Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Emails Will Reveal that Rove Outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Emails Will Reveal that Rove Outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just wanted to point out something else here (I'm done with this argument until we actually discover some substantial new development other than rampant speculation.)

Bush always said he'd fire a leaker that leaked from his white house about the administration. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, this white house has had the LEAST amount of leaking to the press since I can remember.

I think that's what many of you are conflating with this whole Plame affair. Bush demands loyalty from his staff and admin and if he does find out about a leaker, they are gone.

That is why the entire press was caught off guard with the recent nomination of Roberts. There was no credible leak to the press.

[ July 21, 2005, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Bush always said he'd fire a leaker that leaked from his white house about the administration. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, this white house has had the LEAST amount of leaking to the press since I can remember.

Ooo! THAT'S a ringing endorsement:

"He'll fire anyone who's personally disloyal, but they can out CIA agents and he doesn't particularly care. So there!"

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bush demands loyalty from his staff and admin and if he does find out about a leaker, they are gone.
I would find that reassuring, except that it is becoming increasingly obvious that Rove did leak Plume's name.

Now, has the President bothered to ask Rove if he leaked her name?

Did Rove answer yes or no?

If he said yes, what is he still doing there?

If he said no, and it becomes undeniable that he did leak her name (although it may not be a criminal offense), will he still be there?

If he will be fired even though it is not a criminal offense, then why is the President qualifying his statement with the term "convicted of a crime??"

Sorry, Daruma. You may think he will not tolerate a "leaker," but I strongly suspect that he will if he likes the person enough.

[ July 21, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can't out someone that wasn't in to begin with.

[Roll Eyes]

[ July 21, 2005, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're saying that Valerie Plume's status as a CIA agent wasn't classified as "Secret" (as was stated before in this thread)?

That it was, in fact, common knowledge?

If it was known before Novak's column, can anyone site something that shows this?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I would find that reassuring, except that it is becoming increasingly obvious that Rove did leak Plame's name.

But that's okay, by Daruma's interpretation, because it's equally obvious that he leaked Plame's name at Bush's request. It was a deliberate leak, not a traitorous one.

[ July 21, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's the current Party Line, I think.
That everyone knew she worked for the CIA.

(if that were so (and there is at least as much information saying that it wasn't so as there is saying that it was so), I cannot imagine why the CIA would want anyone to investigate the supposed "leak"; but then, smoke screens don't have to make sense, they just have to give the loyalists a talking point)

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about this?

Than you can actually read the amici brief for which the sole argument rests on the idea that no crime has been committed because she was already "outted" long before Rove ever talked to Novak.

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20Final.PDF

You have to put parenthesis around the "FINAL" that I bolded. Ornery won't allow the posting of html with parenthesis in a url.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:

I would find that reassuring, except that it is becoming increasingly obvious that Rove did leak Plame's name.

But that's okay, by Daruma's interpretation, because it's equally obvious that he leaked Plame's name at Bush's request. It was a deliberate leak, not a traitorous one.
I guess you guys have deliberately avoided reading the amici brief...or simply ignoring it because it inconveniences your arguments/

Ah well.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Neither of those links makes a good case that Rove's alledged "leaks" were not unethical.

Your first link shows that Valerie's covert position was made known to the Russians and the Cubans. That such information was given is questionable in itself, but has no bearing in letting the whole world know that she was a secret operative in Niger.

The second post makes an interesting case that it was not a crime, but also does not touch on how ethical such a leak would be. I almost found it compelling that Novak stated that the CIA did not tell him not to mention Valerie's CIA position, until it became clear that she worked "at a desk job" at the CIA.

So, can we safely assume that everyone who works at the CIA is a CIA operative? That anytime they travel to another country, they are doing business for the Agency?

The fact that she worked for the CIA is not the "leak." The fact that she was doing a special operative job in Niger is. And the fact that the Russians and Cubans may have known about it does not mean that the Nigerians and Sadam knew, also.

If Karl Rove wants to prove that leaking Valerie Plame's assignment was not illegal and unethical, why doesn't he just release the names of all CIA employees who are doing secret assignments around the world. You wouldn't find that unethical in any way, would you, Daruma? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, that's an amici brief. It's not a finding of fact.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can't out someone that wasn't in to begin with.

Former intelligence officials seem to believe she was in , Daruma. But if you'd rather believe the New York Times...

Please retire this talking point, or stop supporting it with the fact that the media you spend so much time disparaging have filed with court to preserve their privilige.

