The Other Side of the Rove Story

[SilverNRed]

Link

 

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign.

 

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

 

"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.

 

"Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

 

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

 

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

 

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

No rush to reply to this since everyone already knows where everyone else stands. I find it interesting that more than half of the full story is being ignored by the talking heads on TV these days...

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

You see it really depends on how you define the word "is".

[Kelly the Dog]

He is never going to be convicted of violating the law on the "outing of a CIA" agent. He did, of course, break the spirit of the law but not the technicality of the law. He could, however, be in legal trouble depending on what he said to the grand jury, a perjury charge. But i doubt that will happen either. In other words, he will skate, and the only thing that will come of it is the fact that he will be "outed" in public as the scumbag that he is.

 

Granted, he is absolutely brilliant at his job.

[GG]

This is probably a better thread to discuss the actual case.

 

What appears to be the case here is a carbon copy of the Martha Stewart fiasco. It's becoming apparent that no one in the White House, or outside broke any laws wrt naming Plame, outing her, giving a her bad haircut for the Fanity Fair spread, etc. I think this is the paramount reason no one is going after Novak's notes.

 

What seems to be driving this crazy train is possibly Rove or someone else inside gave a different account to the special prosecutor then what was actually told to the reporters.

 

Thus, Rove may be investigated and indicted for lying about a non-crime.

 

Sweet justice

[PastaJoe]

Thus, Rove may be investigated and indicted for lying about a non-crime.

 

Sweet justice 

380698[/snapback]

 

It's funny how people never learn from history, that the coverup is usually what gets them in trouble, not the original act.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is probably a better thread to discuss the actual case.

 

What appears to be the case here is a carbon copy of the Martha Stewart fiasco.  It's becoming apparent that no one in the White House, or outside broke any laws wrt naming Plame, outing her, giving a her bad haircut for the Fanity Fair spread, etc.  I think this is the paramount reason no one is going after Novak's notes.

 

What seems to be driving this crazy train is possibly Rove or someone else inside gave a different account to the special prosecutor then what was actually told to the reporters.

 

Thus, Rove may be investigated and indicted for lying about a non-crime.

 

Sweet justice 

380698[/snapback]

What doesn't hold water for me is the argument that Rove would have no idea that she was a covert agent. That's HIS fault and a huge problem. There seems to be only two possibilities: Either he knew she was a covert agent and he outed her anyway, or he knew she was a CIA agent and never bothered finding out if she was covert or not, because if he did, he would have known. That in and of itself is a problem. Face it, he outed her. He did it for revenge. He knew what he was doing. He did it in such a way as to probably not be in danger legally unless he also lied to the grand jury, for the simple reason that the law is very difficult to prove.

[Wacka]

Don't you libs even read threads? She was probably outed by Aldrich Ames at least 10 years ago. She is a desk jockey now, an analyst, not an active agent (= spy). Just because someone works for the CIA doesn't make them a spy. It was common knowledge in the press that she worked for the CIA.

[Ghost of BiB]

Don't you libs even read threads? She was probably outed by Aldrich Ames at least 10 years ago. She is a desk jockey now, an analyst, not an active agent (= spy).  Just because someone works for the CIA doesn't make them a spy.  It was common knowledge in the press that she worked for the CIA.

380831[/snapback]

 

I know a few folks who work there. One's an accountant, a few are "admin specialists" (secretaries), a d-base administrator and a PR person. I don't think they've even been to the spy museum.

[Kelly the Dog]

Don't you libs even read threads? She was probably outed by Aldrich Ames at least 10 years ago. She is a desk jockey now, an analyst, not an active agent (= spy).  Just because someone works for the CIA doesn't make them a spy.  It was common knowledge in the press that she worked for the CIA.

380831[/snapback]

I do not know what her job was. Why would Patrick Fitzgerald be put in charge of uncovering who outed the CIA agent if there was never the possibility of a crime? Certainly, it would not be illegal to give the name of just any person who worked for the agency who was just a desk jockey. There simply would not be an investigation.

 

This isn't any official news sorce, just one of us geeks.

