Plame: I felt like I had been hit in the gut

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Plame: I felt like I had been hit in the gut
Says White House treated her CIA identity 'recklessly' for political reasons

• Plame answers lawmakers' questions
March 16: Former CIA operative Valerie Plame testifies before the House Oversight Committee. NBC's Mike Viqueira reports.
MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Valerie Plame, the CIA operative at the heart of a political scandal, told Congress Friday that senior officials at the White House and State Department "carelessly and recklessly" blew her cover to discredit her diplomat-husband.
Plame, whose 2003 outing triggered a federal investigation, said she always knew her identity could be discovered by foreign governments.
"It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover," she told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"If our government cannot even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the Central Intelligence Agency and providing needed intelligence would think twice," Plame said in response to a question.
When asked how the release of her identity affected her, Plame said, "I felt like I had been hit in the gut."
The hearing was the first time Plame has publicly answered questions about the case, which led to the recent perjury and obstruction of justice conviction of Vice President **** Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Her appearance was a moment of gripping political theater as Democrats questioned whether the Bush administration mishandled classified information by leaking her identity to reporters. No one has been charged with leaking her identity.
"It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is out job to determine what went wrong and insist on accountability," Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said at the outset of the hearing.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17643269/from/RS.1/


I'm absolutely disgusted by this dog and pony show. There sits Plame, Washington rock star with her bleached teeth and nose job who used her political connections to get her Washington rock star husband a gig- complaining that somebody else is responsible for "outing" her.

I would suggest, if she was concerned with remaining anonymous, that she not use her connections to get her incompetent, lying husband, a job, and that he not use that opportunity for political grandstanding. He screwed up, he lied, he wrote a story for the press implicating the VP's office - and therefore they were completely justified in exposing the cozy little arrangement that had been made.

It's just an endless parade of douchebags. The Democrats whined and stamped their feet to get the Fitzgerald investigation - then when that uncovered no wrongdoing regarding Plame - they've now convened a second show trial for the benefit of their careers. Sickening. What's worse is that a certain percentage of the public, who has no clue as to what happened, will buy their line of BS.

[Dronetek]

I watched the whole thing and I couldn’t shake the feeling she had practiced all of this. She seemed to bow her head for camera on cue and her emotions all seemed contrived.

Tucker Carlson just asked a democratic strategist the most important question that has yet to be answered. If all of this is legitimate and the democrats want to get to the bottom of this, why don’t they charge Armitiage? He's the one who leaked the name in the first place!

Did you catch VictoriaToensing when they questioned her? She wrote the law protecting covert CIA agents. She said that in no way was plame covert, at least according to the law, that she wrote; and these democrats just lost it. It's like they were all androids and a logic bomb went off in their heads.

[HR24]

I watched the whole thing and I couldn’t shake the feeling she had practiced all of this. She seemed to bow her head for camera on cue and her emotions all seemed contrived.

Tucker Carlson just asked a democratic strategist the most important question that has yet to be answered. If all of this is legitimate and the democrats want to get to the bottom of this, why don’t they charge Armitiage? He's the one who leaked the name in the first place!

Did you catch that Vicotria lady when they questioned her? She wrote the law protecting covert CIA agents. She said that in no way was plame covert, at least according to the law, that she wrote; and these democrats just lost it. It's like they were all androids and a logic bomb went off in their heads.

Because it wasn't REALLY Armitage, it was ROOOOVVVVVVEEEEEEE! EVIL KARL ROVE! ;)

[JKD]

I would suggest, if she was concerned with remaining anonymous, that she not use her connections to get her incompetent, lying husband, a job, and that he not use that opportunity for political grandstanding. He screwed up, he lied, he wrote a story for the press implicating the VP's office - and therefore they were completely justified in exposing the cozy little arrangement that had been made.


Wait, because her husband wrote an op-ed the administration didn't like they were "justified" in exposing a CIA officer? Brilliant.

[Hunterhr]

Wait, because her husband wrote an op-ed the administration didn't like they were "justified" in exposing a CIA officer? Brilliant.

Exposed? Hardly.

[Dronetek]

Wait, because her husband wrote an op-ed the administration didn't like they were "justified" in exposing a CIA officer? Brilliant.