[ July 21, 2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2122963/

quote:
First, the most exploded figure in the entire argument is Joseph Wilson. This is for three reasons. He claimed, in his own book, that his wife had nothing to do with his brief and inconclusive visit to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." There isn't enough wiggle room in those two definitive statements to make either of them congruent with a memo written by Valerie Wilson (or Valerie Plame, if you prefer) to a deputy chief in the CIA's directorate of operations. In this memo, in her wifely way, she announced that her husband would be ideal for the mission since he had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines (of Niger), not to mention lots of French contacts." If you want to read the original, turn to the Senate committee's published report on the many "intelligence failures" that we have suffered recently. I want to return to those, too.

Speaking to the Washington Post about the CIA's documents on the Niger connection, Wilson made the further claim that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Again according to the Senate report, these papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip. He has since admitted to the same newspaper that he may have "misspoken" about this.

The third bogus element in Wilson's boastful story is the claim that Niger's "yellowcake" uranium was never a subject of any interest to Saddam Hussein's agents. The British intelligence report on this, which does not lack criticism of the Blair government, finds the Niger connection to be among the most credible of the assertions made about Saddam's double-dealing. If you care to consult the Financial Times of June 28, 2004, and see the front-page report by its national security correspondent Mark Huband, you will be able to review the evidence that Niger—with whose ministers Mr. Wilson had such "good relations"—was trying to deal in yellowcake with North Korea and Libya as well as Iraq and Iran. This evidence is by no means refuted or contradicted by a forged or faked Italian document saying the same thing. It was a useful axiom of the late I.F. Stone that few people are so foolish as to counterfeit a bankrupt currency.

Thus, and to begin with, Joseph Wilson comes before us as a man whose word is effectively worthless. What do you do, if you work for the Bush administration, when a man of such quality is being lionized by an anti-war press? Well, you can fold your tent and let them print the legend. Or you can say that the word of a mediocre political malcontent who is at a loose end, and who is picking up side work from a wife who works at the anti-regime-change CIA, may not be as "objective" as it looks. I dare say that more than one supporter of regime change took this option. I would certainly have done so as a reporter if I had known.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You can't out someone that wasn't in to begin with."


What a disgusting joke. Is there no level so low that you will not stoop to it to excuse the actions or statements of this administration? Pitiful.

Do you not care in the least that with each of your posts, such as the above, excusing the indefensible actions of this administration you lose more and more credibility with this forum?

I understand loyalty, but outing a CIA agent as political retribution is beyond the pale. And the fact that you "can't" or "refuse" to see that renders your posts meaningless defenses of the party line.

Surely, with posts like the above it will not be long before everybody who cares about honest and open debate simply skips over your posts assuming that they are more of the same self-serving defenses of the indefensible actions of anyone connected with the Bush administration.

America first. Party second.

KE

[ July 21, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What a disgusting joke. Is there no level so low that you will not stoop to it to excuse the actions or statements of this administration?
Well, you've already written me off as a GOP hack and a shill for the Adminstration, so what do I care what you think about me? I already know your opinion of my political opinions.

What I SEE from my POV is an entire witchunt based on political gamesmanship, and all of you that share the particular ideology of opposing Bush will stoop to any level to get this administration.

And you asked earlier in this thread why someone doesn't come up with a list of people injured or killed because she was "outted."

They can't, because there is none. Her covert status was blown long before Bush was even in the White House.

But hey KE, skip over my posts. I guess I'm only a "self-serving" Bush admin apologist...although I don't see what the hell I get out of this except for possibly the designation of "least popular poster on OA for my trouble." Too bad I don't really care about being popular. [Smile]

But I must say I do like most of you with whom I disagree so vehemently with for the most part...at least those that have something more to say than simply grinding an axe with a single minded determination.

Apparently I'm the only that sees the hypocrisy of all these news organizations that file a brief claiming there is no crime committed while they turn around and continually call for Rove's resigantion/firing for a crime.

No. I think it's Democrat party bull**** and a complicit mainstream media beholden to the DNC on par with the Republican party bull**** pulled in the 90's to get Clinton for Monica. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Obviously KE, you and a bunch of others see it differently.

No need to imply I'm being dishonest, disingenuous or "sinking to new lows" because of a differnce of opinion.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The press may have some priorities mixed up, but that is nothing compared to the people who were angry at Novak about the outing of Valerie Plame who have broken their backs flip-flopping to excuse Rove's actions.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And you asked earlier in this thread why someone doesn't come up with a list of people injured or killed because she was "outted."

