the CIA who had her come to work everyday at Langley, and the CIA who, according to the Boston Globe, did an extremely poor job of providng cover for the fictitious company that was part of her cover.

    But the real stake in the heart of this story is that her husband wrote the now infamous and inaccurate NYT article of 7/6/03. Again, if she wants to claim she didn't know that this article would focus press and government attention on him and his wife, she can. But that is totally not believeable coming from such an intelligent and experienced person. She had to know he was writing it and she had to know it would bring attention on her. I can speak only for me, but if I had been in her shoes and if I were covert and NOC, I would have said, "Don't do that. It will likely get me outed and destroy my career."

    When we add the story of how someone, as unidentifed as the trips she caims to have taken, just happened to overhear her conversation with a junior employee seeking advice on the VP's office's request and recommend her husband... well, that just adds icing to a funny story.

    As to the law, I again note that the meaning of words within a law are important, debated, discussed and viewed with interest. "Served" is inexact, but common usuage tell us that it is not meant to be a short business trip.

    To that point, I seem to remember a fair amount of discussion of the meaning of the word "Militia" in one of our better known laws.

    And I note that she has not given us any details on these trips. Surely she could give us the number and time spent. That she doesn't, considering all of the unusual happenings above in this matter, raises questions that need answering.

    That we won't merely demonstrates that the Demos are in the majority.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    Armitage confessed. So what did Libby have to do with that??

    Parent
    OT (4.50 / 2) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    And what does any of that have to do with this thread?

    Parent
    But, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    but...

    Parent
    squewaky (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:57:17 PM EST
    Well, let me see....

    She got outed by Armitage and she is now complaining ..

    You are writing about Libby who was convicted after Arnmitage outed her...

    Novak wrote a column that outed her after he was told by Armitage but he wasn't charged..

    Armitage wasn't charged, even though he confessed to DOJ in 9/03... some three months before Fitzgerald was appointed to find out who outed her...

    but no one told Fitzgerald???

    What we got here is REAL failure to communicate..

    Is that what you trying to write anout, eh???

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    So, you are going off topic because of things written on other threads?  

    Looks like you are just thrashing, squirming, and attacking others  because you finally have proof that Valerie Plame was covert.

    Changing the subject just makes you look foolish.

    Parent

    Failure to understand, maybe (none / 0) (#41)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    Libby, who knew Plame was convert,  leaked to Miller and Cooper (whether Miller/Cooper wrote an article wrt the leak doesn't really matter).

    Nothing Armitage/Woodward/Novak did absolves Libby of leaking. Or lying.

    Parent

    ding777 (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    The problem is, Libby wasn't charged with "leaking."

    Many people think he wasn't lying...

    Parent

    Many people think (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    a lot of things. This proves what?

    Hayden testified she was covert.
    Plame testified she was covert
    Plame's CIA classmates have stated (and presumably would testify) she was covert
    Fitzgerald has stated she was classified- meaning in context with what we now know, she was covert.

    All of the above were making these statements in the context of her status prior to be outed by Novak. Everyone who has personal knowledge of the facts agree on this point.

    You don't have much room to manuever here. Give it  up man!

    As to whether or not Libby was lying, a jury of his peers clearly thought he was and they reviewed more evidence than you; they heard more argument from both sides than you.  You are entitled to disagree, but don't expect people to take you seriously.

    No serious person can believe Libby was telling the truth, given what we know. We know the OVP was obsessed with pushing back Joe Wilson's NY Times editorial. We know Cheney made notes in the margins of the paper about Wilson, his trip and Wilson's wife. We know Libby was "Cheney's Cheney" Yet Libby (and you) would have us believe Libby didn't remember learning Plame's id from Cheney. No reporter testified that they told Libby first. They all testified they learned this information from Libby. Objectively at this point the evidence is clear and consistent and beyond a reasonable doubt- Libby lied. No reasonable and serious person can conclude otherwise.

    What you are Jimbo is a Bush Administration apologist. Be up front about it. Say it loud and say it proud- "I don't care what the Bush Administration does, I support them."



    Parent

    Molly B I expected better of you... (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:16:19 PM EST
    The fact that her employment was classified has nothing to do with her covert status. This was pointed out by Fitzgerald in his press conference.

    Plainer. One does not lead to the other.

    Since you are an attorney I find it strange that you reject the plain and simple law, which I posted. I will do it again, just to make sure you have had an opportunity to read it.

    Here is the complete law. Following is the definition of what a covert agent is.

    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; or

    (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--

    (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
    (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

    (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

    Please explain to me why you think she meets this the legal definition.