She was pictured in Rolling Stone, dressed up as a secret agent, before any of this started.

Tell me something, if this is sucha big deal, why arent they going after the people who leaked the covert operations to the
NYT?

[HR24]

She was pictured in Rolling Stone, dressed up as a secret agent, before any of this started.

Tell me something, if this is sucha big deal, why arent they going after the people who leaked the covert operations to the
NYT?

Score one for the home team. Good point Dronetek.

[JKD]

She was pictured in Rolling Stone, dressed up as a secret agent, before any of this started.
Which issue? I'm looking but I can't find it.


Tell me something, if this is sucha big deal, why arent they going after the people who leaked the covert operations to the
NYT?
Beats me. I'm not "they".

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Wait, because her husband wrote an op-ed the administration didn't like they were "justified" in exposing a CIA officer? Brilliant.

What Wilson wrote was a lie, and he told it for political effect.
The administration was being beaten up over it, and was entitled to expose the maneuverings behind the lie.
In so doing, they did not break the law and did not expose anybody (as has been said here, and has been demonstrated by the fact that the known leaker - Armitage - was not charged.)This whole thing - from Wilson being picked, through the farcical grand jury, now through this idiotic circus, has been an extension of the original intent of Wilson's trip - to provide a forum for discrediting the administration. And just like Wilson's bumbling report - it's utterly empty of substance - they keep swinging and missing. For Plame to sit there and pretend that she had no idea things would blow up in her face just makes it all the more unbelievable, since this was all a means to an end from the get-go.

Sometimes I feel like I'm stuck in the movie They Live, and I'm the only one with the special glasses. :)

[California Joe]

How Rowdy Roddy Piper of you.

[JKD]

John Carpenter needs to make more movies. (or LESS if they're going to be like Ghosts of Mars)

I gotta say though I thought Republicans were supposed to get all up in arms over "blame the victim".

I'm starting to find partisanship from both of the big two funnier, more mind boggling, and just plain sad with every passing day.

[Dronetek]

Which issue? I'm looking but I can't find it.


Beats me. I'm not "they".

Does it makes sense to you that this is such a huge deal, but not multiple covert agents/operations that secure the national security of the country? You may notice that in both cases, the outcomes only suited the democrats.

As far as the Rolling Stone goes,
http://www.pipelinenews.org/readerimages/plame.bmp

[szr]

I'm absolutely disgusted by this dog and pony show. There sits Plame, Washington rock star with her bleached teeth and nose job who used her political connections to get her Washington rock star husband a gig- complaining that somebody else is responsible for "outing" her.

I would suggest, if she was concerned with remaining anonymous, that she not use her connections to get her incompetent, lying husband, a job, and that he not use that opportunity for political grandstanding. He screwed up, he lied, he wrote a story for the press implicating the VP's office - and therefore they were completely justified in exposing the cozy little arrangement that had been made.

It's just an endless parade of douchebags. The Democrats whined and stamped their feet to get the Fitzgerald investigation - then when that uncovered no wrongdoing regarding Plame - they've now convened a second show trial for the benefit of their careers. Sickening. What's worse is that a certain percentage of the public, who has no clue as to what happened, will buy their line of BS.You've got to admit she's pretty hot, though. You know you'd let her waterboard you.

[JKD]

Does it makes sense to you that this is such a huge deal, but not multiple covert agents/operations that secure the national security of the country? You may notice that in both cases, the outcomes only suited the democrats.
Again, I'm not defending any of the other leaks, articles, and whatnot.


As far as the Rolling Stone goes,
http://www.pipelinenews.org/readerimages/plame.bmp
Cool, is there a bigger version where I can see the date or read the text?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

How Rowdy Roddy Piper of you.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/2shedsjackson/ael.sized.jpg

"She was covert, mutha****!!!"
"The hell she was!!"

[phoilme]

So much that is disturbing. Henry Waxman displayed what is the main characteristic of democrats - hypocracy. That little weazel is a punk. Why do all democrats live far outside their circumstances? If it weren't for a stupid, fat and lazy population in this country a democrat wouldn't get elected. But alas, there it is.

