White house leaks CIA operative info

Kvashinator12
09-29-2003, 02:19 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01


just another showing of why this is the most deceitful, and despicable administration ever. They will sell out one of our own spies, just to settle the score with someone who came out against them. Just a disgrace, and who ever did this(Karl Rove) should be tried for treason.

William H Bonney
09-29-2003, 02:29 PM
Well, it doesn't prove that they did leak CIA operative information, but either way, it's a horrible thing.

Kvashinator12
09-29-2003, 02:37 PM
Well, it doesn't prove that they did leak CIA operative information, but either way, it's a horrible thing.

I think that there should be an independent council investigating this. Unlike the waste of money the starr report, this is actually important

BMRBruins
09-29-2003, 02:40 PM
Well, it doesn't prove that they did leak CIA operative information, but either way, it's a horrible thing.
If Wilsons wife wasn't a CIA operative, then why would the CIA want the matter to be investigated and if their was no leak, where did Robert Novak (who first published the info which he sourced to senior Whitehouse officials) get this information?

Someone in the Whitehouse leaked the information to the press thus breaking the law.

Kvashinator12
09-29-2003, 02:54 PM
If Wilsons wife wasn't a CIA operative, then why would the CIA want the matter to be investigated and if their was no leak, where did Robert Novak (who first published the info which he sourced to senior Whitehouse officials) get this information?

Someone in the Whitehouse leaked the information to the press thus breaking the law.


If they didnt think this was a big deal the white house that is, then why are they getting so nervous about this.

I am Jack's Fish
09-29-2003, 03:09 PM
Oh C'mon...

Whats the big deal in this story?

It isn't like a few people getting fired from the White House Travel Agency or something...

Now that, that would be a story!

Kvashinator12
09-29-2003, 03:13 PM
Oh C'mon...

Whats the big deal in this story?

It isn't like a few people getting fired from the White House Travel Agency or something...

Now that, that would be a story!

and now they said that ROve was fired in 1992 from Bush sr. campaign b/c he leaked a story to Novak planting a negative story about someone.

buzzard
09-29-2003, 03:15 PM
Damn, whoever did it needs to have a good a$$ kicking and sent to Iraq. Did this fool ever think that they might get people killed!!! :rant:

Kvashinator12
09-29-2003, 03:30 PM
Damn, whoever did it needs to have a good a$$ kicking and sent to Iraq. Did this fool ever think that they might get people killed!!! :rant:


but remember the Buscho only cares about Bushco, as we have seen with their superb evidence to go to war. They should be tried for Treason.

VO #23
09-30-2003, 08:18 PM
but remember the Buscho only cares about Bushco, as we have seen with their superb evidence to go to war. They should be tried for Treason.

I agree, but Ashcroft and his lackeys that are doing the probing (heh heh heh, he said "probing") will never bite the hand that feeds them. Bushco will weasel out of it, just watch.

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 08:39 PM
Why doesn't the CIA just kill Bush like they did Kennedy ? Oh because Cheney would be in charge ... *cue Imperial Death March*

Vyacheslav
09-30-2003, 08:41 PM
Oh because Cheney would be in charge ... *cue Imperial Death March*

Wait, he isn't already?

dempsey_k*
09-30-2003, 09:07 PM
Wait, he isn't already?

No, Rove is. Once Bush is gone then Cheney and Rumsfeld have Rove sleepin with the fishes and then the only light bulb in that entire mickey mouse organization is crushed as we start marching to cowboy tunes and being force fed copenhagen.

andora
09-30-2003, 09:55 PM
leaking in the whitehouse again.... lovely

The G Man
10-01-2003, 12:48 AM
It appears you guys have quite a bit of backtracking to do.

Wild Thing
10-01-2003, 01:14 AM
It appears you guys have quite a bit of backtracking to do.

Why? :dunno:

In the first place, the story is still solid - someone in the Bush White House ratted out a CIA agent because the agent's husband had publicly exposed the President for lying about his reasons for invading Iraq. In the second place, how much backtracking has the pro-war crowd done here in the last couple of months, now that almost every argument they made in support of the war has been proven to be false? I'm still waiting for just one of the conservative hawks here to grow a pair and say, "OK, we were wrong". I expect to be waiting quite a while.

I agree that there's a hell of a lot of backtracking that needs to be done on this issue, but it doesn't need to come from the opponents ofthe war. It's not our side of the debate that needs to admit we were taken for fools. We are being prove right on just about everything we have been saying.

IK
10-01-2003, 01:26 AM
It appears you guys have quite a bit of backtracking to do.

Why? Did I miss something or is Bush still refusing to appoint an outside council and saying that he's "absolutely confident" the Justice Department could handle it impartially ? ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/20031001/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak )

dempsey_k*
10-01-2003, 01:44 AM
Why? :dunno:

In the first place, the story is still solid - someone in the Bush White House ratted out a CIA agent because the agent's husband had publicly exposed the President for lying about his reasons for invading Iraq. In the second place, how much backtracking has the pro-war crowd done here in the last couple of months, now that almost every argument they made in support of the war has been proven to be false? I'm still waiting for just one of the conservative hawks here to grow a pair and say, "OK, we were wrong". I expect to be waiting quite a while.

I agree that there's a hell of a lot of backtracking that needs to be done on this issue, but it doesn't need to come from the opponents ofthe war. It's not our side of the debate that needs to admit we were taken for fools. We are being prove right on just about everything we have been saying.