    BTW - Since self-identification seems to be favored by you, I hereby define myself as an attorney. I am sure you will have no problems with that, and stand prepared to defend my right to decide.

    As for Libby, I have only said I do not believe he was lying.

    I have also said that I really don't care. This whole thing is politcs, and the Left struck first with Wilson's infamous article, of which I would like to see him put under oath and answer some questions.

    So turn off the lights on the way out. You can posture all you want but thinking people arem't buying it.

    Parent

    I took up your challenge (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:46:51 AM EST
    and answered your later  post repeating  this question, I didn't see this post at the time. That said, the article you cite here is not helpful to your absurd position.

    If granting for the sake of argument (and only for the sake of argument, for you are wrong) she was merely covert (Ai) and didn't qualify under A ii (and remember she and Hayden have testified she did) You are ok with this breech of national security? Outing an agent whose status was classified (a point you have conceded) and as a result, outing an entire CIA front, compromising other agents and officers? You, the putative national security voter, are ok with that?!

    If this is the case, spare us your voting on national security issues. I don't think we need or want your help with them. Its just not helpful to our country; just vote your liberal social views, that would be of help to the country.



    Parent

    On topic but a slightly bent tangent... ;>) (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    OldenGoldenDecoy at TPM Cafe has done a hilariously effective job of outing, and relegating to the "not worth paying attention to" zone, two of the most obtuse and frustrating of his trolls with a post today:

    The TPM "Apologists for the Scumbags" ... the MSM and Valerie Plame

    Well, let's see what Valerie Wilson Plame personally had to say today about all this knowledge that the press and pundits were parroting, while carrying the water for the White House propaganda machine.

    But first: In relationship to this apologist for the scumbags, and this apologist for the scumbags that haunt these TPM Cafe pages, just keep cutting and pasting the following in your replies so as not to waste your time playing tit-for-tat with these TPM Cafe bullsh*t artists.

    "In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified..." Valerie Plame Wilson
    ...
    "It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked." Valerie Plame Wilson
    Have a great weekend ... you can all have fun playing tit-for-tat with the apologists for the scumbags till your eyes glaze over.
    Heh!

    And (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    Editor & Publisher today:

    "I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert,"  she said, disputing claims to the contrary.


    Parent
    Even the head of the CIA... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by TomStewart on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    Says she was covert. I guess they were all lying.

    Parent
    hmmmmmm (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    Later on she said she wasn't a lawyer...and that she didn't know if she was....

    Some news stories created initial confusion over Plame's status by suggesting that disclosure of her name and employment may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That law, passed in response to disclosure of the names of CIA officers serving overseas by former CIA employee Philip Agee, made it a crime to disclose the names of "covert agents," which the act narrowly defined as those serving overseas or who had served as such in the previous five years.

    "Covert agent" is not a label actually used within the agency for its employees, according to former senior CIA officials. Plame, who joined the agency right out of Pennsylvania State University, underwent rigorous spycraft training to become an officer in the Directorate of Operations. (The term "agent" in the CIA is only applied to foreign nationals recruited to spy in support of U.S. interests.)



    Parent
    Okay Jim... (none / 0) (#43)
    by TomStewart on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    From Waxman's statement, as veted and cleared by the CIA:

    "Ms. Wilson was undercover...Ms. Wilson's employment status was covert...Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA...Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA...It is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States."

    Sounds pretty clear to me. Now, if Fitz didn't think he could prove intent, that's something else and you should take that up with him, NOT Mrs. Wilson.

    Parent

    Tom, (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:17:17 PM EST
    I'm not making this stuff up.
    Here's the link to the WaPost article that said what it said. Is the article wrong??

    At one point Valerie Plame-Wilson makes the statement that she was like a General. And being a General overseas, she was a General in the US. Of course this is not true. She was covert overseas, and for a time, five years, after she returned to the US. At the end of that, she no longer was covert.

    I think that statement illustrates that her ego has become very inflated.

    As for what Fitz thought he could prove against Armitage, so what? His job was to determine who had "leaked" Plame, and to deteemine if a law had been broken. Once he had done that, why the rest??

    And tell me this. Valerie Plame-Wilsom claims to have been discussing who should be sent to Niger to investiage the VP's request when some one just happened to to overhear the conversation as they were walking by and suggestted her husband.

    Huh?? I would not have let my teenagers get by with such a story.

    There is a phrase called "Need to know." It means that just because you have a certain level of clearance, let's say Secret, unless you need to know certain information, you don't get to know it.

    So someone wandered by??? What the he*l are they doing in Langley, standing around a Cube Farm discussing Secret Information like a Monday Morning Quarterback meeting?

