Time to Apologize to Plame/Wilson

<Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
>>You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a covert
>>agents
>>name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You haven't proven
>>your
>>claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>
> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
> was not "in field"
>
> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
> discovered.
>
> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
> disengenuous?

He doesn't reason. He must regurgitates what he heard on the Limbaugh show.
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgqu2c$e35$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
> news:fgqkd3$uej$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgqhh3$1e8$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fgqg1b$k9r$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>>> They have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was
>>>>>>> found to have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really
>>>>>>> has no meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>>>>> treasonous???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name.
>>>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby
>>>>>> leaked it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you
>>>>>> miss it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were convicted
>>>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial?
>>>>
>>>> You missed a great deal. The reason for the trial was Libby's lies to
>>>> a federal officer and obstruction of justice.
>>>
>>> No, you are wrong. It was to find out who the leaker was. The trial
>>> was not about Liddy, it was about finding the leaker. ... There
>>> wouldn't even been a trial for Libby ... no one knew he lied until the
>>> trial.
>>
>> No, you are wrong. You are pitifully wrong. A criminal trial requires
>> an indictment of one or more people. A criminal trial is not an
>> investigation. The trial was not "about finding the leaker."
>>
>> www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/
>>
>> "Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on five
>> charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice,
>> two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements."
>>
>> Libby was subsequently tried and found guilty on four of the five counts.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/2f2auu
>>
>>
>> New York Times
>>
>> March 7, 2007
>>
>> Libby Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case
>> By NEIL A. LEWIS
>> Correction Appended
>>
>> WASHINGTON, March 6 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to
>> Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted on Tuesday of lying to a grand
>> jury and to F.B.I. agents investigating the leak of the identity of a
>> C.I.A. operative in the summer of 2003 amid a fierce public dispute over
>> the war in Iraq.
>>
>> Mr. Libby, 56, who once wielded great authority at the top levels of
>> government, is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted
>> of a felony since the Iran-contra scandals of the 1980s.
>>
>> The jury rejected Mr. Libby's claims of memory lapses, convicting him of
>> four felony counts, obstruction of justice, giving false statements to
>> the Federal Bureau of Investigation and committing perjury twice before
>> the grand jury. The 11-member jury acquitted Mr. Libby on an additional
>> count of making false statements to the F.B.I.
>>
>> As the verdict was read aloud by the jury forewoman after nearly 10 days
>> of deliberations, Mr. Libby grimaced briefly before resuming his
>> expressionless demeanor. His wife, Harriet Grant, sitting a few feet away
>> in the spectator section, began shaking visibly and wept briefly before
>> composing herself.
>>
>> Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, said President Bush
>> watched the news of the verdict on television in the Oval Office. She
>> said Mr. Bush respected the jury's verdict but "was saddened for Scooter
>> Libby and his family," using Mr. Libby's nickname.
>>
>> Mr. Cheney had a similar reaction. "As I have said before, Scooter has
>> served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction through many
>> years of public service," he said.
>>
>> The verdict meant the end of a nearly four-year investigation into the
>> leak of the identity of the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie
>> Wilson. The inquiry raised fundamental questions about the reasons for
>> invading Iraq, exposed some of the unseen influence of Mr. Cheney's
>> office and changed the landscape of relations between journalists and
>> official sources, as many of Washington's prominent political reporters
>> were forced to testify in a criminal trial.
>>
>> Mr. Libby's chief lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., said he would file
>> papers asking the judge to grant a new trial. If that fails, Mr. Wells
>> told reporters, he will appeal the verdict to the federal appeals court.
>> He said Mr. Libby was "totally innocent and that he did not do anything
>> wrong."
>>
>> Mr. Libby, standing at his side, made no comment. Prosecutors had charged
>> that Mr. Libby had lied when he swore that he had not discussed the
>> identity of Ms. Wilson in the summer of 2003 with two reporters, Judith
>> Miller, formerly of The New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, formerly of
>> Time magazine.
>>
>> The prosecution also said Mr. Libby concocted a story that he learned of
>> Ms. Wilson's identity in a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on
>> July 10 or 11 in 2003 to hide the fact that he had already learned about
>> her identity from several fellow administration officials.
>>
>> One of the 11 jurors who spoke publicly after the verdict said that there
>> was great sympathy for Mr. Libby in the jury room, but that the case
>> presented by the prosecution was overwhelming.
>>
>> Judge Reggie B. Walton, who presided over the four weeks of testimony and
>> presentation of evidence, set sentencing for June 5. Under complicated
>> sentencing guidelines that are no longer mandatory, Judge Walton has wide
>> discretion in setting a prison term.
>>
>> But lawyers not involved in the case who are experienced in the issue of
>> sentencing calculated that under the guidelines, Mr. Libby might be
>> sentenced to 20 to 27 months.
>>
>> Judge Walton allowed Mr. Libby to remain free on bail. The defense's
>> plans to ask for a retrial and then appeal the verdict mean that it would
>> be many months before Mr. Libby would be required to go to prison. It
>> also would provide a window for Mr. Bush to pardon Mr. Libby, an issue
>> about which the White House has been silent but one that quickly became a
>> topic of speculation.
>>
>> Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, issued a statement
>> calling on Mr. Bush to promise that he would not "pardon Libby for his
>> criminal conduct."
>>
>> Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, said that while gratified by the
>> verdict, "it's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official, a
>> person who worked in the Office of Vice President, obstructed justice and
>> lied under oath."
>>
>> In remarks to reporters outside the courthouse, Mr. Fitzgerald also
>> addressed at length the criticism of his decision to prosecute Mr. Libby
>> on charges of lying to investigators while not charging anybody with
>> leaking Ms. Wilson's name to reporters.
>>
>> Ms. Wilson's name first appeared in a column by Robert Novak on July 14,
>> 2003, just days after The New York Times published an Op-Ed article by
>> her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV.
>>
>> In his article, Mr. Wilson asserted that the Bush White House had
>> willfully distorted intelligence about Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium
>> in Africa to bolster the case for going to war.
>>
>> Testimony at the trial showed that Mr. Wilson's criticisms had alarmed
>> and angered Bush administration officials because they amounted to a
>> direct attack on what had been the principal reason for invading Iraq:
>> the claim that Saddam Hussein had an active program of developing
>> unconventional weapons.
>>
>> Critics said Ms. Wilson's identity as a C.I.A. officer was leaked to
>> punish her husband for his criticisms.
>>
>> At the time Mr. Fitzgerald was named special prosecutor in the leak
>> inquiry, investigators had already learned that Mr. Novak's sources were
>> Richard L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, and Karl Rove, the
>> president's chief political adviser.
>>
>> In remarks to reporters on Tuesday, Mr. Fitzgerald said he nonetheless
>> had no choice but to seek an indictment when he took over the
>> investigation in December 2003, because he also had information that Mr.
>> Libby had told a false story to the F.B.I. and to the grand jury about
>> his conversation with Mr. Russert.
>>
>> "It's inconceivable that any responsible prosecutor would walk away from
>> the facts that we saw in December 2003 and say, 'There's nothing here,
>> move on, " Mr. Fitzgerald said.
>>
>> "We cannot tolerate perjury," he said. "The truth is what drives our
>> judicial system. If people don't come forward and tell the truth, we have
>> no hope of making the judicial system work."
>>
>> Mr. Fitzgerald also faced criticism for forcing several reporters to
>> testify about their confidential conversations with officials by
>> threatening to have them jailed for contempt.
>>
>> In the case of Ms. Miller, then of The Times, he had her jailed for 85
>> days until she agreed to testify before the grand jury.
>>
>> Previous leak investigations had ended in failure after reporters refused
>> to cooperate with officials, saying they needed to protect sources to do
>> their work.
>>
>> But Mr. Fitzgerald's tactics, with the support of the courts, changed the
>> landscape of reporter-source relations in the capital and elsewhere.
>>
>> "You could not bring this case without talking to reporters," Mr.
>> Fitzgerald said. He said any prosecutors should regard the act of forcing
>> reporters to discuss their conversations with sources as "a last resort
>> in unusual circumstances."
>>
>> This case fit that description he said because the reporters were
>> witnesses to Mr. Libby's crimes, and "we do not think that what Mr. Libby
>> was telling reporters was whistle-blowing."
>>
>> Mr. Wilson, who has frequently expressed outrage over the leak of the
>> identity of his wife, who is also known as Valerie Plame, said Tuesday
>> that he thought the news media had behaved badly in the whole episode.
>>
>> "I think one of the subplots in this whole trial was how the press was
>> used and abused by this administration," Mr. Wilson said in a conference
>> call with reporters.
>>
>> He said reporters had been used to deceive people about the reasons for
>> going to war and then to harm his wife's career by blowing her cover.
>>
>> The convictions were based on Mr. Libby's statements to the grand jury
>> about his conversations with Mr. Russert and Mr. Cooper, as well as Mr.
>> Libby's statements to the F.B.I. about Mr. Russert.
>>
>> The jury acquitted Mr. Libby on one count charging him with making a
>> false statement to the bureau about his conversation with Mr. Cooper.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Libby if I remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of
>>>>> justice. ... no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>>>
>>>> That is correct. That does not change the fact that Armitage, Rove,
>>>> and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name to the media. The
>>>> fact that they were not prosecuted was Fitzgerald's inability to prove,
>>>> as required by the law, that they knew of her covert status.
>>>
>>> The above may have leaked Ms Plame's name but it was not illegal to do
>>> so or they would have been charged. If I remember correctly the
>>> original leaker, Armitage wasn't even charged with leaking, so we don't
>>> know what Fitzgerald could/couldn't do. None of the above were found
>>> guilty of leaking Ms Plame's name ... True?
>>
>> Yes, we do know what Fitzgerald could not do. He could not prove that
>> Armitage, Rove, or Libby knew of Plame's covert status prior to leaking
>> her name to the media. Had he been able to do so, one or more of them
>> would have been charged.
>>
>> I am astonished that, given all of the coverage this story received, you
>> know so little about it. Apparently, you rely on people like Limbaugh
>> and Hannity for your news.
>
> What you've tried to do is imply these three men leaked a 'covert agents'
> name, endangering national security. Ms Plame wasn't covert as defined by
> the IIP act. If this is/was true there is no reason for a trial which Mr
> Libby was found guilty of lying/obstruction of justice. I've agreed many
> time that Libby was guilty of lying. No need respond ... I'm not going to
> convience you ... you will believe Ms Plame is/was covert ... no need to
> respond.

