Your preconceptions structure your assessment, Cyc - you're projecting. No actual evidence of any conspiracy, coverup, or even of an actual intentional leak has been released. I don't claim there is no such evidence, I don't claim anything other than merely that none has been produced and made accessible to the public. I note that in the matter at discussion no trial has yet commenced, let alone been concluded, and that as yet there has been released no finding of fact pertaining to any of the allegations.
Quote:Merry Christmas to you and yours, too, bernie, and all the best in the coming year. BTW - have you seen our friend? She popped into A2K under a new nom de 'net here quite recently. If you do cross paths, please extend my warmest regards to her as well.
We had dinner together five or six days ago. I'll pass on your greetings as soon as we see her again.
AGAIN:
Career
Due to the nature of her clandestine work for the CIA, details about Plame's professional career are still classified. While undercover, she described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations, according to Boston Globe reporters Ross Kerber and Bryan Bender, who searched for "Brewster Jennings" in Dunn & Bradstreet, the New Jersey operator of commercial databases. According to them, "Brewster Jennings" first entered D&B records on May 22 1994; but, when contacted directly, D&B personnel would not discuss the source of the filing. Although D&B records lists the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts, given the CIA's later acknowledgment and the dead end reached by Kerber and Bender in their attempts to learning more about it, one does doubt that Plame actually "worked" for it.[7]
Valerie Plame was identified as a NOC by Elisabeth Bumiller, in an article published in the New York Times on 5 October 2003:
But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.[8]
In "NOC, NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent," an article published in the October 19, 2003, issue of Time magazine, Michael Duffy and Timothy J. Burger highlight that "The unmasking of Valerie Plame sheds light on the shadowy world of NOCs, spies with nonofficial cover," relating:
Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s ?- say, as a U.S. embassy attache ?- before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is." . . . . Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.[9]
Larry C. Johnson, "a former CIA analyst who was in Plame's officer training class in 1985-86"[10], left the Agency in 1989, and later served as Deputy Director for Special Operations, Transportation Security, and Anti-Terrorism Assistance in the U.S. State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism until October 1993, has posted as a "special guest" in a blog on 13 June 2005 that prior to Novak's column of 14 July 2003 Valerie Plame was indeed a "non-official cover operative" (NOC):
Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. . . . Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.[11]
Johnson, joined by ten other CIA officials, has presented a formal statement to the U.S. Congressional investigation into this matter dated July 18, 2005, addressing the consequences of disclosing Plame's identity in detail.[12]
Special Counsel Fitzgerald affirmed further that Plame served in a classified position as a CIA officer and the necessity for protecting such classified information during his October 28, 2005 press conference:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.[13]
"[T]he 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act . . . makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the name of a covert agent" (italics added).[14] When asked if he could ascertain whether or not Libby had revealed Plame's covert status "knowingly," Special Counsel Fitzgerald responded:
Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion. (Italics added.)[13]
Early in November 2005, posting as a guest in the blog No Quarter, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson responds further to the ongoing dispute about Valerie Plame's status as a CIA NOC:
There is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person "served" overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed. . . .[15]
On February 3, 2006, court papers were released to the public pertaining to arguments held a year earlier before the United States Court of Appeals for the Distict of Columbia regarding the need for testimony from Judith Miller and Matt Cooper. Also released was a August 27, 2004 affidavit of Patrick Fitzgerald. In the affidavit, Fitzgerald states "[Judith Miller's] testimony is essential to determining whether Libby is guilty of crimes, including perjury, false statements, and the improper disclosure of national defense information."[16] In a footnote to that argument, Fitzgerald writes:
If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.
In the February 15, 2005 ruling on the issue, the court's opinion states:
As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years"?-representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.) (Italics added.)[16]
An article published in Newsweek on 13 February 2006 construes the information in the released documents as implying that Fitzgerald had indeed determined Valerie Plame was a covert agent.[17][18]
cicerone, this is rarely mentioned, but Valerie Plame herself is the one that outed herself originally to Joseph Wilson before they married. I think that started the ball rolling in terms of her cover starting to become unraveled. I believe Wilson himself outed her identity. This beyond the likelihood of the Cubans and Russians knowing of her identity years ago. Further, if anyone outed Plame more recently, it was Armitage. He has admitted it early on, Fitzgerald had all the information early in this investigation, and if there was a crime, he should make Armitage accountable. Instead, he continues an investigation of other people because he has a template to fulfull and because he does not wish to catch Armitage. Fitzgerald himself said in a press conference years ago that no crime had been committed in the outing as far as he had determined. As Armitage points out, his revelation was not knowingly breaking a law, and for any criminal act to be confirmed, intent is crucial.
As this case drags on, Fitzgerald himself is doing more damage to national security by drawing vultures to a carcass, and studying it, analyzing it, and basically beating a dead horse, a horse that was not involved in a crime. When is the man going to wake up and quit this nonsensical case?
okie, That's a new one! Plame outed herself, and Fitzgerald is doing more damage to our intelligence activity.
Your conclusions; Plame is the one that talked to the news media, and Fitzgerald has no business investigating law breaking at the federal level.
Only Bushites think that way.