    Let's look at this lady. She's discussing Secret Information in an open forum, unprotected from casual listeners? And she can't identify who that person was??

    She gave a $1000 bucks to the Demos in her cover name??? Huh? If she was covert, why put her name in a database??

    And why send her husband if she is covert?? Wouldn't any information about his trip draw attention to her?

    This politics. Pure and simple politics.


    Parent

    Really, ppj? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:04:59 AM EST
    Of course this is not true. She was covert overseas, and for a time, five years, after she returned to the US. At the end of that, she no longer was covert.

    How do you know that. Spreading misinformation again?.

    THIS SHOULD CLEAR THAT UP FOR YOU.

    Parent

    Here's the law. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:57:43 AM EST
    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; or

    (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--

    (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

    (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

    (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.



    Parent
    poor ppj (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    Your favorite wingnuttia talking point is DOA. Look at the video in my link. Read her lips. She was overseas within the five year time period.

    And to make it worse for your talking point, that is not the only standard for having a classified status. The five year time period only relates to one criminal law, the IIPA. There are other laws and standards regarding secret agents.

    There is the Espionage Act of 1917 for instance.

    Obvioulsy you have not been following the hearings too closely. I can understand, it must be quite humiliating for you.

    Parent

    His favorite (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    president is DOA over this, too.

    Parent
    This is politics... (4.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TomStewart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:47:12 AM EST
    Yes it is.Politics practiced against a covert CIA and her husband. I think we argee on that.

    Not sure what the link was supposed to prove, as it's basically a rundown/preview of the testimony with little, if anything new in it.

    Someone walking by? Could be. Life is strange and full of things just like that. She told that story under oath, under the questioning of the Dems AND the Repubs. Let's get Karl and Cheney under oath, or would the bible crackle and hiss when they touch it? She can't identify the person? I don't think it's not that she can't remember the person, but that person is another CIA officer, and guess what, she's not going to out the guy. Maybe she has some ethics.

    Why send her husband? Well, AGAIN, she didn't send him, the CIA saw someone they felt was qualified (and they wouldn't have to risk one of their own people), so they asked and Wilson went. Why would the CIA think that this White House would be so reckless that it would out a covert officer, and ruin an entire network AND put dozens of people in danger of their lives over a fact finding trip? Who would have thought that?

    Who indeed.

    Parent

    Please don't put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:17:39 AM EST
    Why can't you make a straightforward statement. It is really juvenile

    We don't agree that she was covert. Now, why did you make the statement that we agree?

    Someone walking by? Could be. Life is strange and full of things just like that.

    Sure. The CIA just sits around discussing things waiting for someone to walk by and offer some sage wisdom and advice.

    Again. Do you understand that secret information is discussed on a "Need To Know?" Not on a, "I'm On The  Way To The John And Just Happened To Over Hear You."

    If it happened, then where are the two people besides Plame???

    I don't know whether to cry, gag or laugh...

    the CIA saw someone they felt was qualified (and they wouldn't have to risk one of their own people), so they asked and Wilson went.

    Uh, try to understand something. First, it was not  a dangerous situtaion. And if it had been, then that is even more reason to send a real, trained, experienced agent.

    But the most important reason is simple. We have a CIA that we pay billions of dollars for. They should have been used.

    Did you ever think that if they had, the agent might have comeback and said:

    Nope. Didn't happen. And I don't even believe they were trying.

    Could that have been the issue that cooled off the belief that we needed to go to war?

    You don't know, do you? No one does. But just how much damage did sending Wilson cause??

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#90)
    by TomStewart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    How much damage did sending Wilson cause?

    I don;t understand that, sorry. It did a lot of damage to the Wilson's, when Cheney and his Pettiness Squardron went after them, it did damage to the crediblity of GWB in that it pointed out that they had none.

    Really Jim, you're talking youself in circles, trying hard to ignore facts. You should be really dizzy by now.

    Parent

    Hmm (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    So then riddle me this:

    1. Armitage was the source of the leak

    2. Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage within a few weeks (possibly sooner) of the start of the investigation

    3. Note that (2) above torches the "Libby obstructed Fitzgerald from finding the truth" theory

    Given that, how is it that Plame was covert and Armitage was not indicted under the 1917 espionage act (and the successor legislation to it)?

    Seems like "Plame wasn't actually covert" is the obvious answer to that.

    Have to agree with Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    But once more from the top. The fact that Armitage may or may not have been the original leaker, doesn't mean Libby didn't lie to the GJ or otherwise obstruct the investigation. These things are not mutually exclusive



    Parent

    Molly B (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:04:33 PM EST
    But the question is, why did the SP continue when the DOJ was told three months earlier that Armitage was the leaker????

