Chrissee wrote:Are you saying Fitzpatrick has come out with a definitive analysis of whether or not Plame was a "covert agent"?
Uh doh!!! Unless you assume he is a moron. The first witness he called was most likely a witness from the CIA establishing her covert status.
Okay ... so you HAVE assumed that because he's called witnesses in a Grand Jury investigation that means she was a "covert agent" as defined in the USCA?
Ticomaya wrote:Here 'tis:
Robert Novak wrote:Quote:A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations
.
Link.
Robert Novak column
"The one thing I regret I wrote. I used the word 'operative,' and I think [David] Broder will agree that I use the word too much. I use it about hack politicians. I use it about people on the Hill. And if somebody did a Nexis search of my columns, they'd find an overuse of 'operative.' I did not mean it."
Quote:The Hill columnist Josh Marshall took the "Nexis" challenge to see how Novak has used the term in past columns and found that Novak knows exactly what the term "agency operative" means:
I took Novak up on his Nexis challenge, and he does make frequent use of the word 'operative.' But the question is how he uses it in this context. I searched for all the times Novak has used the term 'agency operative' or 'CIA operative,' and I came up with six examples. In every case, Novak clearly used the phrase to refer to clandestine agents.... In other words, Novak knows the phrase 'agency operative' is a term of art with a very specific meaning. And he uses it advisedly. Now he says he used it in a completely different way when referring to Plame. That strains credulity, to put it mildly."
["Taking Novak up on his challenge over his one regret," The Hill, October 15, 2003]
So Tico, I can only assume that your are not all that familiar with Novak's usage of the term "operative" as what you posted was simply Novak's own statement about his use of the word. Interesting but very poor evidence of anything. In fact I would offer that your clarification of Novaks "operative" is even less credible than mine.
dyslexia wrote:So Tico, I can only assume that your are not all that familiar with Novak's usage of the term "operative" as what you posted was simply Novak's own statement about his use of the word.
If you did you'd be correct.
Quote: Interesting but very poor evidence of anything.
I suppose so.
Quote:In fact I would offer that your clarification of Novaks "operative" is even less credible than mine.
Perhaps Novak's memory is faulty? Or we shouldn't believe anything he writes?
<shrug> My only point, as you have pointed out, is that Novak had identified his use of the term "operative" was applied to political hacks over the years. Perhaps he did so while broadcasting, and not while typing? Who knows.
... but I certainly agree that your analysis on this issue is up to its usual depth. :wink:
No, but Tico may be familiar with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which statute is violated when:
1) a person having access to classified information that identifies a "covert agent" discloses the agent's identity to a person not authorized to receive the information, where the person making the disclosure knows that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States";
2) same thing, only the person making the disclosure "learns the identity of a covert agent" through his access to classified information; or
3) a person discloses the identity of a covert agent "in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
<Edited to include link>
Quote:Perhaps Novak's memory is faulty? Or we shouldn't believe anything he writes?
<shrug> My only point, as you have pointed out, is that Novak had identified his use of the term "operative" was applied to political hacks over the years. Perhaps he did so while broadcasting, and not while typing? Who knows.
No offense, Tico, but this kind of weaseling statement is best left to Lash.
Ifs, maybes and who knows, golly, the only thing missing from the complete passive/aggressive cop-out is the word 'whatever".
Okay.
Back to the pitching and hitting.
Joe(Who knows? Bob knows.)Nation
Conyers' letter to Bush
July 7, 2005
The President
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We write in order to urge that you require your Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, to either come forward immediately to explain his role in the Valerie Plame matter or to resign from your Administration.