You are a shining example of willful ignorance.

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03


The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA
front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original
disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public
because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled
out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the
controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary
campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration
officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and
possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in
1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first
published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two
senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former
ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that
undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the
African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak
Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA
underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by
the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once
Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets
could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that
every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its
databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited
their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the
former diplomat said.

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married
name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with
Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has
worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the
standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a
criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives were
associated with Brewster-Jennings.

Also yesterday, the nearly 2,000 employees of the White House were given a
Tuesday deadline to scour their files and computers for any records related
to Wilson or contacts with journalists about Wilson. The broad order, in an
e-mail from White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, directed them to retain
records "that relate in any way to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson,
his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship
with the Central Intelligence Agency."

White House employees received the e-mailed directive at 12:45 p.m., with an
all-capitalized subject line saying, "Important Follow-Up Message From
Counsel's Office." By 5 p.m. on Tuesday, employees must turn over copies of
relevant electronic records, telephone records, message slips, phone logs,
computer records, memos, and diaries and calendar entries.

The directive notes that lawyers in the counsel's office are attorneys for
the president in his official capacity and that they cannot provide personal
legal advice to employees.

For some officials, the task is a massive one. Some White House officials
said they had numerous conversations with Wilson that had nothing to do with
his wife, so the directive is seen as a heavy burden at a time when many of
the president's aides already feel beleaguered.

Officials at the Pentagon and State Department also have been asked to
retain records related to the case. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said
yesterday: "We are doing our searches. . . . I'm not sure what they will be
looking for or what they wish to contact us about, but we are anxious to be
of all assistance to the inquiry."

In another development, FBI agents yesterday began attempts to interview
journalists who may have had conversations with government sources about
Plame and Wilson. It was not clear how many journalists had been contacted.
The FBI has interviewed Plame, ABC News reported.

Wilson and his wife have hired Washington lawyer Christopher Wolf to
represent them in the matter.

The couple has directed him to take a preliminary look at claims they might
be able to make against people they believe have impugned their character, a
source said.

The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the
syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting
Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA
employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of
Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not
supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep
cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to
the little mystery."

In fact, it appears the firm did exist, at least on paper. The Dun &
Bradstreet database of company names lists a firm that is called both
Brewster Jennings & Associates and Jennings Brewster & Associates.

The phone number in the listing is not in service, and the property manager
at the address listed said there is no such company at the property,
although records from 2000 were not available.

Wilson was originally listed as having given $2,000 to Gore during the
primary campaign in 1999, but the donation, over the legal limit of $1,000,
was "reattributed" so that Wilson and Plame each gave $1,000 to Gore. Wilson
also gave $1,000 to the Bush primary campaign, but there is no donation
listed from his wife.
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgqvpr$fr4$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
> news:fgql38$vvr$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgqija$2if$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fgqgd1$l8u$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgqe7d$tq3$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgpvrf$adc$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald concluded that she was. The Director
>>>>>> of the CIA confirmed that she was. After all of the information that
>>>>>> has been made available concerning her covert status, only a complete
>>>>>> moron would continue to deny it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was Fitzgeralds' and the CIA's Director opinion. Fitzgerald had to
>>>>> prove it. ... that was the problem. He didn't prove it. All he did
>>>>> was find Libby guilty of purgery and obstruction of justice. He know
>>>>> who the leaker was before the trial. He didn't prove it .... until he
>>>>> proves it, it remains his opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
>>>>>> Washington Post Staff Writers
>>>>>> Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a
>>>>>> CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the
>>>>>> original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public
>>>>>> because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form
>>>>>> filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center
>>>>>> of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's
>>>>>> presidential primary campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration
>>>>>> officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure
>>>>>> and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2
>>>>>> tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.
>>>>>> Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by
>>>>>> Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They
>>>>>> were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV,
>>>>>> for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's
>>>>>> claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger
>>>>>> for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> All opinions bro ... you have to prove who the leaker was and that he
>>>>> broke the law. It wasn't done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We know who the leakers were -- Armitage, Rove, and Libby. They were
>>>> not charged because there was no evidence that they knew of her covert
>>>> status as required by the law.
>>>
>>> Then you agree with me, that the leaking of Ms Plame's name was in some
>>> way illegal. If it had been illegal someone would have been charged and
>>> found guilty ... no law was broken, except for Libby's
>>> purgery/obstruction of justice.
>>
>> I agree that Fitzgerald was unable to prove that any of the leakers knew
>> of Plame's covert status prior to leaking her name and was therefore
>> unable to prove that the law covering the outing of covert operatives had
>> been broken.
>
> But she wasn't covert according to the IIP Act. Sec of State Powell also
> agreed that since there was no crime, there should be no trial. Victoria
> Toensig who helped write the law says Ms Plame was not a covert agent.
> Many covert agents in teh CIA were outed by the mole Aldrich Ames. So if
> Ms Plame was not covert there should be no trial.
>
>>>>>> The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the
>>>>>> leak Sept. 26.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result of that investigation no one was charged with leaking Ms
>>>>> Plame's name. Libby was found to have purgered himself and obstructed
>>>>> justice.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that nobody was charged with the leak does not change the fact
>>>> that Libby, Rove, and Armitage all leaked her name to the media. They
>>>> were not charged because there was no evidence that they knew of her
>>>> covert status as required by the law.
>>>
>>> They broke no law, so what difference does it make that they leaked Ms
>>> Plame's name.
>>
>> It makes a great deal of difference because in the reckless leaking of
>> her name, they shut down a vital intelligence operation dealing with
>> attempts by Middle Eastern operatives to acquire nuclear weapons.
>
> It was never proven that her name was recklessly leaked ... it hasn't been
> proven that at the time of her outing that she was covert ...
>>
>>>If I make a withdrawal form my account and someone charges me with bank
>>>robbery and I'm not found guilty of bankrobbery, doesn't mean just
>>>because I took money from my bank account that I robbed the bank.
>>
>> Your analogy is not at all similar to the Plame case.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with
>>>>>> the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its
>>>>>> operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence
>>>>>> officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative
>>>>>> was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources
>>>>>> might be compromised or endangered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday
>>>>>> that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name
>>>>>> through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if
>>>>>> she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her
>>>>>> name," the former diplomat said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her
>>>>>> married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an
>>>>>> "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document
>>>>>> establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five
>>>>>> years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making
>>>>>> determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of
>>>>>> the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was anyone found guilty of breaking the Intell Indent Protection Act?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. The fact that nobody was charged with the leak does not change
>>>> the fact that Libby, Rove, and Armitage all leaked her name to the
>>>> media. They were not charged because there was no evidence that they
>>>> knew of her covert status as required by the law.
>>>
>>> Then you are trying to make an issue out of something that is not an
>>> issue. No one was found guilty of leaking Ms Pflames name. Its your
>>> opinion that they are guilty of anything. Legally they are not.
>>
>> I have never said that they were guilty of anything. My original point
>> was that Plame was a covert operative and that their leak of her name
>> compromised an ongoing intelligence operation attempting to locate Middle
>> Eastern operatives attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.
>
> You have not cited where she was a covert operative under the IIPA. I
> have cited where Ms Plame wasn't covert.
>
>>>>>> It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives were
>>>>>> associated with Brewster-Jennings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also yesterday, the nearly 2,000 employees of the White House were
>>>>>> given a Tuesday deadline to scour their files and computers for any
>>>>>> records related to Wilson or contacts with journalists about Wilson.
>>>>>> The broad order, in an e-mail from White House counsel Alberto R.
>>>>>> Gonzales, directed them to retain records "that relate in any way to
>>>>>> former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in
>>>>>> February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship with the Central
>>>>>> Intelligence Agency."
>>>>>
>>>>> Fitzgerald knew before the trial started who the real leaker was ... R
>>>>> Armitage of the State Dept.
>>>>
>>>> The real leakers were Armitage (to Novak), Rove (to Cooper), and Libby
>>>> (to Miller). This was revealed during Libby's trial.
>>>
>>> So what ... if it was illegal they would have all been convicted of
>>> leaking a covert agents name under the Intell Ident law. ... they were
>>> not. It doesn't make any difference the reason, no one was convicted of
>>> leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>
>> Their recklessness caused the identity of a covert agent to be revealed
>> and resulted in a vital intelligence operation having to be shut down.
>> If you don't think that this was a serious matter, then you are quite
>> mistaken.
>
> I've cited where she was not covert according to the IIPA ... what had to
> be 'shut down?' It was well known around Washington that she wasn't
> covert.
>
>>>>> From Aspen we get this report of a talk by Karl Rove and a comment
>>>>> from the audience by former Secretary of State Powell:
>>>>>
>>>>> Former Secretary of State Colin Powell stood up in the audience
>>>>> during the question-and-answer period to say that it was his deputy
>>>>> secretary of state, Richard Armitage, who sparked the CIA leak case.
>>>>> Powell said that Armitage responded to a question by Novak about
>>>>> Wilson, saying "I think she works for the CIA..."
>>>>
>>>> That was one of the leaks. The others came from Libby and Rove.
>>>
>>> And none were covicted of leaking a covert agents name, no matter what
>>> reasons you may give.
>>
>> I have never said that they were convicted. I have only stated that
>> Plame was a covert operative and that her name was leaked.
>
> Well you have to have some proof that she was covert. The CIA Director,
> the judge, and Fitzgerald all say she was covert. That is their opinion
> only. If they all though she was covert according to the IIPA why was no
> one charged? ... as we both have said they knew who the leakers were?
> Libby was charged and convicted of leaking her name. Would you agree if
> Plame wasn't covert that Libby shouldn't have been tried?
>
>>>>> Powell said that Armitage later called him and told him he had been
>>>>> the one who had talked to Novak about Wilson. Powell and Armitage then
>>>>> met with the FBI on the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The FBI knew on day one of Mr. Armitage's involvement," Powell said.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And so did Patrick Fitzgerald, Powell said. Fitzgerald was the
>>>>> special counsel brought in to find out if someone had maliciously
>>>>> exposed Ms. Wilson's undercover identity with the CIA, where she was
>>>>> known as Valerie Plame.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "If everybody who had any contact with a reporter during that period,
>>>>> had done what Armitage had done, I think this would have ended early
>>>>> on and not dragged out the way it has dragged out," Powell said,
>>>>> adding that he knew early on that no crime had been committed in the
>>>>> incident. "Mr. Libby got in trouble for an entirely different set of
>>>>> reasons and circumstances."
>>>>
>>>> Correct. Libby lied, probably to cover up Cheney's involvement.
>>>
>>> Your opinion ... a man lost his reputation and job because of this
>>> fishing trip. Fitzgerald know from the beginning who the leaker was.
>>
>> A man lost his reputation and job because he lied and obstructed justice.
>
> I realize that. My argument is that if the original reason for the grand
> jury was the leaking of a covert agents name which is a crime. If Ms
> Plame was no covert agent there is not a
> crime would you agree.