    This whole thing was manufactured.

    Turn the light out on the way out.

    Parent

    You really are desperate to shut this down (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:10:32 PM EST
    aren't you Jimbo?

    There is nothing manufactured about outing a covert agent a CIA front.  



    Parent

    Molly B. (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    Not at all.

    I just want all the facts, out. See my reply to Tom Stewart.

    So let's get her back on Monday and ask some hard questions. And let's get her husband sworn in.

    Let's give them both a chance to be asked questions, not make statements.

    And along with them, Fitzgerald.

    Turn out the lights on the way out.

    Parent

    How does the Armitage Leak absolve Libby (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:59:38 PM EST
    of leaking to Miller and Cooper?

    Just because Miller and Cooper didn't write about it, Libby still leaked to them.

    Parent

    ding777 (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:23:19 PM EST
    Uh, please remember that Libby was not charged with outing Plame.

    Or are you saying that Fitzgerald screwed the pooch??

    Parent

    jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#58)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:35:58 AM EST
    Uh, please remember that Libby was not charged with outing Plame

    the question I responded to was centered on the investigation:

    But the question is, why did the SP continue when the DOJ was told three months earlier that Armitage was the leaker????

    so my answer still stands: The SP continued investigating because there was more than one leaker (knowing Armitage leaked doesn't absolve Libby of leaking).

    Parent

    What Fitzgerald said (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:46:09 AM EST
    Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.


    Parent
    its what you said, not Fitz (none / 0) (#73)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    you were asking about the investigation of the leak - now you switch to the charge in the indictment.

    What exactly is your question?


    Parent

    I didn't say that. (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:34:49 PM EST
    The quote us from Fitzgerald's press conference

    Parent
    Because he wasn't just asked to find the leaker(s) (none / 0) (#80)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    Finding the leaker(s) was only part of his task. Here is the relevant part (pdf)

    At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue

    You are way out on the limb and as near as I can tell the saw is more than 3/4's through the branch. Happy landings!



    Parent

    Molly B (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    So after he had known about Armitage for two months, he decides he needs more power??

    That, dear Molly is my question.

    Turn the light out on the way out. It is blinding you.

    Parent

    No after 2 months (none / 0) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    he knew someone was obstructing and lying. Next question.



    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    He was tasked with finding the leaker.

    When Armitage confessed, the leaker was known.

    He had no need to go further.


    Parent

    ::::This:::: from Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.
    Is a good description of exactly what the scumbags try to bamboozle their opponents into doing with all of their lies , obfustications, and feces hurling.

    Fortunately, no one is buying. And there is a process that has been lost.

    Parent
    That clearly wasn't his instructions (none / 0) (#103)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    As I already pointed out. You are just making things up at this point, cause you are out of gas.

    Besides the fact that Armitage may have leaked the information doesn't absolve any other leaker, including Libby and Rove. Nor would it absolve members of any conspiracy to leak her name.

    Clearly Fitz had more investigating to do. In the unlikely event that Fitz's investigation had been limited to that one point, JC would have said so.

    According to you, if the police are called to investigate one crime under one statute, they are limited to bringing a case only on one particular statute, not on what the facts show. If the police are called in to investigate murder, and the facts show manslaughter, the killer goes free under you theory. Under  your theory, if the police are called in to investigate robbery by Defendent A and find in the course of the investigation that not only was the vicitm robbed, but was raped and murdered as part of a conspiracy by A, B and C, well, the police can only charge A with robbery and everyone else goes scot free. "Brilliant. Just brilliant" as the Guiness commercials say.

    Totally aburd on its face. And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously.



    Parent

    Dishonest Question (4.66 / 3) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    You obviously are only chatttering. This has been answered to you many many times. At this point it is clear that you are just acting like a troll.

    Parent
    ::acting:: like a troll? Heh. (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:29:43 PM EST


    Parent
    SOP (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:28:10 PM EST
    And you and squeaky, neither of you able to answer the question, can only resort to smearing.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST ......

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    Please feel free to continue in your usual standard operating procedures.


    Parent

    OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    and consisting of nothing but personal attacks.

    Parent
    sailor (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    Let me see.

    By quoting someone I have made a personal attack?

    LOL, sailor. LOL

    Parent

    Answered... (1.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:21:04 PM EST
    If it's been answered, then explain why Armitage wasn't indicted.  If she was covert, then his leak was probably a violation.  Stop calling reasonable questions trolling and actually answer them.