They can't, because there is none. Her covert status was blown long before Bush was even in the White House.

Actually, Daruma, I suspect this is a nonzero list and we may find out after all this.

I don't have access to the same secret info as Libby and Rove, remember.


quote:
Apparently I'm the only that sees the hypocrisy of all these news organizations that file a brief claiming there is no crime committed while they turn around and continually call for Rove's resigantion/firing for a crime.

No. I think it's Democrat party bull**** and a complicit mainstream media beholden to the DNC on par with the Republican party bull**** pulled in the 90's to get Clinton for Monica. I'm just calling it as I see it.

It's a complicit media that wants to report the news of the leak, while absolving all future leakers of any responsibility.

There's some self-interest for media there, Daruma.

[ July 21, 2005, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

And you asked earlier in this thread why someone doesn't come up with a list of people injured or killed because she was "outted."

I submit that this would be even worse than the original leak.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I submit that this would be even worse than the original leak.
I agree. But we may get a couple of examples out of all this. Maybe not.

Since anyone killed would have been an undercover agent or a spy, it's a little hard for a layman such as myself to compile a list, however.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, a few things are apparent to me. Some people didn't bother to even try to read the brief...and those that did didn't even try to reconcile what it contained versus their own statements.

Since Ornery wouldn't let me post the accurate URL due to the parenthesis, and I've been accused of sinking to new lows in a desperate attempt to defend this administration at all costs, I've decided to transcribe a few relevant parts of the brief, so that it is clear as to why I disbelieve the mainstream media's reports (much of the same ones that are part of the brief) that it is a given that Rove "outted" an agent for political revenge.

For reference sake, the URL to the page that contains the PDF link Ornery won't let me post:

http://www.bakerlaw.com/practice/industry_detail.aspx?Industry=true&id=31


quote:
At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been revealed must truly be "covert" for there to be a violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent {see 50 U.S.C. 426 - "covert agent" defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington - not stationed abroad - for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name.

Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. "The United States has 'revealed' an intelligence relationship if it has disclosed information which names, or leads directly to the indentification of...a covert agent." S/ Re/ 97-201 at 23. An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication.

quote:
THere are sufficient facts on the public record that cast considerable doubt as to whether the CIA took the necessary "affirmative measures" to conceal Plame's identity. Indeed, these facts establish such sloppy tradecraft that, at minimum, the CIA was indifferent to the compromise of her identity.

The Following facts are public:

- The CIA sent a non-CIA employee, Joseph C. Wilson 4th, on a mission to Niger to determine whether Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase "uranium yellow cake," an ingredient for making non-conventional weapon.

- Wilson had not served in Niger for over two decades, and, unlike his supposedly undercover wife, was not an expert in nuclear weapons.

- Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement about his mission.

- Wilson was not prevented by the CIA from writing his Op-Ed for The New York Times, an article that not only criticized the Administration, but also detailed his mission and findings.

- When columnist Novak contacted the CIA to verify that Plame worked for the Agency, he says that the Agency not only verified her employment but aslo failed to give him a serious request not to publish her name.

- The CIA's usual procedure when it is concerned that publishing a fact would endanger a covert agent is to have a high ranking official, usually the Director, contact the journalist and ask that information not be published.

- The CIA did not prohibit Plame from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.." facts that are publicly available at the FEC.

Novak's column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude; the Agency's response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President's office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have "low level" bureaucrats mke the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife's suggestion. Did no one at Langley think that plame's identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed peice discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?

The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame's identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was "shocked, shocked" that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate.

...While there is no suggestion that the Special Counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings.

So KE. You may still disagree with me...but can you at least see why I have serious reservations as to the honesty and veracity of the mainstream media's reports on this whole affair? Why I doubt Ms. Plame was even "covert" or undercover? Can you concede THAT?

Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?

[ July 21, 2005, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
I choose this one!

Do I get a prize?

[Wink]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, a few things are apparent to me. Some people didn't bother to even try to read the brief...and those that did didn't even try to reconcile what it contained versus their own statements.


And it's clear that you haven't read a single one of my links. I think the brief is an exercise in ass-covering as the media try to preserve their privilege. "Stop us before we kill again!"

