HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > The Lounge
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Lounge "...Where the parking lot of the Igloo meets the concourse of the Nassau County Coliseum and the bathroom line of the Skyreach..." - Wickedbsfan

White house leaks CIA operative info

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-01-2003, 06:10 AM
  #26
IK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
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/ALLPOLIT.../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/arch...20030930c.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.


Quote:
*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/arch...20030930c.html )

Quote:
* 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/articl...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."



Quote:
* 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?

IK is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 06:42 AM
  #27
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IK
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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.

Quote:
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

The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 07:06 AM
  #28
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,716
vCash: 500
[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]


Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 07:09 AM
  #29
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Thing
now that almost every argument they made in support of the war has been proven to be false?

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 07:18 AM
  #30
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,716
vCash: 500
[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]



Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 07:21 AM
  #31
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
Dude ... knock it off

The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 07:47 AM
  #32
IK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
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/ALLPOLIT....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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

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 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 07:52 AM
  #33
IK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
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]

IK is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 07:54 AM
  #34
Wild Thing
Registered User
 
Wild Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Dark Side
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
Is that the new icon for "OK, we were wrong"?

Wild Thing is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 08:05 AM
  #35
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IK
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 08:23 AM
  #36
IK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

IK is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 08:38 AM
  #37
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IK
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"

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. )

G

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

The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 08:42 AM
  #38
Mowzie
Asst. Dishwasher
 
Mowzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lebanon, Alberta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 8,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kvashinator12
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???

Mowzie is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 08:45 AM
  #39
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowzie
Would anyone else vote for Micheal Moore if he ran for president???
Do you mean besides Bates??


The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 09:09 AM
  #40
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
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 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.

Hoot is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 09:16 AM
  #41
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
*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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 09:32 AM
  #42
mike58520
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot
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 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...nguage=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.

mike58520 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 09:35 AM
  #43
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike58520
I just thought I'd point out that the woman, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=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.

The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 09:43 AM
  #44
mike58520
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
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.

mike58520 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 09:47 AM
  #45
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike58520
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 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 10:05 AM
  #46
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneirin
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 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 10:20 AM
  #47
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneirin
'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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 10:49 AM
  #48
The G Man
Registered User
 
The G Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF Old School
Country: United States
Posts: 11,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneirin
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"?


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

The G Man is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 01:00 PM
  #49
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
The Washington Post no longer claims that to be the case..
But the CNN 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.
"



Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
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 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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by The G Man
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 is offline  
Old
10-01-2003, 02:07 PM
  #50
Hoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,532
vCash: 500
Poll: Independent Investigation Favored

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

Hoot is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.