I can't answer for Republicans or Pro-Bushies or Pro-War (play along and admit titles people) people, but I personally did condone action against Iraq for the base reason that it's a goldmine occupied by a gangster who's sparred with us before, and what better reason to call in all debts than after being attacked by terrorists - as unrelated to that gangster as it was.

All of the conjecture and semantics *WMD's* *Terrorism* *Tewwible Tewwible Saddam* are comparable to every nation on earth including ourselves, so it's hypocritical to go after them for those reasons. I see absolutely nothing wrong with kicking ass, taking their land and bringing it up to 1st world standards in the process like we did with Japan and Germany.

I sided with Bush in the elections because he wasn't Gore and he had Powell in his corner - my hero. So he was the lesser of two evils (be mindful - hindsight is always 20/20). Then we of course all realized he was a ********* out to act rough and tumble with our neighbours. After 9/11 I wanted Holy War, and I thought that's what we were going to get, I wanted Pax Americana and I wanted to join the military to get it but was turned away by the marines because I was born with crappy knees (good for hockey stance but bad for running).

So I cheered on my counterymen in Afghanistan and I was satisfied with that action and expected more, but not only did we come away with a bittersweet taste from that "victory", but we didn't catch Bin Laden, we didn't destroy Al Qaeda, and we didn't go to the matresses with everybody who deserved it.

With Iraq, I liked what I heard, and I thought Bush was in my corner on this one. Take out Saddam, and begin annexation, nation building. Then go after the next doofus who blew their tongue at us.

But Bush wasn't in my corner. He was in Haliburton's corner. Trusting Bush with something so seminal as crossing into Empire was the wrong thing to do.

Now we've got to clean up his poopstains all over the ballroom floor and get ready for the tango we're to dance with Islam.

Kerberos
10-01-2003, 02:20 AM
"leaks of classified information are bad things".
:lol: my two year old cousin talks like that.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 02:33 AM
Edit: I'm not going to allow myself to get sucked into these moronic debates.

Rick Middleton
10-01-2003, 03:58 AM
Edit: I'm not going to allow myself to get sucked into these moronic debates.

But the moronic ones are the most fun. It's your loss.

Hoot
10-01-2003, 04:19 AM
Edit: I'm not going to allow myself to get sucked into these moronic debates.

Please raise the level of the debate.

Hoot
10-01-2003, 04:43 AM
If the charges are true and senior White House officials did name an active CIA operator then the scandal is bigger than Watergate and the impeachment of Clinton. Treason trumps sex and burglary/spying.

VO #23
10-01-2003, 05:02 AM
If the charges are true and senior White House officials did name an active CIA operator then the scandal is bigger than Watergate and the impeachment of Clinton. Treason trumps sex and burglary/spying.

I'm surprised this hasn't been a bigger story so far.

Oh wait, no I'm not.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 05:11 AM
If the charges are true and senior White House officials did name an active CIA operator then the scandal is bigger than Watergate and the impeachment of Clinton. Treason trumps sex and burglary/spying.
Against my better judgement I will respond despite the absolutely over the top comments of some of the kool aid drinkers.

* Bob Novak says it was not anyone in the White House.

*Jame's Wilson is now backtracking like crazy and has now said he got "caught up in the moment" when he threw out Karl Rove's name.

* It would appear that his wife is NOT a spy, or an agent, or a covert operative, or whatever other James Bond description you want to use but rather an analyst sitting at a desk.

* It appears that it was well known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA and also her name was already put into the public record on a number of occasions by Wilson himself.

And yes, divulging the identity of a field agent would be worse than committing perjury or a "third rate burglary" (unless you're Bob Torricelli, that is. Then you can blow a CIA field agent's cover and its no big deal). But it seems more and more apparant that that is not the case and that the media in their zest for scandal measured once and cut twice instead of the other way around.

When all is said and done, if any of the names being tossed around are in any criminal jeopardy I suspect it is Mr Wilsons wife whom if I had to guess will turn out to have been the "American CIA source" that the BBC used in their now discreditted "sexxed up dossier" story (that ultimately lead to that guy committing suicide btw)

IK
10-01-2003, 06:10 AM
Against my better judgement I will respond despite the absolutely over the top comments of some of the kool aid drinkers.

* Bob Novak says it was not anyone in the White House.

What's your source? I did find this http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/ :

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on "Crossfire." "There is no great crime here."

"Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2002 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as "a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.

Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.

In his column, Novak attributed the information about Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip to Africa to two unnamed senior administration officials.

However, in the July 14 article, Novak wrote that Plame "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Novak said Monday that he will not reveal the names of his sources.

Other CIA sources told CNN on Monday that Plame was an operative who ran agents in the field. "

Based on that and this http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/archive/200309/POL20030930c.html

it seems to me, that he's saying nobody called him and told him to leak the information (so no planned leak). However, somebody did leak it, no matter what were the reasons, and I haven't found a source where he would be quoted saying "I didn't get my information from the White House.". It seems he's not that willing to say where the original information came from.


*Jame's Wilson is now backtracking like crazy and has now said he got "caught up in the moment" when he threw out Karl Rove's name.

Yes, but he's still saying "I also got one report that fingered Karl Rove as one who was condoning, and in fact continuing to talk about this rather than stop the talk about a CIA operative,". A bit milder, yes.

(from http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/archive/200309/POL20030930c.html )

* It would appear that his wife is NOT a spy, or an agent, or a covert operative, or whatever other James Bond description you want to use but rather an analyst sitting at a desk.