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and see what happens.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read your link Alzabo...I wasn't referring to you alone -- and I also agree that the media was most certainly motivated in trying to preserve their privilege. But that certainly does not invalidate the case the brief presents either. It simply demonstrates that the media will speak out of two sides of their mouths to promote an agenda. On one side - to the courts - their is the "No crime was comitted, she was not undercover, there's nothing here." On the other side, it's "we have a top Presidential advisor and if we imply a dastardly scandal, we'll sell a lot more copy."
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It simply demonstrates that the media will speak out of two sides of their mouths to promote an agenda.
If you think about it, it's not really inconsistent. They want to sell news today and they want to ensure that they will have consequence free access to leaks so they can sell news tomorrow. It's overweening entitlement, not hypocrisy.
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
I choose this one!

Do I get a prize?

[Wink]

Which would you prefer, a VRWC coffee mug or a Bill O'Reilly "No Spin Zone" door mat? [Razz]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The State Department memo circulated by the White House was actually more top secret than previously thought.

Apparently, there is going to be an article in the Wall Street Journal tommorow stating that the State Department Memo was marked "Top Secret", and that it was classified information not to be shared with other foreign nationals, especially foreign intelligence services, regardless of how friendly they are to the United States.

Good job for the Bush Adminstration -- leaking classified information that was "Top Secret -- Not To Be Shared with Foreign Nationals."

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was no legitimate reason for Rove to discuss Plame with Novak. Given his past history of using Novak for personal political purposes, I'm comfortable accepting the version of history where he had the same motivation for discussing Wilson and/or Plame with Novak.

Or is there a reasonable alternate purpose under which he would be double secret background for his buddy Novak?

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some people didn't bother to even try to read the brief...and those that did didn't even try to reconcile what it contained versus their own statements.
Not me! [Razz] Let me iterate my reconciliation.

quote:
An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication.
You failed to include in your quotes, and in your argument, what those two compromises were, Daruma. One was to the Russians, the other to the Cubans. Neither are known for making their intelligence widely known.

Novak, however, published it to the whole world. This is a much larger compromise than letting those embassies know. I mean, did you know about it before Novak’s column? [Wink]

All the other information of your second quote (and the rest of the link) does not touch on Valerie Plame’s covert job. Her non-covert job, a desk job at the CIA, is public knowledge. Her covert work in Niger was not. If all Novak wrote was that she was a CIA employee (which is all he mentioned to the CIA), then there certainly would be no scandal. But he did not get the information from the CIA. There is no indication that the CIA knew he had that information. So how could they tell him not to publish secret information they did not think he had.

Read it carefully, Daruma. There is nothing in those two links that indicates that Valerie Plame’s covert CIA mission was public knowledge. Somewhat compromised to two embassies, yes. But not general knowledge.

Her mission was still secret. The Leaker blabbed about a covert CIA operative. Why doesn’t that disturb you??

quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
Looks that way to me. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
I choose this one!

Do I get a prize?

[Wink]

Which would you prefer, a VRWC coffee mug or a Bill O'Reilly "No Spin Zone" door mat? [Razz]
They both sound so good...


The coffee mug!

Now I have something I can drink my kool-aid out of.

[Wink]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

I agree that the main stream media is liberal. I agree that they hammer conservatives more than liberals. Which is the difference between you and I. I can and do admit, and condemn, the faults and actions of people on my side of the aisle when they are contrary to the good of the nation.

I would never defend anyone Left or Right that gave a CIA agents name to the press. Nor would I mince words and play semantic games in order to ameliorate their despicable actions.

You, however, seem incapable of even entertaining the idea that Rove or Novak, or both, gave up Mrs. Plame for political purposes. And you jump at any excuse, no matter how small or inane, to defend them.

If you were being fair-minded you would be outraged that it happened and demand to know WHO did it, and why, rather than leaping to the defense of the Right immediately. As usual.

KE

[ July 22, 2005, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Couple of questions, I hope I'm not wasting my time:

From the quotes I've read, Rove seems to have said that Valerie Plame was working for the CIA, and implied that it was through her that her husband ended up being the guy that investigated the Nigeria thing. Is that correct?

If it is, then here's the next question:

According to what's been said here, and in the press, Valerie Plame openly worked for the CIA, at least as an analyst (she's been openly going to work at CIA headquarters for the last seven years, yadda yadda). Is that correct?

Okay, so here comes the one that's been rattling around for me for days:

If Rove implied that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, and Valerie Plame openly worked for the CIA, then how can it be said that Rove leaked that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative? If Rove didn't say or imply that she was undercover, then how is that outing her? After all, if all that I've laid out is correct, then her status as "working for the CIA" was pretty much public knowledge, it is just that she was actually, what do they call it?, a NOC that was a secret. And as far as I've been told, Rove didn't say anything about that.

What am I missing here?

[ July 24, 2005, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1