[Dronetek]

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/2shedsjackson/ael.sized.jpg

"She was covert, mutha****!!!"
"The hell she was!!"


BAHAHAHAH! Oh 2Sheds, you are the man.

They just played a clip on fox from the cspan coverage that showed Plame donated $1000 to Al Gores campaign under her "covert" company name. Why havent we heard that little fact before?

[mi35d]

Yes, very covert. Appearing in various magazines with her hubby, reporting in to Langley.

[schwarz]

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/CIA_Leak_Congress.sff_DCDA114_20070316112913.jpg


Id hit it.....

[JKD]

As far as the Rolling Stone goes,
http://www.pipelinenews.org/readerimages/plame.bmp

Did some searching and found out that picture's from a Vanity Fair article....that was published in January 2004. Months after Novak's column.

[Partial_Panel]

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/CIA_Leak_Congress.sff_DCDA114_20070316112913.jpg


Id hit it.....

Careful, she's CIA, so she probably has:
A ****y-trapped (pun intended) bra catch
A double-encrypted, cypher-lock chastity belt
And a video surveilance device in that rather odd-looking nose.

Of course, once you get past that, she probably goes (as our British cousins might say), like a Belt-Fed Wombat.

[chaz]

I could barely watch Plame's "performance". It was truly disgusting. Between that and Rosie O'donnell's dimwitted rant yesterday, I've had just about enough.

[Dakota435]

That the Dems are absolutely brazen, shameless liars is crystal clear.

From the blog "Sweetness and Light":

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame


When And Why Joseph C Wilson IV Outed Valerie Plame

Before we put Plame "leak" story to bed once and for all, I want to reiterate what I first posited almost two years ago, which now seems to be more true than ever.

It was almost certainly Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.

And he probably did this in early May 2003 after meeting with top level Democrats and around the time he began to work for the John Kerry for President campaign.

Let’s run through the chronology.

January 28, 2003: President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union Address.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.

Then what’s the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region. American pre-eminence in the Gulf is necessary but not sufficient for the hawks. Nothing short of conquest, occupation and imposition of handpicked leaders on a vanquished population will suffice. Iraq is the linchpin for this broader assault on the region. The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme.

March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries.

SAN MIGUEL: So how do you play this, then? I mean, what, do you admit it, do you just move on? Do you try to get these things verified if you do believe, indeed, that Iraq was trying to buy this material from Niger? I mean, how do you handle this? What’s the damage control on this?

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about the Iraq’s WMD and re-write his findings from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the 9/11 Commission?

The answer is easy. The US invaded Iraq in March and after searching for two months, admitted they had not found any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. And, coincidentally…

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

Wilson… said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire… — David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03

Five months prior to October 2, 2003 would be May 2, 2003. What happened on that date?

May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof.

(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)

Here, unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson suddenly now claimed State Department officials should have known better than to have been duped by the forged documents that purported to prove a deal for uranium had been in the works between Iraq and Niger.

May 3, 2003: Over breakfast, Wilson and Valerie told Kristof about his trip to Niger.

May 6, 2003: Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth.

May 23, 2003: The John Kerry For President campaign recorded a $1,000 contribution from Joe Wilson.

Soon other newspaper articles began to appear, for which Mr. Wilson had been the obvious source.

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

June 29, 2003: The UK’s Independent published, Ministers Knew War Papers Were Forged, Says Diplomat.

A high-ranking American official who investigated claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to restart its nuclear programme accused Britain and the US yesterday of deliberately ignoring his findings to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein.

The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the West African state of Niger, were forgeries.

When he saw similar claims in Britain’s dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation…

The former diplomat - who had served as an ambassador in Africa - had been approached by the CIA in February 2002 to carry out a "discreet" task: to investigate if it was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct request from the office of the Vice-President, **** Cheney.

During eight days in Niger, he discovered it was impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal," he said. He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents. On his return, he was debriefed by the CIA.

Note that almost everything in this article, like the others, has been subsequently proven to be untrue. Including Wilson’s claim that he had seen the supposedly forged documents, and that his Niger report was "unequivocal."