If she had not been a covert agent, the grand jury would have determined
that. The grand jury determined otherwise. However, even if she had not
been a covert agent, lying to a grand jury, lying to the FBI, and
obstruction of justice are still crimes.

>
>> Libby chose to lie, was caught, and paid the price. That is nobody's
>> fault but his own. He deserves nobody's pity.
>
> Even if the original charge (leaking a covert agents name) is bogus?

Absolutely. Lying to a grand jury, lying to the FBI, and obstruction of
justice are crimes.


>If that is bogus there is no reason for a Libby trial. I'm not trying to
>excuse Libby, what he did was a crime.

If what he did was a crime, then there was a reason for a Libby trial. You
just contradicted yourself. I think that you have no ****ing idea what you
are talking about.

>
>
> We just disagree ... there is no need to respond.

You are simply too stupid to understand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03


The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA
front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original
disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public
because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled
out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the
controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary
campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration
officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and
possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in
1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first
published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two
senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former
ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that
undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the
African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak
Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA
underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by
the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once
Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets
could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that
every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its
databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited
their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the
former diplomat said.

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married
name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with
Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has
worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the
standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a
criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives were
associated with Brewster-Jennings.

Also yesterday, the nearly 2,000 employees of the White House were given a
Tuesday deadline to scour their files and computers for any records related
to Wilson or contacts with journalists about Wilson. The broad order, in an
e-mail from White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, directed them to retain
records "that relate in any way to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson,
his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship
with the Central Intelligence Agency."

White House employees received the e-mailed directive at 12:45 p.m., with an
all-capitalized subject line saying, "Important Follow-Up Message From
Counsel's Office." By 5 p.m. on Tuesday, employees must turn over copies of
relevant electronic records, telephone records, message slips, phone logs,
computer records, memos, and diaries and calendar entries.

The directive notes that lawyers in the counsel's office are attorneys for
the president in his official capacity and that they cannot provide personal
legal advice to employees.

For some officials, the task is a massive one. Some White House officials
said they had numerous conversations with Wilson that had nothing to do with
his wife, so the directive is seen as a heavy burden at a time when many of
the president's aides already feel beleaguered.

Officials at the Pentagon and State Department also have been asked to
retain records related to the case. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said
yesterday: "We are doing our searches. . . . I'm not sure what they will be
looking for or what they wish to contact us about, but we are anxious to be
of all assistance to the inquiry."

In another development, FBI agents yesterday began attempts to interview
journalists who may have had conversations with government sources about
Plame and Wilson. It was not clear how many journalists had been contacted.
The FBI has interviewed Plame, ABC News reported.

Wilson and his wife have hired Washington lawyer Christopher Wolf to
represent them in the matter.

The couple has directed him to take a preliminary look at claims they might
be able to make against people they believe have impugned their character, a
source said.

The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the
syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting
Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA
employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of
Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not
supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep
cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to
the little mystery."

In fact, it appears the firm did exist, at least on paper. The Dun &
Bradstreet database of company names lists a firm that is called both
Brewster Jennings & Associates and Jennings Brewster & Associates.

The phone number in the listing is not in service, and the property manager
at the address listed said there is no such company at the property,
although records from 2000 were not available.