Seems to be like that now. It still wasn't a very good thing her name leaked. From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/01/MN30311.DTL

"Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which mean her name is kept classified in order to protect her previous contacts and operations and her ability to work again undercover overseas."



* It appears that it was well known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA and also her name was already put into the public record on a number of occasions by Wilson himself.

Do you have a source? I only found some Russ Limbough stuff where he says "She has no cover to blow - and her name is published in her husband's own website bio, besides!". However, on that website it only says this about his wife: "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters." and it of course tells nothing about her job. Do you have a source for that she was already widely known to be an FBI agent?

The G Man
10-01-2003, 06:42 AM
I haven't found a source where he would be quoted saying "I didn't get my information from the White House.". It seems he's not that willing to say where the original information came from.
Here is the quote ... "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on CNN's "Crossfire," of which he is a co-host. Now unless he's playing Bill Clinton-like word games, it seems pretty clear.

Yes, but he's still saying "I also got one report that fingered Karl Rove as one who was condoning, and in fact continuing to talk about this rather than stop the talk about a CIA operative,". A bit milder, yes
So after this issue surfaces Karl Rove talks about it? Why wouldn't he??? Wilson has completely distanced himself from his accusations that Karl Rove is the source.

"Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which mean her name is kept classified in order to protect her previous contacts and operations and her ability to work again undercover overseas."
I guess if that is true about "previously serving overseas" (and I don't accept it as such) then the CIA probably shouldn't go around confirming on the record that such individuals work for them then. And further, they should probably do a little more than merely voicing their preference that her name not be used too.

Do you have a source for that she was already widely known to be an FBI agent?
Heres one: http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

Bluenote13
10-01-2003, 07:06 AM
[QUOTE=Kvashinator12]http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01 just another showing of why this is the most deceitful, and despicable administration ever.QUOTE]

:rolly:

Bluenote13
10-01-2003, 07:09 AM
now that almost every argument they made in support of the war has been proven to be false?

:rolly:

Bluenote13
10-01-2003, 07:18 AM
[QUOTE=IK]What's your source? ........... In his column.............However, in the July 14 article........... reveal the names ........ Other CIA sources ....... Based on that and this ........it seems to me......However ....... I haven't found a source .......Yes, but ........ Seems to be ...... Do you have a source? ......However.....Do you have a source ..... [QUOTE]


:rolly:

The G Man
10-01-2003, 07:21 AM
:rolly:
Dude ... knock it off

IK
10-01-2003, 07:47 AM
Here is the quote ... "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on CNN's "Crossfire," of which he is a co-host. Now unless he's playing Bill Clinton-like word games, it seems pretty clear.

Unless he's answering to the accusations, that the Bush administration planned the leak and encouraged Novak to publish the name instead of it being... well... leaked in the "natural" way. He is, however, pointing out to the "planned leak" all the time. See the column here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/column.novak.opinion.leak/

"I did not receive a planned leak."
"The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."

And then the quote you have there. See a pattern?

Of course you could be completely right, but I'd really like to see a comment where he says it in a way, that it leaves no other possible interpretations.

So after this issue surfaces Karl Rove talks about it? Why wouldn't he??? Wilson has completely distanced himself from his accusations that Karl Rove is the source.

It wasn't a comment by Rove but by Wilson. Here's that again and a bit more:

"Wilson backtracked Monday, saying he had not meant to imply that Rove "was the source or the authorizer, just that I thought that it came from the White House, and Karl Rove was the personification of the White House political operation."

But Wilson also said, in a telephone interview, "I have people who I have confidence in, who have indicated to me that he [Rove], at a minimum, condoned it and certainly did nothing to put a stop to it for a week after it was out there.""

(from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98653,00.html )

He is backtracking, but the accusations still remain as a much milder version.

I guess if that is true about "previously serving overseas" (and I don't accept it as such) then the CIA probably shouldn't go around confirming on the record that such individuals work for them then. And further, they should probably do a little more than merely voicing their preference that her name not be used too.

I agree. By the way, why don't you accept it as such? Do you have reasons to believe otherwise?

Heres one: http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

Novak seems to refer to that article too. That article basically says, that the author knew she was working for the CIA and that since her husband was such a bad choice for the investigator job, he had to have connections! And this is why it was already obvious to everybody, that the wife was working for CIA? If based on that it should be so obvious, I really have to admit my lack of perception.

Novak is refering to this same column saying:

"How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry."

Did the other column leave you with a feeling, that it was "common knowledge", like Novak says here?

[It also isn't relevant at all, if the name of the wife is somewhere, if it's not known what the wife does for her living.]

IK
10-01-2003, 07:52 AM
I have to add, that unless it is found out that the leak was planned, this whole thing seems really overblown to me. There are leaks all the time and even though this might've been more dangerous than they normally are, I don't think it's in any way so unique.

[we had our own "leaking scandal" in Finland last spring and it was definetly used for political purposes too]

Wild Thing
10-01-2003, 07:54 AM
:rolly:

Is that the new icon for "OK, we were wrong"?

The G Man
10-01-2003, 08:05 AM
And then the quote you have there. See a pattern?
No. I do however think that when Bush said he wants those who have knowlege of this inside and outside his administration to come forward, he meant Novak though.

Of course you could be completely right, but I'd really like to see a comment where he says it in a way, that it leaves no other possible interpretations.
Agreed. Even that won't be good enough for certain folks though.