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired about a month before Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He — he’s perfect. She — she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.

Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.

Wilson’s motivation for bringing up his wife would have been exactly as Armitage suggested to Woodward. Wilson told the panelists and reporters about Plame’s work at the CIA to give his radically new and dangerous story more credibility.

It’s highly probable Wilson used his wife’s position as a WMD analyst at the CIA to bolster his outrageous (and we now know fallacious) claims against a then popular President in a time of war.

July 6, 2003: Frustrated that his trip to Niger story was still not getting enough attention, Mr. Wilson finally stepped out from behind the curtain and wrote his now notorious op-ed piece for the New York Times, What I Didn’t Find in Africa.

Sometime after July 6th and before July 8th 2003 Richard Armitage told Robert Novak about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA. Mr. Novak then published that information in his column on July 14, 2007.

But Valerie Plame’s work at the CIA had almost certainly long since been disclosed to anyone who would listen by Joe Wilson. And he probably disclosed this information to promote himself, his fantasy about his "mission to Niger," and his new political career.

Remember, there was much talk within the Kerry camp that Joe Wilson might be the new administration’s Secretary Of State. The vainglorious Mr. Wilson surely had his eyes on that prize.

And any concern about the secrecy of his wife’s job at the CIA was a minor consideration compared to that lofty goal.

[Dronetek]

Did some searching and found out that picture's from a Vanity Fair article....that was published in January 2004. Months after Novak's column.

I must have been confused and gave you the wrong article. There was an article about her before any of this happened. She also donated $1000 to Al Gore's campign under her "covert" company name.

[Argyll]

The naming of any field operative needs to be addressed, this one should not be any different.

Maybe she was there to "Kick ass and chew gum", and she's all out of gum?

[Blackwater11114]

Wait, because her husband wrote an op-ed the administration didn't like they were "justified" in exposing a CIA officer? Brilliant.
Idiot ---- nobody "exposed" anybody..... she was never covert.... no laws broke... just partisan dem crap... god i hate this ****

[Hunterhr]

The naming of any field operative needs to be addressed, this one should not be any different.

Maybe she was there to "Kick ass and chew gum", and she's all out of gum?

I agree. Good thing Plame wasn't anything close to a 'field operative'.

[JKD]

Idiot
Ah, personal attacks. First sign of a weak argument.


---- nobody "exposed" anybody..... she was never covert....
Yes she was. Or do you know more than the Director of the CIA who said she was?


no laws broke... just partisan dem crap... god i hate this ****
Yes. Only democrats are being partisan here. Republicans are sooo above that sort of thing.

A covert CIA officer had her cover blown. And this country is weaker for it. You don't think governents, friend and foe alike, around the world are working to figure out who she had contact with? You don't think this puts her contacts and sources' lives at risk? You think it will make other CIA activities more difficult now that their potential sources know that they could end up dead due to some politcal "gotcha" back in the states. Forget Republicans and Democrats; Americans should be outraged.

I can remember in the late 90's as I watched in disgust the democrats rallying around Clinton who had just lied under oath. I found it shamefull that they put party loyalty above the law. Now, you see the same **** from the Republicans with regard to Libby and Plame.

[JKD]

I must have been confused and gave you the wrong article. There was an article about her before any of this happened.
Well, until you find it I won't be taking your word for it.


She also donated $1000 to Al Gore's campign under her "covert" company name.
Well, I guess it beats putting CIA down as her employer. I honestly don't know what their policy is towards this sort of thing and I doubt they're going to tell the general public what it is anyway.

....or are you mostly just upset that she isn't a republican?

[Dakota435]

Ah, personal attacks. First sign of a weak argument.


Yes she was. Or do you know more than the Director of the CIA who said she was?


Yes. Only democrats are being partisan here. Republicans are sooo above that sort of thing.

A covert CIA officer had her cover blown. And this country is weaker for it. You don't think governemts, friend and foe alike, around the world are working to figure out who she had contact with? You don't think this puts her contacts and sources' lives at risk? You think it will make other CIA activities more difficult now that their potential sources know that they could end up dead due to some politcal "gotcha" back in the states. Forget Republicans and Democrats; Americans should be outraged.