    Try Google (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:21:46 PM EST


    Parent
    we don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:46:36 PM EST
      .. but a good guess is that Fitzgeral did not believe (or at least believe the could prove) the disclosure was made with the requisite specicic intent.

    Parent
    Sigh (1.00 / 3) (#8)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    So bottom line, you don't have an answer.  The first result that comes back from a search for "Armitage Plame" has this paragraph:


    If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. On "Larry King Live" last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor's investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a "smear campaign" but rather a "kind of gossip, as chatter ... I don't see an underlying crime here."

    Which backs up my assertions about this - Fitzgerald knew there was no actual crime, and decided to go looking for a scalp.  Since he couldn't get one for the thing he was investigating, he ended up questioning until he caught someone in a lie.

    Now, as I recall, when other special prosecutors took this tack during the 90's, the left was extremely displeased.  Which again, goes back to "whose ox is being gored".

    If we elect a Democrat in 2008, and anything vaguely like this happens, I predict that TL and the entire left will go bats.

    Dishonest (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    I personally have answered your question regarding Armitage several times. Your feigned ignorance is dishonest. Obviously you are just trolling.

    Parent
    I'll bite (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:15:46 PM EST
    There were several leaks and leakers (and not one leak and leaker).  

    On the side issue of Armitage - he wasn't against the Iraq war, he had ties to both Rove and Cheney (his firm once employed Cheney's daughter), and it is far from clear what his role was and what his motivations were.

    Parent

    Re: I'll bite (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KM on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    he wasn't against the Iraq war

    That's putting it rather mildly.  The guy was one of the original signatories of PNAC's 1998 "Letter to Clinton" urging military action against Iraq to overthrow Saddam.

    Just check out that list of co-signatories.

    Parent

    KM, consider this (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    Endorsing Clinton's 1998 action does not prove that he was for invading Iraq.

    Parent
    Plame's word (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    Hmm.  Why should I trust Plame's word?  On the one hand, she says it was not her idea to send Wilson to Niger.  On the other hand, we have today's testimony:


    An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.

    She said she was ambivalent about the idea because she didn't want to have to put her 2 year-old twins to bed by herself at night. Still, she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor.

    Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in.

    Yeah, I'm ready to take her word on things.  If my daughter tried to fly an excuse like that by me, I'd take away a privilege for a small period of time.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    Why indeed?

    I guess she lied under oath, right jarobster?

    Parent

    Looks Like (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    Jarober has finally got the goods on Plame. I suggest he make a citizen's arrest.....hahahaha

    Parent
    He might have to (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    when his children are old enough to say "I'm outta here!"

    Parent
    edger and squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    I have no idea if she lied. I make no such claim.

    Neither do you.

    But I do know that is a very unlikely story.

    So I do think we should convene a GJ and bring the junior person she was comforting and the person who was wondering by and see if their memory matches her memory of the conversation.

    I would also suggest a review board to investigate the very sloppy way secret infomation was handled in this instance.

    Oh, BTW - The conversation she describes supposedly was on 2/12/02. Problem is, the VP asked the question on 2/13/02..

    Stranger and strangee, eh??

    Parent

    haha (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:22:44 PM EST
    I have no idea if she lied. I make no such claim.
    Neither do you.

    A Big left wing conspiracy? Enginered by the CIA?  Kool Aid anyone?  

    More likely they are aliens, plotting a coup.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:52:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Squeaky the smear king. (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:22:49 AM EST
    Where do I claim a Left Wing Conspiracy??

    As usual, you just make things up.


    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    Thanks for dropping by and showing the world you are not capable of commenting about the subject.


    Parent
    DA (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    So, what comment did you make about Valerie Plame that I ignored??

    Really DA, you are so shallow and perfectly transparent.

    Parent

    and btw - neither of you can respond (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:24:04 AM EST
    to the point.

    How drool for you to try and avoid the issue.

    Parent

    Please... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    stop it. You're making my jaw muscles hurt from laughing.

    Parent
    I wouldn't conclude (none / 0) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    that Armitage is necessarily out of the woods yet.

    Neither are the (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    bush apologists.

    Parent
    Our howler monkey (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:31:14 PM EST
    s like arguing with a howler monkey whose sitting in a tree throwing feces at you.

    Yes, he certainly does get that way.

    Although it might not be such a bad thing to have such an ill tempered beast around. In any case it is better to think that way because he is here to stay. Why?..... It's a mystery.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    Follow the money ... or in this case the hit count AKA 'when ppj attacks.'
    Reasonable people try to respond with facts. He goes off on a tangent. Newbies (and oldbies) still try to respond. ppj makes a personal attack and folks respond personally.