It wasn't a comment by Rove but by Wilson. Here's that again and a bit more:

"Wilson backtracked Monday, saying he had not meant to imply that Rove "was the source or the authorizer, just that I thought that it came from the White House, and Karl Rove was the personification of the White House political operation."

But Wilson also said, in a telephone interview, "I have people who I have confidence in, who have indicated to me that he [Rove], at a minimum, condoned it and certainly did nothing to put a stop to it for a week after it was out there.""
Wilson initially stated as fact that Karl Rove was Bob Novak's source. He lied and has all but admitted as such, save for his inane rationalization (ie: lie) about him meaning "The White House" when he said "Karl Rove"

As for that bottom quote, what is wrong with Karl Rove discussing it after Novak's column? Nothing of course.

He is backtracking, but the accusations still remain as a much milder version.
What accusations?

I agree. By the way, why don't you accept it as such? Do you have reasons to believe otherwise?
Because I've learned the media frequently (actually... "usually") get it wrong. Just like they apparantly got it wrong in referring to her as some top secret covert operative and countless other items.

That article basically says, that the author knew she was working for the CIA and that since her husband was such a bad choice for the investigator job, he had to have connections!
No, it doesn't "basically" say that. The author said he was flat out told awhile ago that she worked for the CIA.

IK
10-01-2003, 08:23 AM
No. I do however think that when Bush said he wants those who have knowlege of this inside and outside his administration to come forward, he meant Novak though.

Ok. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I am still a bit suspicious.

As for that bottom quote, what is wrong with Karl Rove discussing it after Novak's column? Nothing of course.

Ah, now I understand what you meant previously! I agree with what you say, but what about the first part? About how Rove "condoned" it?

Because I've learned the media frequently (actually... "usually") get it wrong. Just like they apparantly got it wrong in referring to her as some top secret covert operative and countless other items.

That was Novak's writing. But generally you're of course correct. I was more interested if there was some reason you found especially this piece of information suspicious.

No, it doesn't "basically" say that. The author said he was flat out told awhile ago that she worked for the CIA.

He was, but does it mean that it was common knowledge? I don't think it's common knowledge yet, if this one (well, actually at least two...) columnist had been told about it.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 08:38 AM
Ah, now I understand what you meant previously! I agree with what you say, but what about the first part? About how Rove "condoned" it?
I take anything James Wilson says with a grain of salt. And who is he to say Karl Rove "condoned it"? Sounds like he's scrambling after getting caught lying about Rove being the so called "leak"

I was more interested if there was some reason you found especially this piece of information suspicious.
No, just the aforementioned "grain of salt" thing with James Wilson who's been caught in a bunch of lies already on this.

He was, but does it mean that it was common knowledge?
Ya got me. It certainly doesn't seem to have been much of a secret though

IK:

You know who I think told Novak? Someone at the CIA I'm betting. If you think about it, at the time he was trying to find out why the CIA sent Wilson over there, so logically thats where he would've been fishing around, no? We already know that Cheney, who was the person who told the CIA he wanted more info on the Niger story, didn't even know they had sent someone over or who it was. So it would stand to reason that the White House wouldn't have had any knowlege as to the selection process.

I further surmise that whoever it was just stated matter of factly that since his wife was a WMD analyst that she became involved in recruiting him for them. Would seem to make sense i think. (The only problem is that it doesn't make the White House look bad. :D )

G

PS - Mark my words on her being the "American CIA source" that the BBC used too

Mowzie
10-01-2003, 08:42 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01


just another showing of why this is the most deceitful, and despicable administration ever. They will sell out one of our own spies, just to settle the score with someone who came out against them. Just a disgrace, and who ever did this(Karl Rove) should be tried for treason.

Would anyone else vote for Micheal Moore if he ran for president???

The G Man
10-01-2003, 08:45 AM
Would anyone else vote for Micheal Moore if he ran for president???
Do you mean besides Bates??

:lol:

Hoot
10-01-2003, 09:09 AM
Against my better judgement I will respond despite the absolutely over the top comments of some of the kool aid drinkers.

* Bob Novak says it was not anyone in the White House.

*Jame's Wilson is now backtracking like crazy and has now said he got "caught up in the moment" when he threw out Karl Rove's name.

* It would appear that his wife is NOT a spy, or an agent, or a covert operative, or whatever other James Bond description you want to use but rather an analyst sitting at a desk.

* It appears that it was well known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA and also her name was already put into the public record on a number of occasions by Wilson himself.

And yes, divulging the identity of a field agent would be worse than committing perjury or a "third rate burglary" (unless you're Bob Torricelli, that is. Then you can blow a CIA field agent's cover and its no big deal). But it seems more and more apparant that that is not the case and that the media in their zest for scandal measured once and cut twice instead of the other way around.

When all is said and done, if any of the names being tossed around are in any criminal jeopardy I suspect it is Mr Wilsons wife whom if I had to guess will turn out to have been the "American CIA source" that the BBC used in their now discreditted "sexxed up dossier" story (that ultimately lead to that guy committing suicide btw)

I have some different arguments than IK.

*1: The Washington Post says otherwise. They claim that the White House called at least six other journalists and tried to plant this story.

*2: Novak has a history of being involved with Rove in the dirty tricks business. In fact Rove got fired once for a story he planted with Novak which got smoked out (when Rove was working on Papa Bush's re- electioncampaign in 1992). However, in this case Wilson shouldn't have named Rove without proof.

*3: "This not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she has been under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised...

For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...

I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.

I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."

-Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department.