I can remember in the late 90's as I watched in disgust the democrats rallying around Clinton who had just lied under oath. I found it shamefull that they put party loyalty above the law. Now, you see the same **** from the Republicans with regard to Libby and Plame.

Do you have any actual evidence that she was covert under the relevant law?
In fact, when Judy Miller was about to be thrown into jail for refusing to testify, several news organizations went to bat for her, and made a very clear case that Plame (edit) was NOT covert and that therefore no law was broken. What more proof do you need than that?

Do you believe the memo where she recommends Wilson to her bosses, which she seems to believe never existed, is a forgery?

Are you saying that Armitage wasn't the original leaker to Novak, that the white house was? The record does not show that. The Libby trial made that clear.

If she was covert under the law, why didn't Fitz prosecute Armitage, who was the leaker, not anybody in the white house? Could it be that no law was broken because she wasn't covert, just an analyst?

Are you saying that Wilson was NOT going around leaking about his wife to everybody that would listen, as Armitage stated?

Do you assert that Wilson is NOT a brazen liar, spinning a story in an op ed that was exactly the opposite of what he actually reported, as the WMD Intelligence inquiry found?

Do you believe that the Wilsons have ANY credibility??? Is there ANYTHING they have asserted that is demonstrably true??

[Dronetek]

The naming of any field operative needs to be addressed, this one should not be any different.

Maybe she was there to "Kick ass and chew gum", and she's all out of gum?

They know who named her and don't seem very interested in getting him.


A covert CIA officer had her cover blown. And this country is weaker for it.
Again I ask you, if this is the case than why isn't anyone going after the people who leaked the covert programs to the NYT? The media gleefully puts Americans at risk to nail Bush, but nobdy cares to make a big deal about it since it dosnt fit the democrat fantasy storyline of scandal ridden republicans. If you are so concerned about Mrs.Plame, than where is the outrage that the democrats aren't trying to find who leaked the covert programs?


....or are you mostly just upset that she isn't a republican?
No, I'm just upset that partians like you and the democrats put the country at risk with your little politcal games. Everyone knows that if this were legit, the democrat oversight hearnings would be in full swing trying to find out who leaked those programs. Oh thats right, THOSE were wistleblowers, my bad.....

[Zoomie]

I couldn't help myself from laughing when I saw her testifying how "scared" she was for the welfare of her and her family. If she was truely scared, she would not have done the Vanity Fair article and photoshoot.

[JKD]

Again I ask you, if this is the case than why isn't anyone going after the people who leaked the covert programs to the NYT? The media gleefully puts Americans at risk to nail Bush, but nobdy cares to make a big deal about it since it dosnt fit the democrat fantasy storyline of scandal ridden republicans. If you are so concerned about Mrs.Plame, than where is the outrage that the democrats aren't trying to find who leaked the covert programs?
Again, for the third time now, I'm not defending that. The reason I'm not showing any outrage is because that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about Plame. Says so right in the title. If you want to, start a thread on the subject of the NYT and covert programs.



No, I'm just upset that partians like you and the democrats put the country at risk with your little politcal games. Everyone knows that if this were legit, the democrat oversight hearnings would be in full swing trying to find out who leaked those programs. Oh thats right, THOSE were wistleblowers, my bad.....

LOL. Did you just call me partisan? I'm a registered independant. I'm not a republican(though I used to be). I'm not a democrat.

[Limeyfellow]

<quote>I would suggest, if she was concerned with remaining anonymous, that she not use her connections to get her incompetent, lying husband, a job</quote>

Her husband is a liar and incompetent because he pointed out the papers that said Niger were providing uranium were signed by a guy who had been dead for years and had the wrong name of the country on it and the government still used it as evidence even after being told it was a total bs claim?

The main problem I see with revealing that one of our main CIA agents in charge of investigating wmds in Iran is it put all her contacts in risk and pretty much ended lots of investigations and put us back a decade in intelligence.

[name already taken]

Do you have any actual evidence that she was covert under the relevant law?
In fact, when Judy Miller was about to be thrown into jail for refusing to testify, several news organizations went to bat for her, and made a very clear case that Plame (edit) was NOT covert and that therefore no law was broken. What more proof do you need than that?