You need to do some thinking, cicerone. Lest someone accuse me of getting this from Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Party, or some other right wing blog or something, this is my thought on this fiasco as I ponder it over in my own mind, cicerone, and I think it is legitimate. The outing herself to Wilson is technically correct. It does not need to be to a news reporter. And unless Fitzgerald files charges for the crime his grand jury was intended to investigate, I do think he is doing tremendous damage by simply drawing attention to this. Listen, cicerone, this is not complicated. If he knows the original leaker, and has for a long time, which we all understand now to be Armitage I believe, and he is not going to file charges, then what is the purpose of carrying this on? The man, Fitzgerald, ought to be strung up here soon for continuing this mockery, if he has no intention of doing anything beyond trying to hang Libby for a procedural crime.
THE CLUE: Ponder in your own mind. ha ha ha You're funny!
okie wrote:You need to do some thinking, cicerone. Lest someone accuse me of getting this from Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Party, or some other right wing blog or something, this is my thought on this fiasco as I ponder it over in my own mind, cicerone, and I think it is legitimate. The outing herself to Wilson is technically correct. It does not need to be to a news reporter. And unless Fitzgerald files charges for the crime his grand jury was intended to investigate, I do think he is doing tremendous damage by simply drawing attention to this. Listen, cicerone, this is not complicated. If he knows the original leaker, and has for a long time, which we all understand now to be Armitage I believe, and he is not going to file charges, then what is the purpose of carrying this on? The man, Fitzgerald, ought to be strung up here soon for continuing this mockery, if he has no intention of doing anything beyond trying to hang Libby for a procedural crime.
It is erroneous to believe that Armitage was the only leaker, or that there was no collusion amongst the upper echelons of the admin. to retaliate by outing the name.
According to you, Fitzgerald ought to be 'strung up' for doing his
job. This is the process by which one attacks organized crime : flipping those at the bottom.
You are incredibly biased, to protect people who you know are liars...
Cycloptichorn
Its called common sense, cicerone, if the man cannot even establish a crime was committed, for which the grand jury was formed years ago, I would say the man is an utter absolute failure and an embarrassment. Some things are mind boggling. Such as the Duke rape case. There is another one that is so far out, you could swear it couldn't happen, but it did.
By the way, what happened to this story?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242
I really think Mr. Wilson should be put under oath. In fact, how come he hasn't been?
So according to this article and an interview with the ret. General Wilson was running around shooting of his mouth to just about any one that would listen. He would introduce her as his "CIA wife". I would say that he blew her cover a long time ago. This is starting to smack more and more of politics at its worst.
Walter, Betcha dollars to donuts people like okie will "hang on" to this story as their last thread to argue their point. They wouldn't know a liar if they saw themselves in the mirror.
So you are going to use a group whos sole aim is to dispute conservative media sources? Do they preform the same service for the rest of the main stream liberal media? If they don't, they are bias and really aren't a media matters source but a liberal media matters only source.
cicerone imposter wrote:Walter, Betcha dollars to donuts people like okie will "hang on" to this story as their last thread to argue their point. They wouldn't know a liar if they saw themselves in the mirror.
No, if its totally disproven, fine. How come the general has not been put under oath? How come Wilson hasn't? Thats all. Why isn't Fitzgerald pursuing the truth?
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp
One thing I do know for sure. The Wilsons are media hounds. They are as suspicious as anyone else in this case. We know Wilson lied about how he got the gig going to Niger. If we are interested in lying, how come we aren't suspicious of the Wilsons?
One other reminder, Novak learned Plames name in Whos Who of America.
Baldimo wrote:
So you are going to use a group whos sole aim is to dispute conservative media sources? Do they preform the same service for the rest of the main stream liberal media? If they don't, they are bias and really aren't a media matters source but a liberal media matters only source.
Well, you think, the links they provided are biased as well?
okie, Just because the Wilson's might be media hounds (now), that doesn't prove they outed themselves. As for the "who's who in America," it only identifies Valerie as his wife; nothing more or less.
So what exactly is your point?
Vallely's statements pertaining to "Who knew what about Valerie when and why"- while purportedly at least in part somewhat validated by
statements made by Gen. Tom McInerny - have been sorta all-over-the-place. A ding in the "Conspiracy To Get Wilson" frenzy"? Certainly, but not much more, without further detail and corroboration. On the other hand, Bob Woodward
Ripped The Bottom Out of the "Conspiracy to Get Wilson" frenzy.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, Just because the Wilson's might be media hounds (now), that doesn't prove they outed themselves. As for the "who's who in America," it only identifies Valerie as his wife; nothing more or less.
So what exactly is your point?
My point is there is ample reason to question the character and motives of the Wilsons, and the identity of her and her job was not a giant leap for anyone curious about it. I think instead of suspecting a conspiracy in the administration against the Wilsons, there is more reason to believe the opposite. How come Armitage is not being sued for the same violations in the civil suit? Is he part of the conspiracy? Are they simply naming him in the suit simply out of duty to try to look unbiased? After all, Novak claims he went out of his way to make sure Novak got all the information on it, instead of a simple casual conversation as Armitage claims. Were they attempting to frame Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc.? Legitimate questions in my opinion. The Wilsons have shown themselves to be highly partisan with an axe to grind, and not unbiased employees simply doing their job at the CIA as they have falsely claimed.
And an innocent man is normally not going to try to avoid testifying under oath, which Wilson is now doing.
New rule: I ignore people who use world net daily or newsmax as sources.