    For every post that ppj responds to TL's hits go way up because folks feel obligated to defend themselves from ppj's personal attacks.

    TL profits by ppj's feces launching. I don't mean to sound cynical, but the only explanation for allowing this commenter to continue constant violations of TL's policies is because TL benefits by the increased traffic.

    Parent

    Three points (4.00 / 1) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    One: ppj is not leaving. Whatever deal he has here it seems pretty solid. So, my take is get used to it.

    Two: A petty tyrant is not such a bad thing to have around. Kind of like having homeless people around, as opposed to carting them off where they are out of sight out of mind. It keeps things in perspective up front and close. And to get to the point where his BS isn't irritating, however mild that irritation may be, would be a feather in one cap regarding emotional/spiritual development.

    Three: Personally I would have no idea how the wingnuts think as I am sans MSM. Yes I do get the latest spin via lefty blogs, but I see ppj as my personal portal to the machinations brewing in wingnuttia.

    Parent

    Shorter version (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    PPJ is cheap entertainment- if you don't take him seriously (and who does?)



    Parent

    Molly B (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:26:57 PM EST
    As an attorney, just for the entertainment value, explain how Plame meets the legal definition of covert.

    The applicable definition is posted above.

    If you can't, I will understand.

    Parent

    As You Like It (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:53:50 PM EST
    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--

    Surely you don't dispute she was, at the time of crime, an employee of an intelligence agency- the CIA

    (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

    I believe you conceded her identity  was classified.

    (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    I believe she tesified she had served outide the US. General Hayden also testified that she was covert, presumably he knows the definition requirements as well. Both Plame and Hayden, of course, have personal knowledge of the actual facts in this case.

    Since she qualifes under A, we need not visit B or C.

    QED as my mathematician hubby would say... or Res ipsa loquitur as we lawyers say.

    Fact is Jimbo you are running out of gas. Give it up man, you are only embarressing yourself!



    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    1. She is not serving outside the US.

    2. She has not served outside the US within the past 5 years.

    Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford writes:

    As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act...

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

    Plus, we have this, which I believe is worth understanding.

    One of the requirements of something being classified is that it must be handled properly. i.e. If you have a document that is classified, you don't read it on the train.... Simpler, and perhaps over simplified, if a story is classified, you don't publish it in a newspaper. These acts remove the document from being classified. That is just a fact, and has nothing to do with whether or not your acts are illegal.

    The claim is that Mrs. Wilson's employment was classified, covert and that she was Not Under Offical Cover (NOC). In other words, the world was meant to believe that she was not associated with the US government.
    Now, given that she supposedly was working for some cover company, why did she go to work every day at CIA Headquarters?? Is that routine for a NOC person who is just spending some time in the US waiting to be reassigned outside the US? If you were covert, and if you were NOC, wouldn't you stay as far away from headquarters as possible??

    Now if you were NOC and covert, would you want your name to come into question? When Joe Wilson wrote his NYT article, didn't he understand that it would bring him into focus? And that reporters would be giving him a once over? And that his wife would be part of that? Did he ask her if he could write it? And if not, wouldn't you?
    I think he did. And I think she agreed.

    And if you were NOC and covert, would you make a $1000 donation to a political party under your covert name, and list your covert occupation??

    The truth is that she wasn't covert, and I think her actions call into question her claim that she was. Said another way, if she thought she was covert her actions seem strange. Very strange.

    And then we come to her story of how she and another employee was discussing the VP's office request for information when an unnamed employee just happened to wander by and, overhearing the conversation, suggested she send her husband, which was followed with an email one day before the VP's office request was made???

    What was that? Spy craft by walking around? Group think by the water cooler??

    Molly, you like to declare victory and announce I should quit before I embarrass myself.
    I think I have proven my point that she wasn't covert, and that she really wasn't concerned about the issue until it became it became helpful to claim so.

    I think you are the one embarassed.

    Turn the light out on the way out. The light is blinding you.


    Parent

    Toesing and Sanford are incorrect on the law. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    The statute DOESEN'T say permanet assignment. However much you, Toesing and Sanford may WISH that it did. If Congress meant permanet assignment, Congress would have said so. They didn't put that in that statute. You can't blue pencil it in. Tough luck on that.

    I realize I can't hold you to the rules of statutory construction, since you don't know them, and probably don't know they exist. I do hold Toesing and Sanford to them, however. It is clear they are being Bush league partisans and lawyers on this point. If this is their level of legal knowledge and skill, I wouldn't hire them to handle a dog bite case, let alone an important one.