Notwithstanding whether Mr. Rove intentionally violated the law in leaking information concerning former CIA operative Valerie Plame, we believe it is not tenable to maintain Mr. Rove as one of your most important advisors unless he is willing to explain his central role in using the power and authority of your Administration to disseminate information regarding Ms. Plame and to undermine her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
We now know that e-mails recently turned over by Time, Inc. between writer Matthew Cooper and Time editors reveal that one of Mr. Cooper's principal sources in the Plame matter was Mr. Rove. This has been confirmed by Newsweek and two lawyers representing witnesses involved in the investigation. Mr. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, also has confirmed that Mr. Rove was interviewed by Mr. Cooper in connection with a possible article about Ms. Plame three or four days before Robert Novak wrote a column outing Ms. Plame as a CIA operative.
We also know that Mr. Rove told Chris Matthews that Ambassador Wilson's wife and her undercover status were "fair game." A White House source also appears to have previously acknowledged that Mr. Rove contacted Mr. Matthews and other journalists, indicating that "it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger."
The above facts appear to be directly inconsistent with previous statements by you and representatives of your Administration concerning leaking in general and the Plame case in particular. For example, on September 30, 2003, you stated "there's just too many leaks [in Washington]. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." You also stated "I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business." On October 10, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked if Mr. Rove or two other aides in your Administration had ever discussed the Plame matter with any reporter, and he stated he had spoken to Mr. Rove and the others and "they assured me that they were not involved in this."
Regardless of whether these actions violate the law - including specific laws against the disclosure of classified information as well as broader laws against obstruction of justice, the negligent distribution of defense information, and obligating reporting of press leaks to proper authorities - they seem to reveal a course of conduct designed to threaten and intimidate those who provide information critical of your Administration, such as Ambassador Wilson.
We hope you agree with us that such behavior should never be tolerated by any Administration. While it is acceptable for a private citizen to use every legal tool at his or her disposal to protect himself against legal liability, high-ranking members of your Administration who are involved in any effort to smear a private citizen or to disseminate information regarding a CIA operative should be expected to meet a far higher standard of ethical behavior and forthrightness. This is why we believe it is so important that Mr. Rove publicly and fully explain his role in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ha ha, this is too easy, Novak is such a LIAR!
from warandpiece.com
Quote:ovak Now Says He Shouldn't Have Said "Operative":
Two days ago I pointed out a glaring inconsistency in Novak's excuse for why he used Wilson's wife's name in his July 14th column. In the column, he called Wilson's wife a "CIA Operative." But on Monday's Crossfire, he insisted that he was told by confidential sources at the CIA that she was only an analyst and that no harm would be done by naming her.
But yesterday, on Tuesday's Crossfire, Novak tried to distance himself from his use of "operative" in his original column:
"NOVAK: I want to abuse -- I want to abuse my privilege and take a little personal privilege here, just say that, in the column I wrote that has caused all this fuss, there's one bad word in there.
"I referred to Mrs. Wilson as a CIA operative. I use the word operative for cheap politicians, you know, like you and Klain. And I just use it indiscriminately. It doesn't have any meaning. And I certainly don't know what she did for the CIA. And neither does anybody at this table."
Now as Novak has pointed out earlier, he has been reporting from Washington for 46 years, and he CERTAINLY knows the difference between an operative or an analyst. That he is now feigning like it was a slip on the keyboard is highly revealing.
Esp. because it's pretty clear from the recent fracas that Wilson's wife was not an analyst, but was an indeed a covert operative, whose identity is classified.
Joe Nation wrote:Quote:Perhaps Novak's memory is faulty? Or we shouldn't believe anything he writes?
<shrug> My only point, as you have pointed out, is that Novak had identified his use of the term "operative" was applied to political hacks over the years. Perhaps he did so while broadcasting, and not while typing? Who knows.
No offense, Tico, but this kind of weaseling statement is best left to Lash.
Ifs, maybes and who knows, golly, the only thing missing from the complete passive/aggressive cop-out is the word 'whatever".
What do you find "weaseling" about it? I stated what my point was.
If you're concerned about "ifs, maybes and who knows," and let's not forget conjecture, hypothesis, assumption, and of course fantasy, then you should really be upset about this entire thread, because that's what it's based upon.