Wilson was originally listed as having given $2,000 to Gore during the
primary campaign in 1999, but the donation, over the legal limit of $1,000,
was "reattributed" so that Wilson and Plame each gave $1,000 to Gore. Wilson
also gave $1,000 to the Bush primary campaign, but there is no donation
listed from his wife.
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:472ff8bf$0$6387$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:472f2acf$0$11506$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:472e26dc$0$17061$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:472e0f63$0$25669$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:472b7ff3$0$17029$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "W Spilman" <b@man.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:472b7dd7$0$20609$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:472b6561$0$11516$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:472b5f3e$1$17042$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>> Time to Apologize to Plame/Wilson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By Robert Parry
>>>>>>>> Created Nov 1 2007 - 9:44am
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> During the scandal known as "Plame-gate," it became an article of
>>>>>>>> faith in
>>>>>>>> many Washington power centers that CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson
>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>> "covert" and thus there was no "underlying crime" when the Bush
>>>>>>>> administration intentionally blew her cover.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This view was pushed not only by right-wing acolytes of George W.
>>>>>>>> Bush but
>>>>>>>> by leading media outlets, such as the Washington Post editorial
>>>>>>>> page, which
>>>>>>>> championed an argument from Republican lawyer Victoria Toensing
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> CIA-headquarters-based Plame wasn't covered by the Intelligence
>>>>>>>> Identities
>>>>>>>> Protection Act [1] of 1982.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In statements on TV, in the Post's Outlook section and before a
>>>>>>>> congressional committee, Toensing argued that the law defined
>>>>>>>> "covert" CIA
>>>>>>>> officers who got legal protection as those who "resided" or were
>>>>>>>> "stationed"
>>>>>>>> abroad in the previous five years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since Plame, the mother of young twins, had been assigned to CIA
>>>>>>>> headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in recent years, Toensing argued
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> Plame didn't qualify under the law and thus wasn't "covert."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, a reading of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
>>>>>>>> and new
>>>>>>>> information revealed in Plame's memoir, Fair Game, show just how
>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>> Toensing, the Post's editors and many other Washington pundits have
>>>>>>>> been.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The law's relevant clause doesn't use the words "resided" or
>>>>>>>> "stationed."
>>>>>>>> The law states that the identities of classified U.S. intelligence
>>>>>>>> officers
>>>>>>>> are protected if they have "served within the last five years
>>>>>>>> outside the
>>>>>>>> United States."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An intelligence officer (or a Special Forces soldier) clearly can
>>>>>>>> "serve"
>>>>>>>> abroad in dangerous situations without being "stationed" or
>>>>>>>> "residing"
>>>>>>>> abroad. Toensing, who promoted herself as an author of the 1982
>>>>>>>> statute,
>>>>>>>> surely knew the law's actual wording on this point but instead
>>>>>>>> substituted
>>>>>>>> other words to alter the law's meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Fair Game, the CIA censors blacked out many of Plame's career
>>>>>>>> details,
>>>>>>>> but enough was left in to show that Plame traveled abroad in the
>>>>>>>> five years
>>>>>>>> prior to the Bush administration blowing her cover in summer 2003.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At that time, the White House was mounting a campaign to discredit
>>>>>>>> Plame's
>>>>>>>> husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the
>>>>>>>> administration's
>>>>>>>> misuse of intelligence about Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium in
>>>>>>>> Niger.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Foreign Trips
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "As I worked with our small team on our sensitive operations, I
>>>>>>>> traveled
>>>>>>>> often and sometimes at a moment's notice," wrote Plame, who was
>>>>>>>> assigned to
>>>>>>>> a counter-proliferation office that monitored weapon development in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Middle East. "I traveled domestically and abroad using a variety of
>>>>>>>> aliases,
>>>>>>>> confident that my tradecraft skills and solid cover would keep me
>>>>>>>> out of the
>>>>>>>> worst trouble." [p. 71]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More specifically, Plame wrote: "In the late summer of 2002, I went
>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>> whirlwind tour of several Middle Eastern countries to collect
>>>>>>>> intelligence
>>>>>>>> on the presumed cache of Iraqi WMD." [p. 114]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, Plame "served" abroad in her covert capacity as a
>>>>>>>> CIA
>>>>>>>> officer and thus was covered by the 1982 law, a conclusion also
>>>>>>>> shared by
>>>>>>>> the CIA when it referred her exposure to the Justice Department for
>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>> investigation in summer 2003.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The CIA reaffirmed her "covert" status at a March 16, 2007, hearing
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> House Oversight Committee. Chairman Henry Waxman, D-California,
>>>>>>>> read a
>>>>>>>> statement approved by CIA Director Michael Hayden describing
>>>>>>>> Plame's status
>>>>>>>> at the CIA as "covert," "undercover" and "classified."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ms. Wilson worked on the most sensitive and highly secretive
>>>>>>>> matters
>>>>>>>> handled by the CIA," Waxman's statement said, adding that her work
>>>>>>>> dealt
>>>>>>>> with "prevention of development and use of WMD against the United
>>>>>>>> States."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Appearing as a Republican witness at the same hearing, Toensing
>>>>>>>> continued to
>>>>>>>> employ her word substitutions to attack the CIA statement. Toensing
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> asked about her bald assertion that "Plame was not covert."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Not under the law," Toensing responded. "I'm giving you the legal
>>>>>>>> interpretation under the law and I helped draft the law. The person
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> supposed to reside outside the United States."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that's not what the law says regarding CIA officers. It says
>>>>>>>> "served"
>>>>>>>> abroad, not "resided" abroad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When asked whether she had spoken to the CIA or Plame about Plame's
>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>> status, Toensing said, "I didn't talk to Ms. Plame or the CIA. I
>>>>>>>> can just
>>>>>>>> tell you what's required under the law. They can call anybody
>>>>>>>> anything they
>>>>>>>> want to do in the halls" of the CIA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, Toensing had no idea about the facts of the matter, nor did she
>>>>>>>> know how
>>>>>>>> often Plame had traveled abroad in the five years before her
>>>>>>>> exposure.
>>>>>>>> Still, the opinion circles of Washington treated Toensing as a
>>>>>>>> respected
>>>>>>>> legal expert on the law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Outlook 'Indictments'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb. 18, 2007, as a federal jury was about to start deliberating
>>>>>>>> perjury
>>>>>>>> and obstruction of justice charges against White House aide I.
>>>>>>>> Lewis Libby
>>>>>>>> for his role in the "Plame-gate" affair, the Washington Post's
>>>>>>>> Outlook [2]
>>>>>>>> section gave Toensing front-page space to issue what she called
>>>>>>>> "indictments" of Wilson, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and
>>>>>>>> others who
>>>>>>>> helped expose the White House hand behind the Plame leak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To illustrate Toensing's article, the Post's editors even ordered
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> fabricated "mug shots" of Wilson, Fitzgerald and others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the article, Toensing wrote that "Plame was not covert. She
>>>>>>>> worked at CIA
>>>>>>>> headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> date" of the administration's leak of her identity in a July 14,
>>>>>>>> 2003,
>>>>>>>> column by Robert Novak. (Again, note the use of "stationed" rather
>>>>>>>> than the
>>>>>>>> law's actual language, "served.")
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even ignoring the word substitutions, Toensing's claim was
>>>>>>>> legalistic at
>>>>>>>> best since it obscured the larger point that Plame was working
>>>>>>>> undercover in
>>>>>>>> a classified CIA position and was running agents abroad whose
>>>>>>>> safety would
>>>>>>>> be put at risk by an unauthorized disclosure of Plame's identity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet, the strange parlor game of excusing the Bush administration
>>>>>>>> for its
>>>>>>>> retaliatory leak of Plame's identity continued.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a March 7, 2007, editorial [3], after Libby was convicted of
>>>>>>>> perjury and
>>>>>>>> obstructing justice, Washington Post editors reserved their
>>>>>>>> harshest words
>>>>>>>> for Wilson, declaring that the former ambassador "will be
>>>>>>>> remembered as a
>>>>>>>> blowhard" and a liar for claiming that the White House had sought
>>>>>>>> retribution for his public criticism of Bush's Niger claims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The [Libby] trial has provided convincing evidence that there was
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -
>>>>>>>> and no
>>>>>>>> evidence that she was, in fact, covert," the Post editorial stated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But everything in the Post attack on Wilson was either a gross
>>>>>>>> distortion or
>>>>>>>> a lie. Wilson was correct when he alleged that the White House was
>>>>>>>> punishing
>>>>>>>> him for his Iraq War criticism. Indeed, the Washington Post's own
>>>>>>>> reporters
>>>>>>>> had described this reality in the news pages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sept. 28, 2003, a Post news article reported that a White House
>>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>>> disclosed that the administration had informed at least six
>>>>>>>> reporters about
>>>>>>>> Plame's identity and did so "purely and simply out of revenge"
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> Wilson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Special prosecutor Fitzgerald made the same point in a court filing
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> Libby case, stating that the investigation had uncovered a
>>>>>>>> "concerted"
>>>>>>>> effort by the White House to "discredit, punish or seek revenge
>>>>>>>> against"
>>>>>>>> Wilson because of his criticism of the administration. [Washington
>>>>>>>> Post,
>>>>>>>> April 9, 2006 [4]]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the March 7, 2007, editorial's statement about Plame not