Yes there's evidence that she was covert under the relevant law: this enquiry. Which started as a lawsuit initiated by the CIA.

Who the hell can start lawsuits about covert agents ? You, me ?

And how does Judy Miller decide which or which law applies ? Is she an Attorney ? Or is it her GOP soundbox status that gives her this authority ?

And since when what she says constitute evidence ? Because she works for a newspaper ?

I doubt very much this kind of proof would be accepted in any court of law.

[JKD]

Do you have any actual evidence that she was covert under the relevant law?
In fact, when Judy Miller was about to be thrown into jail for refusing to testify, several news organizations went to bat for her, and made a very clear case that Plame (edit) was NOT covert and that therefore no law was broken. What more proof do you need than that? The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency going on record as saying she was covert....which he did.
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=plame&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit
start watching at around 41:50



If she was covert under the law, why didn't Fitz prosecute Armitage, who was the leaker, not anybody in the white house? Could it be that no law was broken because she wasn't covert, just an analyst?
Armitage wasn't prosecuted because it couldn't be proven he knew of her covert status when he leaked her name to the press.

It'll be interesting to see what new comes up as we get deeper into this hole.

[JKD]

I couldn't help myself from laughing when I saw her testifying how "scared" she was for the welfare of her and her family. If she was truely scared, she would not have done the Vanity Fair article and photoshoot.
Yeah because it's not like that was after Novak blew her cover and her face and name had been all over the news

[name already taken]

<quote>I would suggest, if she was concerned with remaining anonymous, that she not use her connections to get her incompetent, lying husband, a job</quote>


Joe Wilson wasn't paid to go to Nigeria. Only his expenses were.

He's a carreer diplomat. An Embassador to African countries and to Irak. This hardly qualifies as incompetent.

[Wiseman]

JKD,

That wasn't the Director of CIA but a representative from a state. However, I do believe she was. If this was not true, she would have been found out a long time ago. Whoever shared Secret and Top Secret material about her identity, is going to be in deep ****.

[JKD]

JKD,

That wasn't the Director of CIA but a representative from a state.
Yeah, I realize that. He was quoting him in a public hearing though. And he also said they had permission from the Agency to say she was covert in the hearings. As well as Plame, under oath, saying the same.

If they were lying the need to be called on it. I doubt they were though.


However, I do believe she was. If this was not true, she would have been found out a long time ago. Whoever shared Secret and Top Secret material about her identity, is going to be in deep ****.
Indeed, sir.

[Dakota435]

Joe Wilson wasn't paid to go to Nigeria. Only his expenses were.

He's a carreer diplomat. An Embassador to African countries and to Irak. This hardly qualifies as incompetent.

He's not incompetent at all. He is VERY competent at political manipulation. That every word from his mouth is a lie is beyond dispute.

[name already taken]

Michael Hayden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden), current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:
"took pains to set the record straight:" (http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/)Plame was indeed a covert agent
up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public.

Furthermore:

Plame's testimony proved illuminating on a number of fronts. Under
oath, articulate, and forceful, she laid to waste a veritable forest of myths (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEyMWE5NDUwZWMyNGIxZTAzYmU3YjMyODczYzNiOTU=)
that the right has erected against her.
http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/

So anybody who's still not convinced should go argue with this General of the Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden).

I won't try.

[Dakota435]

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency going on record as saying she was covert....which he did.
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=plame&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit
start watching at around 41:50



Armitage wasn't prosecuted because it couldn't be proven he knew of her covert status when he leaked her name to the press.

It'll be interesting to see what new comes up as we get deeper into this hole.

A statement about being "covert" and satisfying the requirements of the identities act are two different things. Nobody violated the law, because she didn't meet the requirements of the Act. No crime was ever committed, not by Armitage or anybody else. And in any case, the biggest leaker was Wilson himself.

[name already taken]

He's not incompetent at all. He is VERY competent at political manipulation. That every word from his mouth is a lie is beyond dispute.
An Embassador doesn't have to run in elections. So he isn't an expert in political manipulation.