 

Relevency of Aldrich Ames 

 

What exactly is the relevency of Aldrich Ames?  Assuming he did compromise Plame's identity to the Russians, how does that change her covert status?  Is it really your assertion that Fitzgerald has run an investigation (and put Judith Miller in jail) and that the CIA would request such an investigation if Plame was not covert?  Thats a pretty fundamental factor in determining whether an investigation should occur.  The legal definition of a covert agent in this case 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

 

Most information seems to indicate that Valerie Plame qualifies under at least one of these defintions.  She worked on WMD issues so its entirely possible she is covert under 4-B-ii.  If she worked at all in the last five years outside the United States she qualifies under 4-A as she was under non-official cover and her identity was classified. 

Now perhaps they've had an extensive investigation at the request of the CIA, threatened jail time and subpoenaed some of the most powerful people in the Administration when the most fundamental foundation of the case - whether she was covert - was not known or known to be false.  But I find it unlikely

 

[SilverNRed]

I do not know what her job was. Why would Patrick Fitzgerald be put in charge of uncovering who outed the CIA agent if there was never the possibility of a crime? Certainly, it would not be illegal to give the name of just any person who worked for the agency who was just a desk jockey. There simply would not be an investigation.

 

This isn't any official news sorce, just one of us geeks.

380872[/snapback]

I've heard that Fitzgerald was put in charge of an investigation basically to make the story go away rather than turn into a circus (which, sadly, it is anyway). The idea being that if someone could find out exactly what happened, the truth would be a lot less exciting than what people were hoping for.

 

I'd be interested in seeing what he discovers - though he isn't obligated to ever release any thing he finds (supposedly, again).

[Kelly the Dog]

I've heard that Fitzgerald was put in charge of an investigation basically to make the story go away rather than turn into a circus (which, sadly, it is anyway).  The idea being that if someone could find out exactly what happened, the truth would be a lot less exciting than what people were hoping for. 

 

I'd be interested in seeing what he discovers - though he isn't obligated to ever release any thing he finds (supposedly, again).

380919[/snapback]

Yeah, right, sure. What is more final and would stop more potential circuses than: "There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever."

[SilverNRed]

Yeah, right, sure. What is more final and would stop more potential circuses than: "There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever."

380930[/snapback]

So are you saying the Fitzgerald investigation is a sham to cover up the truth? What are you saying?

 

[Kelly the Dog]

Furthermore, Judith Miller would NOT be in jail right now if this were a non-case. This is not the place or case the government would take a stand on if they knew there was no crime, or no possibility for a crime.

[Kelly the Dog]

So are you saying the Fitzgerald investigation is a sham to cover up the truth?  What are you saying?

 

380938[/snapback]

No, YOU were saying the Fitzgerald investigation was a sham. I was saying if there was no crime, and they wanted to do what you suggested, to make the story go away or stop it from becoming a circus, they would have just come out at the beginning and said ""There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever."

 

Story goes away. No circus.

[Wacka]

Are you libs sure you don't secretly love Rove?

Seems you guys have such a ha**-on for him I think that some of you may be in the closet

[Alaska Darin]

Are you libs sure you don't secretly love Rove?

Seems you guys have such a ha**-on for him I think that some of you may be in the closet  

380980[/snapback]

Really they just want to win SOMETHING. It's been so darn long.

[SilverNRed]

No, YOU were saying the Fitzgerald investigation was a sham. I was saying if there was no crime, and they wanted to do what you suggested, to make the story go away or stop it from becoming a circus, they would have just come out at the beginning and said ""There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever."

 

Story goes away. No circus.

380952[/snapback]

Oops, I guess I wasn't clear. I'm saying the main reason they wanted an investigation is for the truth to come out rather than just let the rumors fly. And I don't think necessarily that they thought a crime WAS committed. Judith Miller is in jail because she won't reveal her source for the investigation but 'outing' a CIA agent is only a crime in very specific circumstances according to a 1982 law that was passed. This is why you can only convict someone if they knowingly outed a CIA agent.