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> "covert," the Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt apparently
>>>>>>>> was still
>>>>>>>> hanging his hat on Victoria Toensing's erroneous definition of a
>>>>>>>> "covert"
>>>>>>>> officer under the identities law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding the supposed lack of evidence at the Libby trial about
>>>>>>>> Plame's
>>>>>>>> covert status, the Post editorial left out the context: Libby's
>>>>>>>> defense
>>>>>>>> attorneys argued against admission of that evidence because it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> prejudice the jury and the judge ruled Plame's covert status to be
>>>>>>>> largely
>>>>>>>> irrelevant to a case narrowly constructed about Libby's lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the Post's editorial was part of a long pattern of Iraq War
>>>>>>>> deceptions
>>>>>>>> pushed by Hiatt and his editorial team. They let their
>>>>>>>> neoconservative
>>>>>>>> ideology - and their support for the Iraq War - blind them to
>>>>>>>> facts, reason
>>>>>>>> and fairness. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "Shame on
>>>>>>>> the Post's
>>>>>>>> Editorial Page, [5]" "Smearing Joe Wilson Again [6]" and "Shame of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> WPost, Again [7]."]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personal Pain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plame's memoir, Fair Game, is notable in another way. It describes
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> personal pain of an American family caught up in the duplicitous
>>>>>>>> power games
>>>>>>>> of Washington, where influential people - from the White House to
>>>>>>>> the Post's
>>>>>>>> editorial offices - can hammer any set of facts into a weapon to
>>>>>>>> attack
>>>>>>>> someone who gets in the way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Plame-gate" was a classic story of how arrogant leaders destroy a
>>>>>>>> messenger
>>>>>>>> who speaks truth to power, except this one had the extraordinary
>>>>>>>> collateral
>>>>>>>> damage of wrecking a U.S. national security program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What happened was this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In early 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney asked about a dubious
>>>>>>>> report that
>>>>>>>> Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from the African nation of
>>>>>>>> Niger; a CIA
>>>>>>>> officer working in a counter-proliferation office with Plame
>>>>>>>> suggested that
>>>>>>>> her husband, a former diplomat who had served in both Iraq and
>>>>>>>> Africa might
>>>>>>>> help check out the report.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the urging of her boss, Plame sounded out her husband who met
>>>>>>>> with Plame's
>>>>>>>> superiors and agreed to take the unpaid assignment; Wilson traveled
>>>>>>>> to Niger
>>>>>>>> and - like others who checked out the report - concluded that it
>>>>>>>> was almost
>>>>>>>> certainly false; on his return, Wilson relayed his findings to CIA
>>>>>>>> debriefers along with an anecdotal comment from one former Nigerien
>>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>>> who had feared that one Iraqi delegation might want uranium, though
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> turned out not to be the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, while grasping at intelligence straws to justify
>>>>>>>> invading
>>>>>>>> Iraq, President Bush cited the Niger/yellowcake suspicions during
>>>>>>>> his 2003
>>>>>>>> State of the Union address; the invasion went ahead in March 2003
>>>>>>>> but U.S.
>>>>>>>> forces didn't find any nuclear program or other WMD evidence; in
>>>>>>>> summer
>>>>>>>> 2003, Wilson went public with details about his Niger trip and
>>>>>>>> challenged
>>>>>>>> the administration's misuse of WMD intelligence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At that point, the Bush administration unleashed the full force of
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> propaganda machinery to disparage Wilson. The chosen attack line
>>>>>>>> was to
>>>>>>>> portray his trip as a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but that
>>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>>> required divulging that Plame was a CIA officer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, administration insiders - including Deputy Secretary
>>>>>>>> of State
>>>>>>>> Richard Armitage; his friend and White House political adviser Karl
>>>>>>>> Rove;
>>>>>>>> Cheney's chief of staff Libby; and press secretary Ari Fleischer -
>>>>>>>> did just
>>>>>>>> that, alerting reporters to the Plame angle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eight days after Wilson went public about his Niger trip,
>>>>>>>> right-wing
>>>>>>>> columnist Robert Novak attacked the ex-ambassador's credibility by
>>>>>>>> portraying the trip as a junket arranged by his CIA wife. Plame's
>>>>>>>> identity
>>>>>>>> was exposed, most notably when the Post ran Novak's column on its
>>>>>>>> op-ed
>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At that point, upon realizing the harm that was being done to
>>>>>>>> Plame's
>>>>>>>> network of foreign agents, honorable people might have pulled back
>>>>>>>> and tried
>>>>>>>> to limit the damage. But that would have required Bush, Cheney and
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> underlings to admit complicity in a dirty operation. Instead, they
>>>>>>>> chose to
>>>>>>>> cover up their roles and divert attention by further attacking the
>>>>>>>> Plame-Wilson family.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the CIA sought a criminal investigation into the leaking of
>>>>>>>> Plame's
>>>>>>>> identity in late summer 2003, the stakes rose higher for the White
>>>>>>>> House.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For his part, Bush pretended to want a full investigation,
>>>>>>>> declaring in
>>>>>>>> September 2003 that he was determined to get to the bottom of who
>>>>>>>> blew Plame's
>>>>>>>> cover. In reality, however, the White House never undertook even an
>>>>>>>> administrative review to assess responsibility for the leak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James Knodell, White House security office director, later told
>>>>>>>> Congress
>>>>>>>> that no internal security investigation was performed; no security
>>>>>>>> clearances were suspended or revoked; no punishment of any kind was
>>>>>>>> meted
>>>>>>>> out even when Rove later acknowledged that he had helped reveal
>>>>>>>> Plame's
>>>>>>>> classified identity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Beyond hiding the White House role in the leak, the cover-up
>>>>>>>> strategy
>>>>>>>> shoveled more dirt onto Wilson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congressional Republicans, the right-wing news media and many
>>>>>>>> mainstream
>>>>>>>> journalists cherry-picked pieces of the story (like the anecdote
>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>> suspected Iraqi desire for yellowcake) to make Wilson out to be a
>>>>>>>> liar. In
>>>>>>>> late 2005, Plame quit the CIA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still, Washington Post editor Hiatt and his powerful editorial page
>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>> trashing Wilson and mocking the seriousness of Plame's exposure
>>>>>>>> almost a
>>>>>>>> regular feature, often recycling White House talking points.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In effect, the Washington culture created a permissive environment
>>>>>>>> for Bush
>>>>>>>> to complete the "Plame-gate" cover-up on July 2, 2007, by commuting
>>>>>>>> Libby's
>>>>>>>> 30-month prison sentence. That ensured that Libby would be spared
>>>>>>>> jail time
>>>>>>>> and have no incentive to tell the full truth. [See
>>>>>>>> Consortiumnews.com "The
>>>>>>>> Libby Cover-up Completed [8]."]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Career Damage
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed, thanks to the Washington Post and other news outlets, the
>>>>>>>> harshest
>>>>>>>> penalties may have fallen on Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, whose
>>>>>>>> careers
>>>>>>>> were shattered first by the leaking of Plame's identity and then by
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> incessant assaults on Wilson's credibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After reading Fair Game, one is left with the sickening realization
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> Bush's Washington has become a mean and mendacious place so lacking
>>>>>>>> in honor
>>>>>>>> that the city's preeminent politicians and pundits don't see any
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> apologize to the Wilson family for all the harm that was done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a decent world, political leaders and journalists, especially,
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> praise Joe Wilson for his patriotism - both for undertaking the CIA
>>>>>>>> mission
>>>>>>>> and for blowing the whistle on the President's abuse of
>>>>>>>> intelligence to lead
>>>>>>>> the nation to war.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Washington is not that kind of place. Instead it is a city
>>>>>>>> where having
>>>>>>>> power - whether inside the White House or in the Post's editorial
>>>>>>>> offices -
>>>>>>>> means never having to say you're sorry.
>>>>>>>> _______
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> About author Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in
>>>>>>>> the 1980s
>>>>>>>> for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy &
>>>>>>>> Privilege:
>>>>>>>> Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
>>>>>>>> secrecyandprivilege.com [9]. It's also available at Amazon.com
>>>>>>>> [10], as is
>>>>>>>> his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project
>>>>>>>> Truth.'
>>>>>>>> Robert Parry's web site is Consortium News [11]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
>>>>>>>> has not
>>>>>>>> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such
>>>>>>>> material
>>>>>>>> available to advance understanding of
>>>>>>>> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice
>>>>>>>> issues. I
>>>>>>>> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
>>>>>>>> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over,
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight,
>>>>>>>> restore their
>>>>>>>> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime
>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>> suffering deeply in spirit,
>>>>>>>> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous
>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of
>>>>>>>> winning
>>>>>>>> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where
>>>>>>>> principles are at
>>>>>>>> stake."
>>>>>>>> -Thomas Jefferson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time for them to apologize to us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wish they would just go away. They've both been proven as frauds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quit recycling this drivel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They haven't been proven as frauds. George Bush is regarded to be a
>>>>>> fraud and
>>>>>> a failure by most Americans, perhaps you had the two confused.
>>>>>> WS
>>>>>
>>>>> He's not confused. Just overdosed on the Bush Junta KoolAid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Educate yourself:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/
>>>
>>> Stop getting your information from Alcoholic communists like Hitchens
>>> and face the fact that the Bush Junta is filled with traitors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is that all you have? A bunch of name-calling...
>
> Is all you've got an alcoholic communist and Bush Junta propaganda?
>
>>
>>

