Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Re: Stand up and be counted

Ticomaya wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Ok, all A2Kers, if you are a covert operative, stand up and be counted.

If you are not, switch over to the Fitzgeral Investigation:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56457&highlight=

It's getting really boring here.

BBB

lol ... is that the "Tico isn't allowed to ask tough questions here" thread? Go ahead and have your fun ... if I don't have to read Chrissee write the word "canard" again that would suit me fine.

Tico, you've discovered another way to kill a good thread. Repetitive anal retentive nit picking resulting in boring the thread to death.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Stand up and be counted

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Ok, all A2Kers, if you are a covert operative, stand up and be counted.

If you are not, switch over to the Fitzgeral Investigation:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56457&highlight=

It's getting really boring here.

BBB

lol ... is that the "Tico isn't allowed to ask tough questions here" thread? Go ahead and have your fun ... if I don't have to read Chrissee write the word "canard" again that would suit me fine.

Tico, you've discovered another way to kill a good thread. Repetitive anal retentive nit picking resulting in boring the thread to death.

BBB

"I" discovered it? lol.

Sorry you find it boring, BBB. Perhaps there's a good gardening thread you can read.

0 Replies

Tico, have fun talking to yourself.

0 Replies

I thought you were ignoring me.

0 Replies

I don't understand why anyone would cite Novak as any kind of evidence to back up any position. To my mind he is the sorriest reporter in this whole mess. Novak can write a hundred op-ed pieces and it will not erase the fact that he was involved in exposing Valerie Plame's name for political purposes by making out like the CIA were dupes of a manipulation by the Wilson's. It was simply a 'destroy the dissenter' political tactic that has blown up in their faces.

I still would like a legal definition of an undercover agent to show how it is distinct from a covert agent and the law that you and clylop claim exist for an undercover agent that is different than the law for a covert agent. And why it makes an all powerful difference in the first place when talking of the whole plamegate matter.

0 Replies

Hey, I'm no expert on laws.

I'm just repeating my early cautions to not get wrapped up in a single statute here; there are a wide variety of laws which could have been broken, including Perjury and Conspiracy and Obstruction of Justice.

And I agree that quoting Novak is retarded. He's the scumbag who started this whole mess by doing something he shouldn't have, and now he's just trying to CYA.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I don't understand why anyone would cite Novak as any kind of evidence to back up any position. To my mind he is the sorriest reporter in this whole mess. Novak can write a hundred op-ed pieces and it will not erase the fact that he was involved in exposing Valerie Plame's name for political purposes by making out like the CIA were dupes of a manipulation by the Wilson's. It was simply a 'destroy the dissenter' political tactic that has blown up in their faces.

I'm not citing Novak to back up any position. But he is involved in "this whole mess," and therefore his latest missive is interesting, IMO.

Quote:

I still would like a legal definition of an undercover agent to show how it is distinct from a covert agent and the law that you and clylop claim exist for an undercover agent that is different than the law for a covert agent. And why it makes an all powerful difference in the first place when talking of the whole plamegate matter.

I'd check with parados ... he seems to know the definition of "undercover," since he has determined it is synonymous with "covert agent." Ask him where he got his definition of the term.

It makes a difference only because nobody that I know of is questioning whether she was "undercover." I'm certainly not ... I'm willing to concede, arguendo, that it seems likely she was, at least at some point in her career. Perhaps even as she worked a desk at Langley. If she wasn't, this surely is a lot of hullabaloo about nothing. But let's say she was undercover over in Europe, but was brought back to the US in 1997, let's say .... because it was discovered that Aldrich Ames had "outed" her a few years prior, for instance. In that event, if she had not served outside of the US in the 5 years prior to the disclosure of her status with the CIA, then she is not a "covert agent," and therefore the IIPA would not apply to her.

0 Replies

I post Novak's column in this thread, and am chastized by revel and Cyclops.

BBB posts the column in the other thread, and is thanked by sumac.

Laughing

0 Replies

You are agreeing that if she was not an undercover agent then this has been much ado about nothing. Finally we are getting somewhere. But then you turn around and mess it by saying something that don't make any sense.

Quote:

But let's say she was undercover over in Europe, but was brought back to the US in 1997, let's say .... because it was discovered that Aldrich Ames had "outed" her a few years prior, for instance. In that event, if she had not served outside of the US in the 5 years prior to the disclosure of her status with the CIA, then she is not a "covert agent," and therefore the IIPA would not apply to her.

If her identity has been exposed why in the world would the CIA recommend that an investigation be conducted because of the exposing of her identity?

0 Replies

Tico

Quote:

I post Novak's column in this thread, and am chastized by revel and Cyclops.

BBB posts the column in the other thread, and is thanked by sumac.

Sorry, didn't mean to chastize ya. I worded my previous post poorly and in haste; my chastisement was meant for Novak.

Actually I've had more fun with ya in this thread than probably any other!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I ditto cyclop about the Novak column and tico posting it.

I still think that Novak is sorriest reporter in this bunch and his statements now don't amount to a hill of beans.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

You are agreeing that if she was not an undercover agent then this has been much ado about nothing. Finally we are getting somewhere.

We actually don't get anywhere with that. I've never questioned her status as an "undercover" agent with the CIA. If she's was under cover working her desk job at Langley, then she was. Perhaps it's a crime to reveal the name of an undercover desk jockey at Langley. If it isn't, shouldn't it be?

Quote:

But then you turn around and mess it by saying something that don't make any sense.