 

So I guess the idea I'm floating is that the investigation is most definitely NOT a sham, but that they expected to clear the whole thing up without sending a dozen people to jail. How it all ends is anyone's guess.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oops, I guess I wasn't clear.  I'm saying the main reason they wanted an investigation is for the truth to come out rather than just let the rumors fly.  And I don't think necessarily that they thought a crime WAS committed.  Judith Miller is in jail because she won't reveal her source for the investigation but 'outing' a CIA agent is only a crime in very specific circumstances according to a 1982 law that was passed.  This is why you can only convict someone if they knowingly outed a CIA agent.

 

So I guess the idea I'm floating is that the investigation is most definitely NOT a sham, but that they expected to clear the whole thing up without sending a dozen people to jail.  How it all ends is anyone's guess.

381016[/snapback]

So you're saying they are going to make a scapegoat out of Judith Miller, a high profile reporter for a high profile paper, and send her to jail (something they rarely do) because she won't give up the notes to a story she NEVER wrote, about a crime that NEVER existed, and could never have existed, and they knew it never existed?

 

Like I said: Yeah, right, sure.

[SilverNRed]

So you're saying they are going to make a scapegoat out of Judith Miller, a high profile reporter for a high profile paper, and send her to jail (something they rarely do) because she won't give up the notes to a story she NEVER wrote, about a crime that NEVER existed, and could never have existed, and they knew it never existed?

 

Like I said: Yeah, right, sure.

381063[/snapback]

From the link at the very start of this thread.

 

To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

 

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

JM isn't a scapegoat. She's in jail because she wouldn't disclose her sources (due to 'journalistic integrity' whatever the hell that is). At the end of the day, I doubt the investigation was designed to land people in prison. But it was time to clear things up or else the rumors would've never stopped and this thing would get bigger than it is.

[SilverNRed]

BTW, are you a journalist?

[Kelly the Dog]

From the link at the very start of this thread.

 

JM isn't a scapegoat.  She's in jail because she wouldn't disclose her sources (due to 'journalistic integrity' whatever the hell that is).  At the end of the day, I doubt the investigation was designed to land people in prison.  But it was time to clear things up or else the rumors would've never stopped and this thing would get bigger than it is.

381071[/snapback]

You're quoting an opinion. The investigation is going on to find out if there was indeed a crime committed that requires an indictment. There needed to be an investiagtion to find that out. When it started, they didnt know it was Rove, and they didn't know if there was a crime committed. They obviously thought there could have been a crime committed. They found out that it was Rove, and now they are trying to find out if he indeed committed a crime. That is up in the air right now. I don't think he broke the letter of the law and committed a crime. He's too smart for that.

 

What I am saying is that they didnt know if a crime was committed, they are investigating to find out. But they never would have started this blasted mess had there been a clear indication, as you are suggesting, that no crime could have been committed because Plame was already outed.

 

What I am also saying, again, is this isn't the kind of case they would let a big reporter go to jail over if they knew there was no crime committed and there could not have been a crime committed from the get-go. They just wouldn't do it. They would drop it or let it drag on until she didnt have to go to jail or make some deal with her. They would not let her go to jail, IMO, under the hypothetical you're trying to imply.

[Kelly the Dog]

BTW, are you a journalist?

381073[/snapback]

No, but a writer and I took journalism in college and a family member is.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page. Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact. I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it. The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove. I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter. This is probably the fairest way to handle it.

[Terry Tate]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page.  Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact.  I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it.  The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove.  I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter.  This is probably the fairest way to handle it

I'd say that's one of the more accurate descriptions of the current situation that I've read throughout I don't know how many threads on the same subject.

 

BTW, I still think that dog has that look on his face - he hasn't forgotten who took him to the vet to get "fixed". Lock him up at night and sleep with one eye open.

[blzrul]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page.  Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact.  I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it.  The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove.  I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter.  This is probably the fairest way to handle it.

381147[/snapback]

Yes I think the "Pontius Pilate" approach is what we're going to see here.