This quote is from a radio interview; link (http://audio.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2003/09/30/ts.rm?altplay=ts.rm) the quote should be at about 6:50 into the interview.

*4 Where does Wilson publicly say that his wife is an CIA operative? I doubt he did that because if he did he would now be in prison. It does not matter if her being a CIA operative was the worst kept secret in Washington. Somebody outed her to Novak, who made it public knowledge. The question is who, and right now the leads are pointing to the White House. This matter is far from over.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 09:16 AM
*1: The Washington Post says otherwise. They claim that the White House called at least six other journalists and tried to plant this story.
The Washington Post no longer claims that to be the case.

Novak has a history of being involved with Rove in the dirty tricks business. In fact Rove got fired once for a story he planted with Novak which got smoked out (when Rove was working on Papa Bush's re- electioncampaign in 1992).
That is not correct. The media is surmising that. The "rumor" (thats all it is) is that Rove gave a reporter some negative feedback on how the Texas campaign was going as he did not get along with Robert Mosbacher the campaign chair.

For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...
She is not an undercover operative. And I will not be surprised if she never was.

Where does Wilson publicly say that his wife is an CIA operative?
I never said he did

The question is who, and right now the leads are pointing to the White House.
No, it is not. The media and the "hate America first" crowd would like it to, but as you can see in my other post ... logic dictates otherwise.

mike58520
10-01-2003, 09:32 AM
I have some different arguments than IK.



*3: "This not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she has been under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised...

For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...

I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.

I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."

-Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department.

This quote is from a radio interview; link (http://audio.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2003/09/30/ts.rm?altplay=ts.rm) the quote should be at about 6:50 into the interview.



I just thought I'd point out that the woman, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25492-2003Sep30?language=printer) is 40 years old. If that's the case and she has been undercover for three decades she would have had to start at 10 years old. Add in the fact that this guy goes on and on about how he's a republican and this sickens him and this whole interview seems very suspicious.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 09:35 AM
I just thought I'd point out that the woman, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25492-2003Sep30?language=printer) is 40 years old. If that's the case and she has been undercover for three decades she would have had to start at 10 years old. Add in the fact that this guy goes on and on about how he's a republican and this sickens him and this whole interview seems very suspicious.
Well... technically ... if she started in 1989 she would have worked there *cough* 3 decades. Obviously though, it makes you think she's been there 30 years.

mike58520
10-01-2003, 09:43 AM
Well... technically ... if she started in 1989 she would have worked there *cough* 3 decades. Obviously though, it makes you think she's been there 30 years.

Well if you want to invoke the Clinton defense you could interpet it that way :) . But seriously, the way he said it, "she has been undercover for three decades ", made it seem like he was trying to emphasize that she has been an undercover operative for a long period of time.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 09:47 AM
Well if you want to invoke the Clinton defense you could interpet it that way :) . But seriously, the way he said it, "she has been undercover for three decades ", made it seem like he was trying to emphasize that she has been an undercover operative for a long period of time.
Yeah. I agree. He's definitely trying to make it sound like it was much more extensive than it really is. I was just pointing out what the response would be.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 10:05 AM
Clinton: What's the big deal, I'm just lying about sex

Bush: What's the big deal, her name was already common knowledge.

In both cases it's against the law to do what was done. Now, all of a sudden, since a Republican is up against the wall, the principles change? Hypocrite.
Perhaps you'd be so good as to advise when Bush said that. And while you're at it, let us know what law was broken.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 10:20 AM
'let us know what law was broken.'

The law that makes it a felony to reveal the names of any CIA classified operative. Since it is the CIA that is pursuing this case, I offer that as prima facie evidence that they believe that said law was broken.
The law involves covert CIA field agents. Not analysts.

Still waiting for you to advise which law Bush broke.

Since Clinton never said what I posted, but only far right wing nuts such as yourself, I would assume that you had the intelligence to understand that I was paraphrasing your own stance in this matter.
Might I refer you to the FAQ above with regard to treatment of other posters. Not to mention your Private Messages.

I also see that since you closed another thread on this line, that you're nothing more than another Cato, afraid of free speech as well as being a hypocrite, are you.
See response #2. And I have no idea what you're talking about by the way.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 10:49 AM
If Bush or anyone in his administration tries to cover up (which they will do since these idiots haven't learned anything in 30 years) or stonewall this probe, they become accessories after the fact. Also a felony.
So now you work for the "Department of Future Crimes"?
http://www.filmmusik2000.de/minority.jpg

And guess what boyo, she ran agents in the field.
If you say so. The story initially was that she was an acutal spy, I see its changed a bit.

Hey, you can do what you want. You got the power, you got the bomb. Go ahead and use it.
You will treat posters with respect or you will be out of here. The choice is all up to you.

Hoot
10-01-2003, 01:00 PM
The Washington Post no longer claims that to be the case..

But the CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/wilson.cia/index.html) today does: " Sources told CNN that as many as six journalists besides Novak may have been given the information on Plame.

Sources also said Tuesday that Plame is not an analyst, as Novak said this week, but a CIA operations officer. For many years, the sources said, Plame was an active overseas undercover officer for the agency. More recently, she has been working at a management level within the operations section of the CIA.
"




She is not an undercover operative. And I will not be surprised if she never was. .

How can you know that she wasn't a undercover operative? Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-phelps0722,0,7419619.story?coll=ny-top-headlines) claims that the "intelligence officers" [ie the CIA] has confirmed that "Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity - at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak." July 22

The White House itself says that the probe is about an undercover operative "We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee."