    Toesing may have been a staff lawyer who helped draft the law. She worked only for a particular congressmen or caucus, she did not work for Congress as a whole, she is not entitled to speak for every member of congress who voted for the law. Ultimately the interpretation is based upon the wording of the statue and any congressional findings that may have clarified any point. Since Toesing doesn't cite any, you can be sure no congressional findings exist to support her wishful thinking. That leaves you with the wording of the statute and the statute is clear on its face.

    As Willie said turn out the lights, the party is over. There is no serious legal question here.

    That leaves you with the facts as testified to be people with personal knowledge.  

    Toesing and Sanford appear to concede that Plame did in fact serve outside the US from time to time in the past 5 years. Ergo she is covered under the statute. Where she worked is immaterial to the statute, so there is no need to address that prepostureous claim.

    Admit it Jimbo, say it loud and say it proud: "I don't care what the Bush administration has done,I support them and I always will." We all understand that point.

    You are out of room to manuever and the saw blade has gone all the way through the branch, hope you don't injure yourself with the fall. Bye bye.



    Parent

    Molly B (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act...

    At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country.

    The above is what people who worked on it says it means.

    Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.

    Somehow I trust her understanding more than Molly B's.

    ) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    Now, what does "served outside the United States..." mean?

    To do that, we need to look at why a time limit was put on being covert. Why any time limit?

    Obviously Congress did not want a large group of covert agents living in the US, unidentified to local authorities, and costing the price to support them in covert non-productive jobs.

    After a time, five years in this case, the covert designation is gone.

    So obviously, a quick trip outside the US was not meant as a way to circumvent the law.

    We can also look at the common usuage of the word, "served."

    You do not go to Brussels on a business trip and say you "served in Brussels." You say, I made a business trip to Brussels.

    We can then look at the fact that the CIA didn't treat her as covert, employing her as an analyst within Langley and... again read the Boston Globe link...providing very sloppy cover in her supposedly "covert" operation and again her own actions, as well her husbands, calling her status into question.

    And Toensing was admitting nothing when she brought up the "business trip." She was pointing out that that did not make Plame covert.

    Now. If you can show us that she made trips, please provide the information, including the time spent outside the US. That would allow a reasonable person to evaluate if it reasonably met the requirement of serving outside the US within the past 5 years.

    Until you can do that, I'll just hang to this:

    or has within the last five years served outside the United States

    Let's face it, Molly. You have nothing but a claim. People make'em everyday in and out of Congress. Some people believe them to be true, even about theselves. Others don't.

    Let's see some facts.

    Parent

    There is no requirement (none / 0) (#108)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 02:47:52 PM EST
    in the statute on length of service outside the US. I understand Tosty feels she screwed up by not suggesting Congress put something in there on that.  Nice try no cigar.

    As for trusting Tosty... she may have helped draft it, but that doesn't make her opinion immune to law and the rules of statutory construction. Congress set no time period for length of service outside the US, only that it be within the last 5 years. Don't like the law, go to Congress and get them to add the missing language that you and Tosty so desperately want. Any 2nd year law student could set her straight on the rules of statutory construction (if she actually needs it).

    I understand your world view is crashing and burning before your eyes. So sorry to be the bearer of bad news.



    Parent

    Molly B (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    The issue is the meaning of the word, "served."

    A  weekend trip to Brussels doesn't meet that requirement.

    I would have thought a good Demo such as yourself would be familar with such things as, depends on the meaning of "is.........."

    I am also surprised that you want to claim that the meaning of words in laws are not often debated.

    Really, your claims are not supported. I am surprised that you take such an approach.

    BTW - Can you tell me if, and for how long, she was outside the US??

    Turn off the lights on the way out. They are blinding you.

    Parent

    The rules of statutory (none / 0) (#110)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:42:17 PM EST
    construction do support my  contention. That is not debatable. You are in over your head.

    It really doesn't matter how long she served outside the US, only that she did within the last 5 years. She has testified to that,  Hayden has testified to it. There really is no debate here.

    Good Night. The party's over. Turn out the light.



    Parent

    Molly B (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    Sorry about this, but you can't just declare yourself a winner and wander off.

    Why? Because this is as much a political issue as a legal one, and because the meaning of words within laws are important, and are always debated.

    As for their testimony, that isn't acceptable to a large number of people.

    Especially the ones who are still laughing at Mrs. Wilson's story of how her husband was selected to go to Nigeria.

    So find someone who givs a flip about your attempt to dismiss logic and general rudeness. I still remember you claimed to be an expert on Medicare Rx insurance until you showed you were not.

    Turn out the light on the way out. The light is blinding you.