Assuming it is Rove, or anyone close to him. And no-one with a grain of sense takes an editorial as gospel truth...or for that matter a pundit...no matter WHICH side of the issue they're on. Sad that so many do...I guess it's easier than thinking for themselves, eh?

[SilverNRed]

The article in question is from the Wall St Journal Editorial Page.  Therefore, I would not take this opinion as fact.  I don't think it matters what the Democrats and Republicans want to spin about it.  The truth will come out in the grand jury and if Rove did it, they will indict him for it or for perjury.

 

If the grand jury doesn't indict him, you can be reasonably certain that he did nothing wrong, as grand juries are stacked in the prosecutors favor since the burden of proof is a lot lower for indictment than for conviction.

 

It is a little telling that Bush distanced himself a little today from supporting Rove.  I think Bush is leaning towards letting the investigation be the final arbitor on this matter.  This is probably the fairest way to handle it.

381147[/snapback]

I produced a Washington Post article from June 2004 a couple days ago that cites the same information as the editorial.

 

You are aware that editorials are allowed to cite facts, right?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I produced a Washington Post article from June 2004 a couple days ago that cites the same information as the editorial. 

 

You are aware that editorials are allowed to cite facts, right?

381279[/snapback]

 

Yes, editorials sometime include facts, but they always include opinions. I would rather see the facts without someone's opinion of what the facts mean.

[SilverNRed]

Yes, editorials sometime include facts, but they always include opinions.  I would rather see the facts without someone's opinion of what the facts mean.

381285[/snapback]

So you can't read the editorial and form your own opinion of the case being made?

[Alaska Darin]

So you can't read the editorial and form your own opinion of the case being made?

381294[/snapback]

Nope. Hurts.

[Wacka]

Here's some more info:

 

Exploding liberal myths

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

So you can't read the editorial and form your own opinion of the case being made?

381294[/snapback]

 

I can form my own opinion, but it seems that a lot of the posters here are Conservatives who would rather read Right wing editorials or the RNC talking points in order to understand an issue. Just because listening to Rush gives you a hard-on, it doesn't mean that it is the unadulterated truth. It also doesn't do your car any good to slap the dashboard and shout "Amen" everytime Rush finishes a thought.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Here's some more info:

 

Exploding liberal myths

381326[/snapback]

 

Just what we needed...some more partisan rhetoric.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I can form my own opinion, but it seems that a lot of the posters here are Conservatives who would rather read Right wing editorials or the RNC talking points in order to  understand an issue.  Just because listening to Rush gives you a hard-on, it doesn't mean that it is the unadulterated truth.  It also doesn't do your car any good to slap the dashboard and shout "Amen" everytime Rush finishes a thought. 

381379[/snapback]

 

Just an FYI...not all right-leaning people listen to Rush. I don't.

 

He's more a tool of the sort-of-right-wing Republican Party than I care to like.

 

He's not right ENOUGH.

[SilverNRed]

I can form my own opinion, but it seems that a lot of the posters here are Conservatives who would rather read Right wing editorials or the RNC talking points in order to  understand an issue.  Just because listening to Rush gives you a hard-on, it doesn't mean that it is the unadulterated truth.  It also doesn't do your car any good to slap the dashboard and shout "Amen" everytime Rush finishes a thought. 

381379[/snapback]

In my entire life, I've listened to Limbaugh twice and that was during the Florida recount when Jim Rome went to commercial over on WGR.

[Kelly the Dog]

In my entire life, I've listened to Limbaugh twice and that was during the Florida recount when Jim Rome went to commercial over on WGR.

381499[/snapback]

Just what we need. A loner lemming.

[Mickey]

Here's some more info:

 

Exploding liberal myths

381326[/snapback]

Where did that crap come from, perhaps GOP USA the republican spin machine that served as home sweet home for male prostitutes with White House press credentials?

 

So, Plame was not a covert agent? Hmmmmm.... lets see:

 

Robert Novak's original column, July 14 2003:

 

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

David Corn in the Nation, July 16 2003:

 

....a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material....a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm.