I doubt the Democrats would make try to turn this into a major battle unless the were sure it could be a major blow for the White House. When it comes to political infighting I do credit the Democrats as well as the Republicans with some brains.

I believe the law talks about naming an operative that has worked in an undercover capacity within five years. So it would be enough if Plame has taken part in an undercover operation within the last five years.





No, it is not. The media and the "hate America first" crowd would like it to, but as you can see in my other post ... logic dictates otherwise.

I'm not convinced by your logic.

In the past the White House has gone ballistic at every leak. There has rarely been any administration that hates leaks more than this one. So why didn't they roast Novak for this leak? Or even protest the leak? Especially as Novak pointed at the administration as his source? This silence is pretty damning. Does the White House approve of the leak?

This battle is only just shaping up. I think there will be plenty more rounds to come. My guess is that it will take the testimony of Novak under oath (the law requires him to name his sources in cases like this) before we can approach the truth. The White House has little to fear from the DOJ probe. The FBI agents have an abysmal record in cases like this (they've cought one person, mostly through luck).

Hoot
10-01-2003, 02:07 PM
Poll: Independent Investigation Favored
Most Americans Suspicious of White House but Doubt Bush Knew of Leak
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 1, 2003; 5:26 PM


Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to journalists, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29560-2003Oct1.html)

Herby
10-01-2003, 02:29 PM
Edit: I'm not going to allow myself to get sucked into these moronic debates.

Smart

Dr Love
10-01-2003, 02:34 PM
Hey, you can do what you want. You got the power, you got the bomb. Go ahead and use it. Censorship is still censorship and of course you don't get my reference to Cato, today's educational system being what it is.

:rolleyes: Yup, G Man just got done with high school at the age of 38. Does it make you feel like a bigger man to attempt to put down others by trying to act smarter than them?

I'll shut up now, I've been sucked into this vortex

BMRBruins
10-01-2003, 02:45 PM
The law involves covert CIA field agents. Not analysts.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 >
Sec. 426. - Definitions



(4)

The term ''covert agent'' means -

(A)

a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -

(i)

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

(ii)

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

(B)

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

(i)

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

(ii)

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

(C)

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

Under this statute the individual in question qualifies under (4)(A)(i)(ii) and depending on the circumstances (4)(B)(i)(ii). Of course no one outside of the intelligence community knows the exact nature of Mrs. Wilsons employment with the CIA but the agency itself seems to feel that she qualifies under these statutes. The fact that they have gone so far as to requested a formal investigation into this matter shows that they believe that a crime has been commited.

BMRBruins
10-01-2003, 02:47 PM
Sorry, forgot the link...

Link (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/426.html)

Kvashinator12
10-01-2003, 03:49 PM
Against my better judgement I will respond despite the absolutely over the top comments of some of the kool aid drinkers.

* Bob Novak says it was not anyone in the White House.

*Jame's Wilson is now backtracking like crazy and has now said he got "caught up in the moment" when he threw out Karl Rove's name.

* It would appear that his wife is NOT a spy, or an agent, or a covert operative, or whatever other James Bond description you want to use but rather an analyst sitting at a desk.

* It appears that it was well known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA and also her name was already put into the public record on a number of occasions by Wilson himself.

And yes, divulging the identity of a field agent would be worse than committing perjury or a "third rate burglary" (unless you're Bob Torricelli, that is. Then you can blow a CIA field agent's cover and its no big deal). But it seems more and more apparant that that is not the case and that the media in their zest for scandal measured once and cut twice instead of the other way around.

When all is said and done, if any of the names being tossed around are in any criminal jeopardy I suspect it is Mr Wilsons wife whom if I had to guess will turn out to have been the "American CIA source" that the BBC used in their now discreditted "sexxed up dossier" story (that ultimately lead to that guy committing suicide btw)


read the original article he said it was a white house administration official that told him this. Another reason not to trust buscho. They are the most despicable presidency since Nixon. Rove was fired in 1992 from Sr's campaign for leaking info to NOvak back then. Peoples lives were put in danger b/c this administration tries to intimidate people who disagree with them.

Kvashinator12
10-01-2003, 03:51 PM
So now you work for the "Department of Future Crimes"?
http://www.filmmusik2000.de/minority.jpg


If you say so. The story initially was that she was an acutal spy, I see its changed a bit.


You will treat posters with respect or you will be out of here. The choice is all up to you.


of course the story changed a bit, b/c novak then realized that this would bring problems to the white house. If a more liberal reporter broke this story i can understand there might be some beef, but a conservative. No way they should be let off the hook for this. No kidding Novak would now say she was an analyst, but at first he had to say she was an agent. This is Treason.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 04:45 PM
I only respond to threats, even pitiable ones, negatively. You want my respect - earn it.
You misunderstand. I have no desire to earn your respect. But you will show other posters respect on this board or you will be out of here. Count on it, champ.

That is the final word on this topic. If you wish to pursue it further, I suggest you take it to the service and feedback board or Buffaloed.

dempsey_k*
10-01-2003, 04:54 PM
I also see that since you closed another thread on this line, that you're nothing more than another Cato, afraid of free speech as well as being a hypocrite, are you.

Stop embarassing yourself, he closed that thread because somebody insulted YOU.

IE : "you're probably just some child molester for all I know" ...

Wild Thing
10-01-2003, 04:56 PM
Here is the quote ... "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on CNN's "Crossfire," of which he is a co-host. Now unless he's playing Bill Clinton-like word games, it seems pretty clear.