    Parent

    Touched a nerve I see (none / 0) (#112)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:16:52 PM EST
    The Bushies exposed a CIA officer whose status was classified- covert for the purposes of IIPA- destroyed a CIA front to get back a Joe Wilson. That should be an affront to every patriotic American. You've got to reconcile that with your world view and you can't.

    Its hard watching your world view go up in smoke.

    BTW you declared yourself the winner in the Medicare prescription debate. I never conceded you were right. You think you are better off. Perhaps you are. Most people don't think they are.

    Good Night, the party's over, turn out the lights.



    Parent

    Molly B (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    There was no Medicare debate. You just made an incorrect claim.

    And it isn't that I think. Our insurance premimum went from $260 to around $100 per month. I know that's a saving. What happened was you shot out a Demo talking point and got caught.

    But let's return to the subject at hand.

    It is my belief that Valerie Plame-Wilson has not met the requirements necessary for her to retain her former covert status. This obviously means that I believe the definition of the word "served" does not mean short trips outside the country.

    I also believe that since this law has never been adjudicate my belief is as good as yours in this matter.

    As for exposure, I can link you to articles that say that she was well known within the Washington cocktail circuits, and there is no doubt that she and her husband were anti-war in Iraq. Indeed, her husband's NYT article, in which he failed to mention that he had told the CIA that Nigerian offcials believe that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake appears designed to cause controversy and draw attention. Something I would think the husband of a CIA agent would avoid.

    Yet he did not. And when the CIA was contacted by Novak, nothing was said to scare him off.

    All of this was politics. From the selection of Wilson to go, to the article he wrote.... It was and remains, politics.\

    BTW - I loved your calling Toensing, "Tosty." I always know the other side is loosing when they start name calling.

    Turn out the light on the way out. The light is blinding you.

    Parent

    Yawn... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 10:58:35 PM EST
    Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny?

    You can obviouslty believe whatever you want... that the earth is flat... that Elvis is still alive and well running a gas station in Omaha... in bigfoot... that doesn't make you actually correct.

    Faith is belief without proof. I understand that. I just live in the reality based community. We don't run a country on faith. We must deal with facts.  Law isn't mere belief. It deals with rules and applying the rules to the facts. There are rules to interpertation to statues. Your beliefs don't get to change them. There is no requirement for length of service outside the US in the definition of Covert in the IIPA. DEAL WITH IT.



    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:49:05 PM EST
    Vern?? VERN??

    You must be desperate when all you can do is snark and insult.

    Oh well, nothing new.

    Got anying original to say???

    No?

    Didn't think so.

    Ta Ta

    Parent

    squwaky and edger (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:28:54 PM EST
    Squeaky - Both you and edger have defined yourself in your own words, on this blog.

    I don't have to attack. You have done it for me, and you both continue to do it for me.

    Thanks, guys and have a nice day.


    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:40:13 PM EST
    Since you are supposedly for "facts," how about showing me how she meets the legal definition of being covert.

    I have posted it twice on this thread, so I am sure you can find it.

    Parent

    Most rational, sane people (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:39:25 AM EST
    would reflect and alter their behavior after reading that about themselves. But not ppj...

    oeionATL (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:20:45 AM EST
    So, you can't dedbate.

    So you just attack.

    Thanks for proving it.

    It is only a matter of time now. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:10:14 AM EST
    The presidency and administration of George W. Bush is toast after Waxman's hearing yesterday.

    Not so much because of Valerie Plame's testimony, as important as it was, but because of the testimony of Dr. James Knodell, Director of the WH Office of Security, showing that once again, as is his habit, Bush clearly and blatantly lied in an attempted coverup over the leak.

    The White House never investigated the Plame Identity Leak.

    Henry Waxman, in a letter to the white House yesterday:
    "The testimony of Mr. Knodell appears to describe White House decisions that were inconsistent with the directives of Executive Order 12958, which you signed in March 2003," wrote Waxman. "Under this executive order, the White House is required to 'take appropriate and prompt corrective action' whenever there is a release of classified information. Yet Mr. Knodell could describe no such actions after the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity."
    Shades of shadiness (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    At least Richard Nixon had the integrity to resign, after saying "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook." It appears that Mr. Bush is a crook, as well as a liar.

    Parent
    So? what's your point?? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    Novak says Armitage was the kiss and tell and then the CIA confirmed Plame worked for'em.....

    BTW - If you will just read the legal definition of covert... guess what. It shows she wasn't covert.

    BTW - It was September per Novak, not October.

    But no matter. DOJ had the man two, or three, months before Fitzgerald arrived...so why didn't it end there???

    Valerie Plame: "I Was Covert" | 108 comments (108 topical)