Oh, liberals believe the CIA all of a sudden?
btw, your link didn't work when I tried it.
Quote:This is all in the public domain Tico.. pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help your case.
Who's pretending it doesn't exist? I merely asked for some flesh to be put on the bones.
And what case of mine is that? I don't have a dog in this hunt.
Quote:Is it your contention Tico that the CIA did an investigation and the counterintelligence division requested a DoJ investigation as required by Federal law when there was no way that Plame was undercover?
No, Tico.. you are only pissing in the wind here. Too much evidence out there to show that she was.
Many of the histrionics in this thread from those who appear to be breathlessly desperate for Karl Rove to be fired then incarcerated, stem from my simple request that someone explain the basis for determining that Valerie Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in the USC. I don't have a contention ... I don't believe I've stated I think she is or isn't a "covert agent." I merely asked a question, and thought it was possible there was a simple answer, or a simple explanation for the basis for the belief that she meets the definition of a "covert agent." I've not received a good answer yet. But again, that's the reason for a grand jury, and if applicable, a criminal trial.
You know, of course, that establishing that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" is only the first step. It must also be shown that Rove knew that, and that he intended to "out" her.
But it appears that some in this thread, in stark contrast to their position with regard to the terrorists held in Gitmo, would prefer that Mr. Rove be considered guilty until proven innocent, and apparently see no need for a trial to establish any of the claims against him. Apparently, we are to listen to the CIA on this issue, but not any other?
And then there's this ....
Quote: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:31 p.m. EDT
Robert Novak: Plame Source 'No Partisan Gunslinger'
The Washington press corps and their Democratic friends have been too busy this week chasing down Karl Rove to notice that columnist Robert Novak has offered a tantalizing clue about the identity of just who it was who leaked Valerie Plame's name to him back in July 2003.
And judging from Novak's revelation - it wasn't Karl Rove.
Apparently it's been a while since any of the big media's newshounds bothered to read Novak's follow-up column on the Plame case on Oct. 1, 2003, where he talked about the man (woman?) who spilled Plame's name and thereby, according to Dems, committed the crime of the century.
"During a long conversation with a senior administration official," he wrote, "I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger."
No partisan gunslinger?
Even fans of Mr. Rove would be hard-presseed to deny he's a "partisan gunslinger" - just the kind of person Novak says his leaker wasn't.
Could Novak have been lying to protect Mr. Rove? Perhaps. But by the time he wrote the above words, the Plame leak was already under investigation by the Justice Department, a develpoment that would have guaranteed that he'd have to repeat that falsehood under oath.