Quote:
But let's say she was undercover over in Europe, but was brought back to the US in 1997, let's say .... because it was discovered that Aldrich Ames had "outed" her a few years prior, for instance. In that event, if she had not served outside of the US in the 5 years prior to the disclosure of her status with the CIA, then she is not a "covert agent," and therefore the IIPA would not apply to her.

If her identity has been exposed why in the world would the CIA recommend that an investigation be conducted because of the exposing of her identity?

If her identity was exposed by Ames in 1994, the CIA might find her cover compromised (at least with the select group Ames provided the info to), and decide to not send her back overseas. But that doesn't mean it condones the names of its undercover operatives being bandied about, and surely the dissemination of an "undercover" operative's name must be illegal. But it does not appear the IIPA proscribes such action.

0 Replies

Its all Point of View, Tico. Consider the sources and the contexts. Remember This and This? Compare the characters involved with pushing The Opposition's position on those two threads with those pushing the Opposition's position on this thread.

0 Replies

She had a Super Duper Top Secret desk job at Langley, Tico Smile

0 Replies

Yes indeed, Timber.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

She had a Super Duper Top Secret desk job at Langley, Tico

"Double" secret?

0 Replies

Whether Ms Plame was or not a covert operative is only but one of the numerous issues involved in the Bush administration strategy of weakness and medieval secrecy. Whether Novak is only but a servile mouthpiece for his political rulers is a non sequitur. That he describes himself as a journalist is an affront to all those working the profession.

Bush as his first namesake King George thinks he can do no wrong. That was true in God granted royalty but is certainly in any democracy an affront at the basic principle of such. Bush believes and his adorable followers believe in infallibility. Yet Bush and his derelict minions have been wrong time and time again. They have misled the country and buried the consequences in the absolute incredible ignorance of the American public for all that isn't American pie and stupid claims of being better than all the world. That Bush won with such a large majority in 2004 is an affront to all well informed and educated Americans (although with the current education programs there will be far less of them).

Wake up America: your current world standing is just one of a declining empire, out of its wits and in touch with reality (one has to wonder the vociferous appetite of America for well scripted "reality shows"). Consumerism rules us better than any dictator alive or dead, We export jobs and create trade deficits to give ourselves the standard of living we so crave like drug addicts give away their lives. But it is never our fault. Always that of others that apparently have taken away our free will.

WE so bask in that culture of irresponsibility that while we accept our ever increasing trade deficits we also accept as matter of fact the that e have this God's gift of being on a world's free lunch.

The Plame and Wilson affair exemplifies this. Some people in America are willing to accept for political gain the outing of classified information in order to subsidize their thirst for power. That affair has never been for policy gains (albeit some defend it such as Tyco's transparent lust for politics rather than policy and patriotism behind his lame attempts at legalese). It's been brutal political backroom strategies that gain little if contempt for their supporters by some people willing to question and make accountable the ones they elect.

It was dead wrong for any administration officials to out a CIA member. They know it, most caring people do. You just don't out Secret service people . It's classified information. You don't out people working within the nation's quest in the war on terorism

Caught between a rock and a hard place, the Bush Repugnant administration chooses the gutter lower road of Nixon. Lie until you can't. Be totally irresponsible until you are exposed. Then hopefully, get a pardon from your successor. Nixon was scum. Led the country to an all time moral low. Bush sets with his gang of thugs (including a few convicted felons) a new standard for scum as only Texans can in their trust that all is ever so bigger in Texas: super scum. Sorry if I offended a few naïve Texans. The idea is not to offend you. It's to shame Bush and his attempt to demonize what so many Americans have fought and die for: our democracy and it's underlining principle of accountability.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
She had a Super Duper Top Secret desk job at Langley, Tico

"Double" secret?

Yep...and a bumper sticker that says "Honk If You're Covert Like Me" LOL.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, you sorta committed to your "it isn't POSSIBLE" claim, but I notice you left yourself an "out" in the event of "another possible explanation." While I'm not making the case for it, Cyclops seems to be of the mind that one other explanation is a violation of some other law, perhaps the Espionage Act, or some other violation of classified information laws. I've previously stated another plausible explanation, which you discount.

That's the point Tico. You can't make a logical case to dispute it. Your only explanations ignore known facts and are easily disputed.

Quote:

And if you truly believe that "undercover" and "covert agent" are synonymous, you are either dense, haven't been paying attention, or are willing to say anything in the hopes of "winning" an argument.

Switching from strawman to ad hominem Tico?

Quote:

Or you meant to say something else. I do not think your are dense, nor do I think you haven't been paying attention. I trust I don't need to set forth here again the very specific legal definition of "covert agent" for you? I know you have read it before, so are you seriously contending that "undercover" is synonymous with that legal definition in the IIPA? That would be a ridiculous thing to claim. I'm sure you meant to say something else.

In the off-chance that you actually meant it, care to explain how you contend "undercover" and "covert agent" are synonymous?

Failure to cite a specific law that covers an "undercover agent" as opposed to a "covert agent" makes them synonymous in this instance. You can not show me a way that revealing the name of an undercover agent rises to the standard of breaking the law unless they are also covert. All covert agents are undercover but not all undercover agents are necessarily covert. Only revealing the names of a covert agent is against the law. If it is determined to be against the law to reveal the name of a specific "undercover" agent then that agent must be covert. There is no other logical explanation.

Spin away Tico. The sky is not green no matter how many times you question the color of blue it is.

0 Replies

png, Excellent post; it's straightforward and factual. Looking forward to reading more of your posts.

0 Replies

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know