There you go again...
 
Joe Irvin wrote:
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
> news:fgql38$vvr$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgqija$2if$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fgqgd1$l8u$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgqe7d$tq3$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:fgpvrf$adc$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>> place? Well,
>>>>>>>>> according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald concluded that she was. The
>>>>>> Director of the CIA confirmed that she was. After all of the
>>>>>> information that has been made available concerning her covert
>>>>>> status, only a complete moron would continue to deny it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was Fitzgeralds' and the CIA's Director opinion. Fitzgerald
>>>>> had to prove it. ... that was the problem. He didn't prove it. All he
>>>>> did was find Libby guilty of purgery and obstruction of
>>>>> justice. He know who the leaker was before the trial. He didn't
>>>>> prove it .... until he proves it, it remains his opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
>>>>>> Washington Post Staff Writers
>>>>>> Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity
>>>>>> of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused
>>>>>> by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said
>>>>>> yesterday. The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates,
>>>>>> became
>>>>>> public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission
>>>>>> records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case
>>>>>> officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed
>>>>>> $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday,
>>>>>> administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They
>>>>>> said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's
>>>>>> employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working
>>>>>> undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14
>>>>>> in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior
>>>>>> administration officials. They were critical of her husband,
>>>>>> former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA
>>>>>> mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had
>>>>>> sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use
>>>>>> in developing nuclear weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> All opinions bro ... you have to prove who the leaker was and
>>>>> that he broke the law. It wasn't done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We know who the leakers were -- Armitage, Rove, and Libby. They
>>>> were not charged because there was no evidence that they knew of
>>>> her covert status as required by the law.
>>>
>>> Then you agree with me, that the leaking of Ms Plame's name was in
>>> some way illegal. If it had been illegal someone would have been
>>> charged and found guilty ... no law was broken, except for Libby's
>>> purgery/obstruction of justice.
>>
>> I agree that Fitzgerald was unable to prove that any of the leakers
>> knew of Plame's covert status prior to leaking her name and was
>> therefore unable to prove that the law covering the outing of covert
>> operatives had been broken.
>
> But she wasn't covert according to the IIP Act. Sec of State Powell
> also agreed that since there was no crime, there should be no trial.
> Victoria Toensig who helped write the law says Ms Plame was not a
> covert agent. Many covert agents in teh CIA were outed by the mole
> Aldrich Ames. So if Ms Plame was not covert there should be no trial.
>
>>>>>> The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of
>>>>>> the leak Sept. 26.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result of that investigation no one was charged with leaking
>>>>> Ms Plame's name. Libby was found to have purgered himself and
>>>>> obstructed justice.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that nobody was charged with the leak does not change the
>>>> fact that Libby, Rove, and Armitage all leaked her name to the
>>>> media. They were not charged because there was no evidence that
>>>> they knew of her covert status as required by the law.
>>>
>>> They broke no law, so what difference does it make that they leaked
>>> Ms Plame's name.
>>
>> It makes a great deal of difference because in the reckless leaking
>> of her name, they shut down a vital intelligence operation dealing
>> with attempts by Middle Eastern operatives to acquire nuclear
>> weapons.
>
> It was never proven that her name was recklessly leaked ... it hasn't
> been proven that at the time of her outing that she was covert ...
>>
>>> If I make a withdrawal form my account and someone charges me with
>>> bank robbery and I'm not found guilty of bankrobbery, doesn't mean
>>> just because I took money from my bank account that I robbed the
>>> bank.
>>
>> Your analogy is not at all similar to the Plame case.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated
>>>>>> with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and
>>>>>> its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity.
>>>>>> Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an
>>>>>> undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be
>>>>>> unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said
>>>>>> yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run
>>>>>> Plame's name through its databases within hours of its
>>>>>> publication to determine if she had visited their country and to
>>>>>> reconstruct her activities. "That's why the agency is so sensitive
>>>>>> about just publishing her
>>>>>> name," the former diplomat said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her
>>>>>> married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an
>>>>>> "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document
>>>>>> establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five
>>>>>> years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making
>>>>>> determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal
>>>>>> violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was anyone found guilty of breaking the Intell Indent Protection
>>>>> Act?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. The fact that nobody was charged with the leak does not
>>>> change the fact that Libby, Rove, and Armitage all leaked her name
>>>> to the media. They were not charged because there was no evidence
>>>> that they knew of her covert status as required by the law.
>>>
>>> Then you are trying to make an issue out of something that is not an
>>> issue. No one was found guilty of leaking Ms Pflames name. Its your
>>> opinion that they are guilty of anything. Legally they are not.
>>
>> I have never said that they were guilty of anything. My original
>> point was that Plame was a covert operative and that their leak of
>> her name compromised an ongoing intelligence operation attempting to
>> locate Middle Eastern operatives attempting to acquire nuclear
>> weapons.
>
> You have not cited where she was a covert operative under the IIPA. I have
> cited where Ms Plame wasn't covert.
>
>>>>>> It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives
>>>>>> were associated with Brewster-Jennings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also yesterday, the nearly 2,000 employees of the White House
>>>>>> were given a Tuesday deadline to scour their files and computers
>>>>>> for any records related to Wilson or contacts with journalists
>>>>>> about Wilson. The broad order, in an e-mail from White House
>>>>>> counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, directed them to retain records
>>>>>> "that relate in any way to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C.
>>>>>> Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's
>>>>>> purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency."
>>>>>
>>>>> Fitzgerald knew before the trial started who the real leaker was
>>>>> ... R Armitage of the State Dept.
>>>>
>>>> The real leakers were Armitage (to Novak), Rove (to Cooper), and
>>>> Libby (to Miller). This was revealed during Libby's trial.
>>>
>>> So what ... if it was illegal they would have all been convicted of
>>> leaking a covert agents name under the Intell Ident law. ... they
>>> were not. It doesn't make any difference the reason, no one was
>>> convicted of leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>
>> Their recklessness caused the identity of a covert agent to be
>> revealed and resulted in a vital intelligence operation having to be
>> shut down. If you don't think that this was a serious matter, then
>> you are quite mistaken.
>
> I've cited where she was not covert according to the IIPA ... what
> had to be 'shut down?' It was well known around Washington that she
> wasn't covert.
>>>>> From Aspen we get this report of a talk by Karl Rove and a
>>>>> comment from the audience by former Secretary of State Powell:
>>>>>
>>>>> Former Secretary of State Colin Powell stood up in the audience
>>>>> during the question-and-answer period to say that it was his
>>>>> deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, who sparked the CIA
>>>>> leak case. Powell said that Armitage responded to a question by
>>>>> Novak about Wilson, saying "I think she works for the CIA..."
>>>>
>>>> That was one of the leaks. The others came from Libby and Rove.
>>>
>>> And none were covicted of leaking a covert agents name, no matter
>>> what reasons you may give.
>>
>> I have never said that they were convicted. I have only stated that
>> Plame was a covert operative and that her name was leaked.
>
> Well you have to have some proof that she was covert. The CIA
> Director, the judge, and Fitzgerald all say she was covert. That is
> their opinion only. If they all though she was covert according to
> the IIPA why was no one charged? ... as we both have said they knew
> who the leakers were? Libby was charged and convicted of leaking her name.
> Would you agree
> if Plame wasn't covert that Libby shouldn't have been tried?
>
>>>>> Powell said that Armitage later called him and told him he had
>>>>> been the one who had talked to Novak about Wilson. Powell and
>>>>> Armitage then met with the FBI on the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The FBI knew on day one of Mr. Armitage's involvement," Powell
>>>>> said. And so did Patrick Fitzgerald, Powell said. Fitzgerald was the
>>>>> special counsel brought in to find out if someone had maliciously
>>>>> exposed Ms. Wilson's undercover identity with the CIA, where she
>>>>> was known as Valerie Plame.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "If everybody who had any contact with a reporter during that
>>>>> period, had done what Armitage had done, I think this would have
>>>>> ended early on and not dragged out the way it has dragged out,"
>>>>> Powell said, adding that he knew early on that no crime had been
>>>>> committed in the incident. "Mr. Libby got in trouble for an
>>>>> entirely different set of reasons and circumstances."
>>>>
>>>> Correct. Libby lied, probably to cover up Cheney's involvement.
>>>
>>> Your opinion ... a man lost his reputation and job because of this
>>> fishing trip. Fitzgerald know from the beginning who the leaker
>>> was.
>>
>> A man lost his reputation and job because he lied and obstructed
>> justice.
>
> I realize that. My argument is that if the original reason for the
> grand jury was the leaking of a covert agents name which is a crime. If Ms
> Plame was no covert agent there is not a
> crime would you agree.
>
>> Libby chose to lie, was caught, and paid the price. That is nobody's
>> fault but his own. He deserves nobody's pity.
>
> Even if the original charge (leaking a covert agents name) is bogus? If
> that is bogus there is no reason for a Libby trial. I'm not
> trying to excuse Libby, what he did was a crime.
>
>
> We just disagree ... there is no need to respond.


It's been proven to you over and over again .
Yet you persist in raising the same question .

1. She was covert
2. The Republican attack on her to discredit her husband was tantamount to
treason
3. The jr, Cheney coverup worked and Fitzgerald could get enough for an
arrest and conviction

Forcast:
You will persist in the same bullshit....

Please go to: alt.republican.selfdeluded.fools
 
Joe Irvin wrote:
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
> news:fgqfsc$jrd$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgqcjp$s9o$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fgpvsb$adn$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgo50h$klt$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:spMXi.21666$u7.14445@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>> place? Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill
>>>>>>>>> Gertz,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the CIA
>>>>>> afraid of that
>>>>>> caused all the
>>>>>> redaction in
>>>>>> her book?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would guess, it was/is classified material. This doesn't mean
>>>>> she was a 'covert agent.' One can be cleared to handle
>>>>> classified material and not be a covert agent.
>>>>
>>>> The Director of the CIA confirmed that she was covert.
>>>
>>> That was his opinion, it was not the law. The CIA Director doesn't
>>> get to interpret the law, the courts do.
>>
>> Plame's covert status was established in the Libby trial and later
>> confirmed by the Director of the CIA. The law states that the
>> identities of classified U.S. intelligence officers are protected if
>> they have "served within the last five years outside the United
>> States." The Director of the CIA confirmed that Plame was a
>> classified U.S. intelligence officer who had served within the five
>> years prior to the revelation of her identity by Armitage, Rove, and
>> Libby outside of the United States. So, it was not his opinion.
>
> Then explain why no one was covicted of leaking Ms Plame's name. Even
> though Fitzgerald and the FBI knew from before the trial started who
> the leaker was no one was convicted of leaking ...

Explain to us why OJ didn't swing for his brutel murders?
 