 

 

Newsday, July 21 2003:

 

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity

....A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

 

 

Washington Post, September 29, 2003:

 

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

 

MSNBC, September 30, 2003:

 

CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions "affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak."

 

 

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, September 30, 2003:

 

I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst on NewsHour, September 30, 2003:

 

I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades....she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised.... she's a woman of great integrity....This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

 

 

CNN, October 1, 2003:

 

Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer. "If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

 

Mel Goodman, former CIA analyst, Washington Post online Q&A, October 1 2003:

 

....I've worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA...and I know Ambassador Wilson....and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee. Let's face it....this was targetted information as part of a political vendetta....a pure act of revenge.

 

 

Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer, LA Times, Ocotber 1, 2003:

 

The exposure of Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover — apparently by a senior administration official, is nothing less than a despicable act for which someone should be held accountable. This case is especially upsetting to me because she was my agency classmate as well as my friend.

 

New York Times, October 2, 2003:

 

Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.

 

That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.

 

New York Daily News, October 2, 2003:

 

Two former senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame, 40, is an operations officer in the spy agency's directorate of operations - the clandestine service.

Plame "ran intelligence operations overseas," said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief.

 

Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said.

 

Okay, that's 4 ex-cia employees who say she was a covert agent and numerous senior intelligence officials as well. On top of that, consider that indeed, if she wasn't covert, there could be no crime yet the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate and it affirmed the need for an investigation and thus a Special Prosecutor was set up who is pursuing the matter with vigor. It seems reasonable to believe that all three have concluded that she in fact was covert for otherwise there would be no need for an investigation. Against that is your link to Joe Mariani "computer consultant and free lance writer". You'll have to excuse me if for now I go with the CIA, the Justice Department, the Special Prosecutor, ex-CIA employees and "senior intelligence officials" rather than Mr. Mariani.

[Ghost of BiB]

Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said.

 

Uh huh. Worked great, didn't it? Google WINPAC.

[Wacka]

And your sources are bastions of impartiality?

The Nation

MSNBC

Newsweek

CNN

LA Times

 

Sure as hell aren't slanted to the right.

 

What don't you understand?

Her cover was blown by Ames in the 90s. She was an analyst behind a desk for about 10 years. The law states that he had to KNOWINGLY expose a covert agent within 5 years of them not being covert any more. Mickey, I think you are a lawyer. Have you read the law?

Everybody in the DC social circles they were in knew she worked at the CIA, she would tell people that at cocktail parties. Rove warned the Newsweek guy that if he submitted the story he had, that the VP sent Wilson, it would blow up in his face and that it was likely his wife, Plame. who got him the assignment. Rove did not break any laws. Period.

 

All this is a case of the lefties thinking they have something on the "Dr. Strangelove" of the Bush administration and wanting to desperately win at anything. Anything!

[Reuben Gant]

And your sources are bastions of impartiality?

The Nation

MSNBC

Newsweek

CNN

LA Times

 

Sure as hell aren't slanted to the right.

 

 

 

382113[/snapback]

You forgot Newshour. At least he is sourcing things.

Where was that Ames link?

[SilverNRed]

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, September 30, 2003:

 

I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.

382087[/snapback]

This one is interesting. This guy knew Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was a "deep cover" operative. What the hell does that mean? It's a secret but if you know the husband, it's not? Alrighty.

 

What kind of deep cover involves leaving your house and driving to Langley for work every day? Maybe her specific job at the CIA was secret but where she worked sure wasn't. And it sounds like anyone who knew these people and had basic reasoning skills could figure out where Plame worked.

 

BTW, you could dig up about 300 million Americans who didn't know where she worked before any of us ever knew her name, but the issue is how many people did know where she worked prior to this 'outing' that technically were not supposed to. How much of a secret was this thing before Novak's column.

 

I'd like to know who Judith Miller is hiding. Not to play conspiracy theorist but if Wilson and Plame knew the truth was coming out about his trip, his "whistleblowing" column, and how he got his job (his wife abusing her job) - they might've both been in a lot of trouble. Something to think about. I still don't see reporters going to the mattresses for Karl Rove.