It seems clear to me, too - it seems clear that all he's saying is that nobody in the Bush Administration called him to leak this. And that's all he's saying. There's a hell of a lot of latitude there. He very clearly does not say "nobody in the Bush Administration leaked this to me." He just says nobody called him to do so - there's nothing Clintonesque about it. Just what appears to be a very carefully considered choice of words.

We'll just have to wait for the special counsel to finish their job. The sooner one is appointed, the sooner we can all get the whole story.

By the way - not to taunt you here, but I didn't notice any reluctance by the conservative posters to get drawn into these debates back when you all believed the President was telling the truth. I'm genuinely curious why none of you want to talk about it anymore.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 05:06 PM
By the way - not to taunt you here, but I didn't notice any reluctance by the conservative posters to get drawn into these debates back when you all believed the President was telling the truth. I'm genuinely curious why none of you want to talk about it anymore.
Desregarding your mischaracterization, I for one was just sickened by the absolutely over the top comments spewed by the anti American liberals here. The knowing glee that greets every perceived setback, every US fatality, is disgusting beyond belief. They only care about one thing and one thing only ... destroying George Bush. And to them the end justifies the means.

Kvashinator12
10-01-2003, 05:07 PM
why the republicans don't want a special counsel? Because there is something to hide, but i guess this is less important than whitewater. Republicans are the biggest hypocrites ever they dont seem to get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

dempsey_k*
10-01-2003, 05:13 PM
why the republicans don't want a special counsel? Because there is something to hide, but i guess this is less important than whitewater. Republicans are the biggest hypocrites ever they dont seem to get that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Pot Kettle ... Democrats are just Republicans without power.

Kvashinator12
10-01-2003, 05:21 PM
Desregarding your mischaracterization, I for one was just sickened by the absolutely over the top comments spewed by the anti American liberals here. The knowing glee that greets every perceived setback, every US fatality, is disgusting beyond belief. They only care about one thing and one thing only ... destroying George Bush. And to them the end justifies the means.


when things get tough for republicans and Dubya all they do is wrap themselves in their security blanket called the american flag. that is disgraceful. Once again it comes down to the if you disagree with bush you are anti american. How any one can support the death of us troops in iraq is disgusting. That is beyond politics, and its inhumane. Support our troops no matter what you think of iraq, they have nothing to do with this.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 05:32 PM
How any one can support the death of us troops in iraq is disgusting.
I agree. But sadly, with each dead US soldier, a subtle smile crosses the faces of many liberals ... even some who post here. They only care about getting George Bush. Thats all.

Wild Thing
10-01-2003, 05:36 PM
Desregarding your mischaracterization, I for one was just sickened by the absolutely over the top comments spewed by the anti American liberals here.

OK, I guess I understand that.


The knowing glee that greets every perceived setback, every US fatality, is disgusting beyond belief.

But on this, I see it differently. I don't feel the least bit guilty about saying "I told you so" every time a story comes out that makes the Bushers look bad, because - well, we did tell you so.

Almost everything that has come to pass the last few months, and almost everything that has come to light about the Bush Administration's actions leading up to the war, is exactly what many of us on this side of the debate have been saying all along - and it wasn't so long ago that we were being ridiculed and insulted here for saying what is now being validated on an almost daily basis. So of course we're going to point it out. I'm sincerely sorry if you find it disgusting beyond belief, but I would point out that there are many of us who are even more disgusted by the actions of the Bush Administration over the last 2 years.

They only care about one thing and one thing only ... destroying George Bush.

I think you're missing the point. There are very good reasons people hate Bush. Yes, I hate Bush. And yes, I want to see him destroyed. But the reason I feel that way is because of his policies and his actions, which I regard as horrifying, criminal, and cowardly beyond belief. And because I consider his actions to be as wrong as I do, of course I want him to fail at them - and of course I'm going to be happy when he does.

And to them the end justifies the means.

Not necessarily true, and in my opinion not fair. What unfair means are being used to attack Bush? All I'm advocating - and I think most of my counterparts feel the same way - is that Bush and his people be held accountable for their words and their actions. Is that "the end justifying the means"?

I thought one of the cornerstones of the Bush Administration was that he was going to restore integrity and accountability to the White House. Now that he's the one getting caught and held accountable, has that promise shifted, too - in the same way his allegations about Iraq being a grave, imminent threat have turned into "well, they might have had some WMDs someday if they could have ever figured out a way to get any."?

#37-#93-#27*
10-01-2003, 05:38 PM
Stop embarassing yourself, he closed that thread because somebody insulted YOU.

IE : "you're probably just some child molester for all I know" ...
From what I've seen on the Ranger board and Lounge, aneirin is one of the more intelligent and insightful posters on these forums. If anything you embarrass yourself with that comment!

I do not wish to get involved but I don't believe anyone here is deserved of a ban. It would be a shame and a blow to the Ranger community to lose a poster like anerin.

Kvashinator12
10-01-2003, 05:40 PM
everytime something happens, Bush wraps himself in the american flag. That is disgusting, and repulsive. This administration has no belief in the US constitution. Clinton ws chastized for everything that he did. His lies never put a us life in danger. More than iraq this CIA problem is huge.

Dr Love
10-01-2003, 05:40 PM
From what I've seen on the Ranger board and Lounge, aneirin is one of the more intelligent and insightful posters on these forums. If anything you embarrass yourself with that comment!