Chrissee wrote:Are you saying Fitzpatrick has come out with a definitive analysis of whether or not Plame was a "covert agent"?
Uh doh!!! Unless you assume he is a moron. The first witness he called was most likely a witness from the CIA establishing her covert status.
Read the relevant law:
Quote:US Code: TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 426
§ 426. Definitions
Release date: 2005-03-17
For the purposes of this subchapter:
(1) The term "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
(2) The term "authorized", when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities.
(3) The term "disclose" means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.
(5) The term "intelligence agency" means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(6) The term "informant" means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.
(7) The terms "officer" and "employee" have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5.
(8) The term "Armed Forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(9) The term "United States", when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term "pattern of activities" requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective.
Think about it. Think about all those "and"s, "or"s, "whiles", "who is"s and "whose"s. Then read pages 240-242 of Wilson's own book, wherein he details meeting, courting, and marrying Plame, and the birth of their twins. Next, recall and consider the legal requirements of US Code: TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 426, as quoted above, pertaining to time-and-location of service. Hint: it is charitable to say it is improbable Plame met the qualifications at the time of Novak's column. Not impossible, granted, but a) undemonstrated, b) unclaimed, and c) improbable.
Joe Nation wrote:Quote:Perhaps Novak's memory is faulty? Or we shouldn't believe anything he writes?
<shrug> My only point, as you have pointed out, is that Novak had identified his use of the term "operative" was applied to political hacks over the years. Perhaps he did so while broadcasting, and not while typing? Who knows.
No offense, Tico, but this kind of weaseling statement is best left to Lash.
Ifs, maybes and who knows, golly, the only thing missing from the complete passive/aggressive cop-out is the word 'whatever".
Okay.
Back to the pitching and hitting.
Joe(Who knows? Bob knows.)Nation
I've heard Novak and others on Capital Gang and other news shows refer to people as political operatives.
Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it hasn't been said.
Re Novak's use of the word "operative" - discussed briefly
HERE
Fitzpatrick has got to get the dumbass prosecutor of the century of the award, wasting all this time when no crime has been committed.LOL
Quote:Now, that's just one example, which happened to be conveniently handy, but I've listend to, watched, and read Novak for years. He uses the word to describe damned near any functionary to whom he might be referring, and always has.
Ok Timber that is an example, one example, and I heard yesterday Bob Woodward say essentially the same thing. What concerns me is that one example does not constitute an explantion of why Novak used the word "operative" when refering to Plame. He has stated that he is sorry and that he mis-used the term whick is all fair and good but he bottom line is that he did "out" Plame and he got the information (he says) from inside the white house. (apparently from Rove although I really don't care where he got it) and he also admits that he was asked NOT to use her name but did anyway. I don't personally regard this as responsible journalism and think it reeks of stinky ethics to advance the whitehouse agenda over truth and justice (no crime here, move along folks) the politics as usual crowd offers condolences for the way things are but, (perhaps just a few citizens) are really fed up with the ongoing crap from both sides of the aisle. I guess what I often hear from you and others is that "that's the way it is" but I have to rebut that "that's not the way it should be and it's up to us to change it". There are conservatives as well as liberals with a strong sense of ethics and it's damn time we advance the cause.
Chrissee wrote:Fitzpatrick has got to get the dumbass prosecutor of the century of the award, wasting all this time when no crime has been committed.LOL
Silly prosecutors.
Just think of all those criminal trials where the defendant is acquitted. See, if the prosecutor wasn't a "dumbass," he/she wouldn't have charged the defendant with a crime in the first place. And to all those dumbass prosecutors who employ the grand jury system to determine whether to charge a defendant ... if they only had a lick of sense, they wouldn't even go through the process unless an indictment was assured.
Yes, it would be a perfect world ... if prosecutors weren't such "dumbasses."