And he wouldn't be accepted nor able to be very useful in his functions if he was perceived abroad as a crook and a manipulator.

The job of an embassodor abroad is to build trust and make friends. Not to manipulate.

[Dakota435]

Michael Hayden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden), current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:
"took pains to set the record straight:" (http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/)Plame was indeed a covert agent
up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public.

Furthermore:

So anybody who's still not convinced should go argue with this General of the Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden).

I won't try.

"No, she hadn't been the one to select her husband to go to on his fact-finding mission to Niger."

Clever spin there. Nobody ever asserted that she "selected" him. She recommended him to her superiors, as indicated in a memo she wrote, which she now denies.

[Dakota435]

An Embassador doesn't have to run in elections. So he isn't an expert in political manipulation.

And he wouldn't be accepted nor able to be very useful in his functions if he was perceived abroad as a crook and a manipulator.

The job of an embassodor abroad is to build trust and make friends. Not to manipulate.

Perceived or not, he is an on-the-record liar. And doing a 180 and saying the opposite of what you were saying a year before because you were now a consultant to the Kerry campaign is surely manipulative.

[AZRON]

Points:

I heard her say yesterday that she didn't know if she was covert , that she wasn't a lawyer.

This whole shenanigan of Politics as usual started when her husband wrote an editorial to the NYT. That editorial disagreed with his written report turned in to the CIA after visiting Niger. So Republican's smelled a rat and the games began.

If her career and cover were so important it seems her husband didn't know that.

Was this game an unentended consequence for Joe Wilson or was his seeking D.C. celebrity status the reason when he wrote the NYT ?

[Dakota435]

Yes there's evidence that she was covert under the relevant law: this enquiry. Which started as a lawsuit initiated by the CIA.

Who the hell can start lawsuits about covert agents ? You, me ?

And how does Judy Miller decide which or which law applies ? Is she an Attorney ? Or is it her GOP soundbox status that gives her this authority ?

And since when what she says constitute evidence ? Because she works for a newspaper ?

I doubt very much this kind of proof would be accepted in any court of law.

You don't seem to be familiar with the history. Miller was ordered to testify, refused, was charged with contempt, and in her defense several major media organizations petitioned the court to let her off on the grounds that there was no underlying crime. They basically showed that Plame didn't meet the requirements of the Identities Act. The judge ruled that that wasn't relevant and threw her in jail anyway.

[Dakota435]

Points:

I heard her say yesterday that she didn't know if she was covert , that she wasn't a lawyer.

This whole shenanigan of Politics as usual started when her husband wrote an editorial to the NYT. That editorial disagreed with his written report turned in to the CIA after visiting Niger. So Republican's smelled a rat and the games began.

If her career and cover were so important it seems her husband didn't know that.

Was this game an unentended consequence for Joe Wilson or was his seeking D.C. celebrity status the reason when he wrote the NYT ?

It started because Wilson joined Kerry's campaign as an advisor, and was speculated to be in line to be Kerry's Sec of State if he won. The whole thing was intended to assist the Kerry campaign.

[name already taken]

You don't seem to be familiar with the history. Miller was ordered to testify, refused, was charged with contempt, and in her defense several major media organizations petitioned the court to let her off on the grounds that there was no underlying crime. They basically showed that Plame didn't meet the requirements of the Identities Act. The judge ruled that that wasn't relevant and threw her in jail anyway.
Miller doesn't have anything to do with that. She was just a side show. She made all the noise possible to distract the public opinion from the real subject: the outing of Valerie Plame, CIA secret agent.

That's all what Miller is.

And by the way, history written by who ?

[name already taken]

It started because Wilson joined Kerry's campaign as an advisor, and was speculated to be in line to be Kerry's Sec of State if he won. The whole thing was intended to assist the Kerry campaign.
Joe Wilson was embassador of the United States a long time before John Kerry entered politics.

He is not an opportunist, his record is there to show it.

[name already taken]

Points:

I heard her say yesterday that she didn't know if she was covert , that she wasn't a lawyer.

This whole shenanigan of Politics as usual started when her husband wrote an editorial to the NYT. That editorial disagreed with his written report turned in to the CIA after visiting Niger. So Republican's smelled a rat and the games began.