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ugpYi.54050$b9.34745@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Joe Irvin wrote:
>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>> news:fgqfsc$jrd$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fgqcjp$s9o$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgpvsb$adn$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgo50h$klt$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:spMXi.21666$u7.14445@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>>> place? Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill
>>>>>>>>>> Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the CIA
>>>>>>> afraid of that
>>>>>>> caused all the
>>>>>>> redaction in
>>>>>>> her book?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would guess, it was/is classified material. This doesn't mean
>>>>>> she was a 'covert agent.' One can be cleared to handle
>>>>>> classified material and not be a covert agent.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Director of the CIA confirmed that she was covert.
>>>>
>>>> That was his opinion, it was not the law. The CIA Director doesn't
>>>> get to interpret the law, the courts do.
>>>
>>> Plame's covert status was established in the Libby trial and later
>>> confirmed by the Director of the CIA. The law states that the
>>> identities of classified U.S. intelligence officers are protected if
>>> they have "served within the last five years outside the United
>>> States." The Director of the CIA confirmed that Plame was a
>>> classified U.S. intelligence officer who had served within the five
>>> years prior to the revelation of her identity by Armitage, Rove, and
>>> Libby outside of the United States. So, it was not his opinion.
>>
>> Then explain why no one was covicted of leaking Ms Plame's name. Even
>> though Fitzgerald and the FBI knew from before the trial started who
>> the leaker was no one was convicted of leaking ...
>
> Explain to us why OJ didn't swing for his brutel murders?

Joe isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.
 
<Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
>>You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a covert
>>agents
>>name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You haven't proven
>>your
>>claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>
> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
> was not "in field"
>
> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
> discovered.
>
> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
> disengenuous?

I'm not being disengenuous. "As we have documente extensivel, Plame was not
a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.
Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "who's who in
America" entry. She was there for a LENGTH OF TIME that disqualified her
from protection under the 1982 Intell Inden Prot Act."
IBD, Would You Believe, 25 Oct 2007.
 
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
news:fgslkm$b0u$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fgqp0d$907$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>> news:fgqjn7$ssj$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fgqh55$10f$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgqfsc$jrd$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgqcjp$s9o$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgpvsb$adn$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fgo50h$klt$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:spMXi.21666$u7.14445@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's the CIA
>>>>>>>>> afraid of that
>>>>>>>>> caused all the
>>>>>>>>> redaction in
>>>>>>>>> her book?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would guess, it was/is classified material. This doesn't mean
>>>>>>>> she was a 'covert agent.' One can be cleared to handle classified
>>>>>>>> material and not be a covert agent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Director of the CIA confirmed that she was covert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was his opinion, it was not the law. The CIA Director doesn't
>>>>>> get to interpret the law, the courts do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plame's covert status was established in the Libby trial and later
>>>>> confirmed by the Director of the CIA. The law states that the
>>>>> identities of classified U.S. intelligence officers are protected if
>>>>> they have "served within the last five years outside the United
>>>>> States." The Director of the CIA confirmed that Plame was a classified
>>>>> U.S. intelligence officer who had served within the five years prior
>>>>> to the revelation of her identity by Armitage, Rove, and Libby outside
>>>>> of the United States. So, it was not his opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Then explain why no one was covicted of leaking Ms Plame's name. Even
>>>> though Fitzgerald and the FBI knew from before the trial started who
>>>> the leaker was no one was convicted of leaking ...
>>>
>>> I have done this about 20 times so far. But, here it is again. The law
>>> requires that the leaker know the covert status of the CIA agent. How
>>> ****ing difficult is this to understand? Fitzgerald was not able to
>>> prove that any of the leakers (Rove, Libby, Armitage) knew that Plame
>>> was covert, only that they knew that she worked for the CIA. So, not
>>> being able to prove that any of them knew of her covert status, he was
>>> not able to charge anybody with violating the law.
>>
>> So no law was broken, as was my contention from the beginning.
>
> No, your contention was that Plame was not a covert operative. Yes,
> several laws were broken. Libby lied to federal officers and obstructed
> justice in his attempt to cover up Cheney's involvement and was
> subsequently convicted of 4 felonies. Bush, of course, commuted his
> sentence and will issue a pardon on his way out of the White House.

If she was a covert agent covered by the IIP law show where she was covered.
Her owen husband had admitted she had not been overseas in, I think it was
about 6 years, but was still covert. She had been not been posted/duty
overseas for the past 5 years, which is one stipulation of the law which
makes one covert. There was a fear that her name had been compromised by the
mole in the CIA, Aldrich Ames ... her name may have been compromised in a
diplomatic pouch sent to Cuba to the Swiss embassy that handles US interests
in Cuba. Victoria Toensing also said she didn't qualify for protection
under the IIPA and she helped write the law. If she was covert it should
have been a slam dunk to catch 3 fish, Libby, Rove, Armitage.
As we have documented extensively, Plame was not a covert CIA operative but
a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Her name was certainly no
secret, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who In America" entry. She was there
for a length of time that disqualified her from protection under the 1982
Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place? Well,
according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, U.S. officials said
Plame's identity was first disclosed to Russia by a Moscow spy in the
mid-1990s. The Cubans learned her identity when they read supposedly sealed
documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy
in Havana.

Her value as a "covert" asset vanished long ago. One of the reasons Plame
was working as a desk analyst in Langley, having been brought back to the
states in 1994, was that the CIA suspected her identity had been compromised
by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.


The whole investigation was about who outed Ms Plame ... it was unlawful.
No one was every charged with outing Ms Plame. You yourself admitted that
Libby, Rove, and Armitage, had leaked her name. Yet no one was charged with
outing her. Why was that, if a the IIP Act had been violated? You have 3
leakers and no one was charged. Catching Libby lying opened up the whole
case as to 3 people outing Ms Plame. Yet not a soul was charged with outing
Ms Plame.
I've cited Colin Powell who said the whole thing could have been avoided if
R Armitage had come forward. If the IIPA law had been broken Mr Armitage
would have been charged. Mr Powell would have said the whole thing could
have been avoided if Mr Armitage had come forward. Mr Powell is someone in
the know as to what was going on and any laws that may have been broken.
Then since Libby had lied to supposedly shield Rove, him and Rove could have
been charged also. I stand by Ms Plame not being covert.
>
>
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgpttd$df0$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:472fee2a$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgo50h$klt$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:spMXi.21666$u7.14445@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>
>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>
>>>> What's the CIA
>>>> afraid of that
>>>> caused all the
>>>> redaction in
>>>> her book?
>>>
>>> I would guess, it was/is classified material. This doesn't mean she
>>> was a 'covert agent.' One can be cleared to handle classified material
>>> and not be a covert agent.
>>
>> And yet the CIA says she was a covert agent. So did the prosecutor. So
>> did the judge.
>
> They can say anything they want, but no one was held responsible for
> leaking Ms Plame's name.

That's like saying Simpson's wife wasn't murdered because O.J. wasn't
convicted.

Try again. That right wing talking point has never had any traction.

>> Why do you hate America?
>
> What makes you think I hate America?

Because you revel in the unpunished crimes of traitors.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgqcjp$s9o$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
> news:fgpvsb$adn$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgo50h$klt$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:spMXi.21666$u7.14445@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>
>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>
>>>> What's the CIA
>>>> afraid of that
>>>> caused all the
>>>> redaction in
>>>> her book?
>>>
>>> I would guess, it was/is classified material. This doesn't mean she
>>> was a 'covert agent.' One can be cleared to handle classified material
>>> and not be a covert agent.
>>
>> The Director of the CIA confirmed that she was covert.
>
> That was his opinion, it was not the law.

What the hell does that mean? If the Director of the CIA isn't in a
position to decide who's covert and who isn't the who would be? Wilson WAS
a covert agent. That's just a plain fact, not an opinion. That's like
saying that it's just the opinion of the president of the United States that
Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Try to hold onto your
sanity here. I mean I know you're desperate to defend the treason of
Scooter Libby and defame the CIA covert agent that the Bush Junta outed for
purely political reasons, but try not to loose your grip on reality in the
process.
 
<Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>
>>You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a covert
>>agents
>>name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You haven't proven
>>your
>>claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>
> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
> was not "in field"
>
> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
> discovered.
>
> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
> disengenuous?

I'm not being disengenuous. "As we have documente extensivel, Plame was not
a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.
Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "who's who in
America" entry. She was there for a LENGTH OF TIME that disqualified her
from protection under the 1982 Intell Inden Prot Act."
IBD, Would You Believe, 25 Oct 2007.

This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the
guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that
virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:

a.. On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the
famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address,
contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.


b.. Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the
Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.


c.. Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of
his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.


d.. No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA
functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard
Armitage at the State Department.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009752
>
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgvdot$snu$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
> news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a covert
>>>agents
>>>name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>>admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You haven't proven
>>>your
>>>claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>>
>> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
>> was not "in field"
>>
>> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
>> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
>> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
>> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
>> discovered.
>>
>> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
>> disengenuous?
>
> I'm not being disengenuous. "As we have documente extensivel, Plame was
> not
> a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley,
> Va.
> Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "who's who in
> America" entry. She was there for a LENGTH OF TIME that disqualified her
> from protection under the 1982 Intell Inden Prot Act."
> IBD, Would You Believe, 25 Oct 2007.
>
> This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the
> guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that
> virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:
>
> a.. On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the
> famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address,
> contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.
>
>
> b.. Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the
> Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.
>
>
> c.. Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence
> Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many
> of his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.
>
>
> d.. No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA
> functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard
> Armitage at the State Department.
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009752
>>
>
>

jr, Cheney, Novak, Armitrage, Libby,
and all the others involved are genuine
pieces of **** for doing what they did.