I do not wish to get involved but I don't believe anyone here is deserved of a ban. It would be a shame and a blow to the Ranger community to lose a poster like anerin.

May I suggest a trip to Lens Crafters this weekend?

Wild Thing
10-01-2003, 05:42 PM
I agree. But sadly, with each dead US soldier, a subtle smile crosses the faces of many liberals ... even some who post here. They only care about getting George Bush. Thats all.

I have yet to meet anyone - either in real life or online - who answers to that description. Maybe someone here has posted something that would support that characterization and I missed seeing it because I was offline for a couple of days or someting, but short of that, I'm at a loss to understand what anyone has said here that would suggest that they are in any way happy about anyone dying for Bush's misdeeds. In fact, for most of us, the whole point is that we consider that to be a terrible and unjustified tragedy.

dempsey_k*
10-01-2003, 05:43 PM
From what I've seen on the Ranger board and Lounge, aneirin is one of the more intelligent and insightful posters on these forums. If anything you embarrass yourself with that comment!

I do not wish to get involved but I don't believe anyone here is deserved of a ban. It would be a shame and a blow to the Ranger community to lose a poster like anerin.

I think if anyone deserves a ban it's you for trolling. You twisted what I said and shifted it back at me for informing aneirin than G-Man closed a thread in protection of aneirin like the board policy states (although board policy hasn't shielded me from certain stalkers lately .. )

Like Dr. Love said, go to lens crafters genius.

Dr Love
10-01-2003, 05:44 PM
I have yet to meet anyone - either in real life or online - who answers to that description.

Well, I have. Not on these boards, but I've seen/read/heard people say basically the same thing, but in more words. It's appalling.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 05:46 PM
I have yet to meet anyone - either in real life or online - who answers to that description. Maybe someone here has posted something that would support that characterization and I missed seeing it because I was offline for a couple of days or someting, but short of that, I'm at a loss to understand what anyone has said here that would suggest that they are in any way happy about anyone dying for Bush's misdeeds. In fact, for most of us, the whole point is that we consider that to be a terrible and unjustified tragedy.
Well, of course noone is going to SAY they're happy about it. But you know what I'm saying is the truth. Hell, they hate their own country for crying out loud.

#37-#93-#27*
10-01-2003, 05:47 PM
May I suggest a trip to Lens Crafters this weekend?
That's what I get for getting involved. :joker:
I was just disapointed when I saw this. I'll go hide now. :rolly:


I think if anyone deserves a ban it's you for trolling. You twisted what I said and shifted it back at me for informing aneirin than G-Man closed a thread in protection of aneirin like the board policy states (although board policy hasn't shielded me from certain stalkers lately .. )

Like Dr. Love said, go to lens crafters genius.
Oh the irony..

The G Man
10-01-2003, 05:48 PM
Well, I have. Not on these boards, but I've seen/read/heard people say basically the same thing, but in more words. It's appalling.
Oh, they most certainly are here on these boards. On this thread even.

Hell, Iraq got 27 percent of the vote in a pre war poll I did here on who folks wanted to win. The question even got down specifically as to who you would rather get killed in the war ... a US soldier or an Iraqi soldier. They're disgusting people.

dempsey_k*
10-01-2003, 05:49 PM
I have yet to meet anyone - either in real life or online - who answers to that description.

In person I've met a few rich yuppies or hippies down at this coffee stand at the edge of my street who've made comments down the line of "oh well one less redneck".

My online experience with people of that nature is limited to Iranians who live in Europe and Canada who said they smile at the death of every American soldier and the Fedayeen (not G-man's) are good people fighting the good fight.

Wild Thing
10-01-2003, 05:49 PM
Well, of course noone is going to SAY they're happy about it. But you know what I'm saying is the truth. Hell, they hate their own country for crying out loud.

You're probably right. I guess I hadn't thought about it much, but I suppose there are some people who are that twisted.

I'm glad I don't know any of them. But I still like to think that nobody here feels that way, and I at least hope I'm right about that one.

Psycho Papa Joe
10-01-2003, 05:52 PM
'Stop embarassing yourself, he closed that thread because somebody insulted YOU.

IE : "you're probably just some child molester for all I know" ...'

And how does that make any difference to the equation even if it is true. It is still heavy handed censorship of the worst kind. I can defend myself quite readily, thank you, which doesn't seem to be the case with others on this board. On that particular thread, I finally got what I had been striving weeks for, a direct response to my provocations from XavierX and some jumped up Cato takes it upon himself to stop the communication flow (Oh, and Cato the Elder was Roman Censor - yes, an official position - in the 2nd Century BC who prevented new (Greek) ideas from entering Rome and purged the Senate of those he deemed too liberal, if anyone actually wants to know the reference). I despise censorship and the fools who think that such a thing solves anything. But what else can you expect from a Bush apologist, an administration that would dearly love to keep all dialogue and information flow according to script. Stupidity incarnate considering the availability of internet access.

This is a private board. They have the right to censor anything they want because they own, operate and/or moderate it. If you don't like it, leave. It's that simple.

dempsey_k*
10-01-2003, 05:54 PM
That's what I get for getting involved. :joker:
I was just disapointed when I saw this. I'll go hide now. :rolly:

Oh the irony..

Go hide ? What the hell did you come into this conversation for ? You didn't read anything that was said and jumped to someone's defence when there was no defence at all. Get your head out of your arse.

The G Man
10-01-2003, 05:55 PM
Closed. Some folks just can't follow directions.

Cato