If her career and cover were so important it seems her husband didn't know that.

Was this game an unentended consequence for Joe Wilson or was his seeking D.C. celebrity status the reason when he wrote the NYT ?
Joe Wilson is a retired Embassador of the United States.

Not everybody is in a position to make a claim like that.

[Dakota435]

Joe Wilson was embassador of the United States a long time before John Kerry entered politics.

He is not an opportunist, his record is there to show it.

What does that have to do with him becoming a consultant to the Kerry campaign?

[Dakota435]

Miller doesn't have anything to do with that. She was just a side show. She made all the noise possible to distract the public opinion from the real subject: the outing of Valerie Plame, CIA secret agent.

That's all what Miller is.

And by the way, history written by who ?

You don't really seem to understand all the facts. Never mind.

[name already taken]

"No, she hadn't been the one to select her husband to go to on his fact-finding mission to Niger."

Clever spin there. Nobody ever asserted that she "selected" him. She recommended him to her superiors, as indicated in a memo she wrote, which she now denies.
He wasn't paid as I said earlier, He was doing this for his country, only his travel expenses were paid, and the junket theory was an invention if **** Cheney to try to bring him down, him and his claims.

Claims that were verified by a former Embassador to Niger.

[name already taken]

You don't really seem to understand all the facts. Never mind.
You buy in the far right sound machine.

If it makes you happy that's ok with me.

[name already taken]

server is slow

[name already taken]

What does that have to do with him becoming a consultant to the Kerry campaign?
It wasn't Wilson who blewed Calerie Plame's cover. It was someone in the WhiteHouse.

And he wrote his op/ed not for political reasons, but because he was appalled such lies got in the Address to the Nation after the report he made.

[name already taken]

You don't seem to be familiar with the history. Miller was ordered to testify, refused, was charged with contempt, and in her defense several major media organizations petitioned the court to let her off on the grounds that there was no underlying crime. They basically showed that Plame didn't meet the requirements of the Identities Act. The judge ruled that that wasn't relevant and threw her in jail anyway.
I would've ruled the same way as the judge. Valerie Plame meeting or not meeting the requirements in another law is not relevant.

It must be debated in another cause in another court.

And as I posted before, the current CIA Director says Valerie Plame meets the requirements of the Identities Law.

Just a few posts earlier. So, too bad for these media's lawyers.

I don't understand how people can waste their attention on that and call this history :cantbeli:

[Dronetek]

It was someone in the WhiteHouse.


You know, I keep hearing this in the media of all places. If this is true, why hasnt anyone been arrested? Why have there been no charges after 2.5 years of investigation? I just love that the media and peole like you can make that claim, without anything to back it up.

[name already taken]

You know, I keep hearing this in the media of all places. If this is true, why hasnt anyone been arrested? Why have there been no charges after 2.5 years of investigation? I just love that the media and peole like you can make that claim, without a nything to back it up.
Because no one inside wants to. It's the WhiteHouse after all. And both the Senate and the House were rubber stamps for 6 years.

Subpoenas will do the work the WhiteHouse doesn't want to do.

[name already taken]

When no one wants to testify, things can hold for years.

And sometimes for generations.

[Dronetek]

When no one wants to testify, things can hold for years.



Yeah, not even Jow Wilson.

[name already taken]

Yeah, not even Jow Wilson.
He's not the one accused of anything...

[name already taken]

But don't worry Joe Wilson is getting Libby, Vice President **** Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage in a civil lawsuit.

You'll see him testify all you want.

[Dronetek]

He's not the one accused of anything...

Why do you think he wont testify?

[Zoomie]

Yeah because it's not like that was after Novak blew her cover and her face and name had been all over the news

Yeah, so you would then go out of your way to make it even more noticable to the public? One would think that she'd be laying low. :cantbeli:

[name already taken]

Why do you think he wont testify?
I don't think anything. You bring that:

Yeah, not even Jow Wilson.

[name already taken]

Yeah, so you would then go out of your way to make it even more noticable to the public? One would think that she'd be laying low. :cantbeli:
That wouldn't save her network of assets. Time for them to scram and that's it.