It was disgusting. It was un-American.
It was traitorous
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgvdot$snu$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
> news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a covert
>>>agents
>>>name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>>admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You haven't proven
>>>your
>>>claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>>
>> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
>> was not "in field"
>>
>> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
>> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
>> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
>> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
>> discovered.
>>
>> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
>> disengenuous?
>
> I'm not being disengenuous. "As we have documente extensivel, Plame was
> not
> a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley,
> Va.
> Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "who's who in
> America" entry. She was there for a LENGTH OF TIME that disqualified her
> from protection under the 1982 Intell Inden Prot Act."
> IBD, Would You Believe, 25 Oct 2007.
>
> This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the
> guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that
> virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:
>
> a.. On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the
> famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address,
> contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.
>
>
> b.. Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the
> Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.
>
>
> c.. Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence
> Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many
> of his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.
>
>
> d.. No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA
> functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard
> Armitage at the State Department.
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009752

ROTFL! Different day, but dumbshit Joe is still presenting opinions from an
editorial written by an ignorant neoCON as facts. You're a true dittohead,
Joe. You have cornered the market on stupidity.
 
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
news:fgvhtm$ppj$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fgvdot$snu$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>> news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a covert
>>>>agents
>>>>name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>>>admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You haven't proven
>>>>your
>>>>claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>>>
>>> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
>>> was not "in field"
>>>
>>> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
>>> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
>>> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
>>> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
>>> discovered.
>>>
>>> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
>>> disengenuous?
>>
>> I'm not being disengenuous. "As we have documente extensivel, Plame was
>> not
>> a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley,
>> Va.
>> Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "who's who in
>> America" entry. She was there for a LENGTH OF TIME that disqualified her
>> from protection under the 1982 Intell Inden Prot Act."
>> IBD, Would You Believe, 25 Oct 2007.
>>
>> This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the
>> guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that
>> virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:
>>
>> a.. On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the
>> famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address,
>> contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.
>>
>>
>> b.. Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the
>> Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.
>>
>>
>> c.. Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the
>> Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's
>> insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press,
>> presented as fact.
>>
>>
>> d.. No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA
>> functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard
>> Armitage at the State Department.
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009752
>
> ROTFL! Different day, but dumbshit Joe is still presenting opinions from
> an editorial written by an ignorant neoCON as facts. You're a true
> dittohead, Joe. You have cornered the market on stupidity.

Glad I could give you a laugh Mr. Cranston. I gave you two cites, I think
it was, as to why Ms Plame didn't qualify as a'covert' agent: "As we have
documented extensively, Plame was not a covert CIA operative but a desk
jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Her name was certainly no secret,
appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who In America" entry. She was there for a
length of time that disqualified her from protection under the 1982
Intelligence Identities Protection Act."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278203358749907&kw=plame
and #C above: "Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the
Itelligence Identities Protection Act."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009752
Both are consistant in the fact of the LENGTH OF TIME disqualified her from
being 'covert' as defined by the Intelligence Indent Protection law.
This doesn't even take into consideration that her identity may have been
compromised by Aldrich Ames, and a diplomatic pouch sent to Cuba unsecurned
that may have revealed her name. And the journalist who filed briefs in
favor of not jailing Judith Miller for not revealing who leaked Ms Plames
name ... that it was well known in Washington that Ms Plame worked for the
CIA.
Not to mention that no one was every charged with leaking the name of a
'covert' agent, under the Intelligence Indentities Protection law, only
lying and obstruction of justice. This 'lying and obstruction of justice'
left open Mr Fitzpatricks option to bring charges against ... Armitage,
Libby, etc. Mr Cranston, you seem like a pretty smart fellow, don't let
your ideology cloud you thinking.
 
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7XGYi.663$T7.559@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fgvdot$snu$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>> news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a covert
>>>>agents
>>>>name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>>>admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You haven't proven
>>>>your
>>>>claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>>>
>>> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
>>> was not "in field"
>>>
>>> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
>>> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
>>> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
>>> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
>>> discovered.
>>>
>>> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
>>> disengenuous?
>>
>> I'm not being disengenuous. "As we have documente extensivel, Plame was
>> not
>> a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in Langley,
>> Va.
>> Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "who's who in
>> America" entry. She was there for a LENGTH OF TIME that disqualified her
>> from protection under the 1982 Intell Inden Prot Act."
>> IBD, Would You Believe, 25 Oct 2007.
>>
>> This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the
>> guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that
>> virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:
>>
>> a.. On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the
>> famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address,
>> contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.
>>
>>
>> b.. Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the
>> Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.
>>
>>
>> c.. Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the
>> Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's
>> insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press,
>> presented as fact.
>>
>>
>> d.. No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA
>> functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard
>> Armitage at the State Department.
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009752
>>>
>>
>>
>
> jr, Cheney, Novak, Armitrage, Libby,
> and all the others involved are genuine
> pieces of **** for doing what they did.
>
> It was disgusting. It was un-American.
> It was traitorous

I don't think Ms Plame name should have been leaked either. I also believe
that if the Intell Indent Protection law had/has been broken, by leaking a
covert agent's name, all who took part should be punished to the max.
>
>
 
Joe Irvin wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:7XGYi.663$T7.559@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgvdot$snu$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rrj3j3pdu19jofk1pvrupkhhdggilr2lhi@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:32:29 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are welcomed to list the people found guilty of leaking a
>>>>> covert agents
>>>>> name. Ms Plame was not covert under the Intell Ident Prot law. I've
>>>>> admitted time after time Libby was guilty of lying. You
>>>>> haven't proven your
>>>>> claim that Ms Plame was 'covert' under the IIP act.
>>>>
>>>> While it is true that at the particular moment---Plame
>>>> was not "in field"
>>>>
>>>> By your "reasoning" then, any CIA agent, not actively
>>>> engaged in an operation could be "outed" without
>>>> breaking the letter of the law----making it possible
>>>> the EVERY agent the CIA uses, or used, could be
>>>> discovered.
>>>>
>>>> Now, don't you think that kind of reasoning is rather
>>>> disengenuous?
>>>
>>> I'm not being disengenuous. "As we have documente extensivel,
>>> Plame was not
>>> a covert CIA operative but a desk jockey at CIA headquarters in
>>> Langley, Va.
>>> Her name was certainly no secret, appearing in Wilson's "who's who
>>> in America" entry. She was there for a LENGTH OF TIME that
>>> disqualified her from protection under the 1982 Intell Inden Prot
>>> Act." IBD, Would You Believe, 25 Oct 2007.
>>>
>>> This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will
>>> use the guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we
>>> learned that virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters
>>> made were false: a.. On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that
>>> contradicted the famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State
>>> of the Union Address, contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.
>>>
>>>
>>> b.. Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for
>>> the Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.
>>>
>>>
>>> c.. Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the
>>> Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's
>>> insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press,
>>> presented as fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> d.. No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA
>>> functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from
>>> Richard Armitage at the State Department.
>>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009752
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> jr, Cheney, Novak, Armitrage, Libby,
>> and all the others involved are genuine
>> pieces of **** for doing what they did.
>>
>> It was disgusting. It was un-American.
>> It was traitorous
>
> I don't think Ms Plame name should have been leaked either. I also
> believe that if the Intell Indent Protection law had/has been broken,
> by leaking a covert agent's name, all who took part should be
> punished to the max.

jr, Cheney. et al did an excellent job of dodging the law.

It was wrong.

They ought to resign
in favor of a caretaker
government until the
next election.

All Americans should
demand it, Democrat
and Republican alike.

Reunite our country
by dumping this disgrace
to our country and to
the Republican party

They have no honor!
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place? Well,
>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>
>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>
>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like yourself
>> just don't care about treason.
>
> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.

But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who isn't a
covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert agent, and she was
outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the law.

Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>
>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>
>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>
>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do. They
>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found to
>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no meaning,
>>> its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me treasonous???
>>
>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name.
>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby leaked
>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss it?
>
> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were convicted of
> leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I remember
> correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice. ... no one was
> charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.

Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it can't be
proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove that no
murder was committed.

I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
sublime.


>>
>>
>
>
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>
>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do. They
>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found to
>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no
>>>> meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>> treasonous???
>>>
>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name.
>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby leaked
>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss it?
>>
>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were convicted of
>> leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I remember
>> correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice. ... no one was
>> charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>
> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it can't be
> proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove that no
> murder was committed.

No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers either. We do
that only have they have been convicted of murder. You continue to say Ms
Plame was 'covert', well she may be by your standards, but not by the Intell
Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in some way
validates your belief that she is 'covert.' You make not allowance at all
that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA and that to
try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing' her would
have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've admitted that
Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said that I don't
think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that no matter
who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status at the CIA.
>
> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
> sublime.

Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.' ... there
has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted of outing
a covert agent, Ms Plame. At least one person has come forward and admitted
outing Ms Plame, still no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'.
Remember finding out who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was
about ... but I understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 

Similar threads

B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
128
Backlink Hut
B
P
Evaluation, just a study
Replies
0
Views
120
PeterBrida
P
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
S
Seattle defense, Wilson too much for Buffalo Bills
Replies
0
Views
23
Sports News
S
WorldNews
Congress, at odds with Trump, eyes Russia hack probe
Replies
0
Views
35
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top