1
   

Plame Testifies Before Congress:Confirms She Was Covert

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Mar, 2007 08:32 pm
okie wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457846/posts

Melvin Schuetz from Baylor's Moody Library forwarded Joseph Wilson's bio from the 2003 edition of Who's Who in America [Volume 2 (L-Z)]. He notes:

Wilson's entry carries over about 5 lines to the next column, which is why it cuts off in mid-sentence at the end. The relevant text is "m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998," which not only appears in the 2003 edition, but ALL editions from 1999-2005!

So, via Who's Who, the name "Valerie Plame" has been associated publicly with Joe Wilson since the Clinton era - nice secret...

Duh, she's been married to him since then. You will also find that not one of those Who's Who ever mentions that Plame works for the CIA. Nor did anyone figure out she worked at the CIA from those Who's Who entries.

Your argument is still silly okie..

If I state "the President is stupid" and someone goes to the WH website and finds out that Bush is president, does that mean they found out Bush is stupid from the WH website? I don't think even you would argue that it does, but that is your exact argument about Plame and Who's Who.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 12:15 am
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
Nice try, Parados, but if you have classified information derived from x + y, it doesn't seem too bright to go around publishing what x is, does it?
Preposterous argument since there is no x+ y creating classified information. there is X and there is Y.

We are talking about connecting the dots, and the actual example is Novak, showing that it is not a preposterous argument at all, because it happened. He didn't have all the dots, so he simply went to Whos Who, and got the remainder of the dots, and connected them. I never claimed the Whos Who information outed Plame all by itself, however it helped facilitate the outing, as revealed to and written about by Novak.

It is totally illogical in my opinion for covert agents to have any information published about them in ways such as this. And this example proves it.

Whos Who is not the only place Wilson disclosed his wife's identity. Okay, so he did not say she was a covert agent, but intelligence agencies around the world are not stupid. Any information surrounding a guy that is running off his mouth about WMD for the CIA is probably going to be run through the computers of intelligence agencies around the world, and that would include anything and everything that is connected with him, surely including his wife. After all, they only need to refer to Whos Who to find her name. Novak is not the only person capable of connecting dots. He did it without a computer.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:11 am
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
Nice try, Parados, but if you have classified information derived from x + y, it doesn't seem too bright to go around publishing what x is, does it?
Preposterous argument since there is no x+ y creating classified information. there is X and there is Y.

We are talking about connecting the dots, and the actual example is Novak, showing that it is not a preposterous argument at all, because it happened. He didn't have all the dots, so he simply went to Whos Who, and got the remainder of the dots, and connected them. I never claimed the Whos Who information outed Plame all by itself, however it helped facilitate the outing, as revealed to and written about by Novak.
He had the dot already. He knew that Mrs Joe Wilson was a CIA agent from 2 sources. There is only ONE Mrs Joe Wilson. Whether she is referred to by Wilson or Plame doesn't really matter, they are the same person.
Quote:

It is totally illogical in my opinion for covert agents to have any information published about them in ways such as this. And this example proves it.
Your example proves nothing. It certainly proves no more than my example which by your logic would mean the WH website is disclosing that Bush is an idiot.
Quote:
``11
Whos Who is not the only place Wilson disclosed his wife's identity. Okay, so he did not say she was a covert agent, but intelligence agencies around the world are not stupid. Any information surrounding a guy that is running off his mouth about WMD for the CIA is probably going to be run through the computers of intelligence agencies around the world, and that would include anything and everything that is connected with him, surely including his wife.
And that computer search would have found nothing about Mrs Wilson or Plame working for the CIA. Wilson hardly disclosed anything that was secret. It would be much easier to do a computer search of property records or marriage records if you wanted to find the name of his wife.
Quote:
After all, they only need to refer to Whos Who to find her name. Novak is not the only person capable of connecting dots. He did it without a computer.


Your logic - if someone reveals something about someone and it can only be one person but that name isn't revealed in the original statement than any place that reveals that name is contributing to revealing that thing.


I have revealed that the current President is an idiot therefore any place that reveals the name of the current President is helping to prove that the President is an idiot. The WH website reveals the name of the President so it is helping to prove the President is an idiot. I believe even you have referred to the current President by name okie. So you have helped to prove the President is an idiot. There is your logic in a "nut"shell.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 06:33 am
To emphasize what Parados said, what difference does it make if Who's Who says Wilson is married to Plame?

Unless it also says Plame works for the CIA, it doesn't mean anything. And it didn't.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 08:38 am
parados wrote:
And that computer search would have found nothing about Mrs Wilson or Plame working for the CIA.

But it might turn up any travels to a country or countries. That is if she actually did travel as she claimed. Do you remember Able Danger, which used computers to identify and find correlations of identities come up. I would think other intelligence services do similar things. I suspect that they would have files and information compiled for anyone and everyone involved with the CIA, and any family information or incidental information connected to them that they can collect.

Therefore, I find it preposterous that a truly covert agent would desire to have their spouse become a high profile political operative, directly involved in the WMD issue whose wife purportedly specialized in WMD at the CIA, who regularly and routinely publishes information about their spouse. Not smart, Parados. That you blithely pass this off as normal, I can only conclude that you are so partisan that you cannot look at this issue objectively. I maintain as others do that the CIA and the Wilsons have alot of explaining to do, and they bear at least some responsibility in why her identity became known.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 08:51 am
Bull, okie. It simply does not matter. There is no ethical excuse that can be given for the Bush administration to go after a covert agent simply (her covert status was confirmed by the CIA-btw)because they didn't like what her husband had to say in an op ed. If they had issues with what he had to say they should have took that up instead of relying on their now apparent pattern of sleazo tactics.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:07 am
okie wrote:
His lies have to do with logical conclusions. He claims to have proven his conclusions from what he found out in Niger, yet when you examine what he found out, different analysts have differing opinions. Some say what he found out actually disagree with his conclusions.

So, two people examine the same data, come to different conclusions, then one of them is lying?

OK, then. I've heard your conclusions about Wilson, Plame, et al. I've come to different conclusions Therefore, you're lying. QED, end of discussion....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:10 am
Okie, I'd like to hear you speak about the administrations' involvement with this: what you think they did, or didn't do, who was behind orders to do what, and whether or not any inappropriate actions took place.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:12 am
I'm pretty sure I saw her working a pole in Georgetown. Covert? Not even covered...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:15 am
cjhsa wrote:
I'm pretty sure I saw her working a pole in Georgetown. Covert? Not even covered...


When we want your opinion, we'll give it to ya, K?

Jerk

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:18 am
Have a nice day Cyclop.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:18 am
olie wrote:
But it might turn up any travels [by Plame] to a country or countries.


A) How would this information be obtained? How would they know where she travelled?

B) Why would they even be looking at Plame's travels if they did not know she was part of the CIA first? And it was not revealed she worked for the CIA.

C) And if she did travel, in many cases I am sure it would be with a different identity, different credit cards, different name on the airline tickets. So again, how would they know Plame worked for the CIA?

Your "concerns" are bunk.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:19 am
cjhsa wrote:
Have a nice day Cyclop.


All my days are nice. But that's because I'm not a gun-nut jerk.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:20 am
http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/smiley.jpg
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:33 am
cjhsa wrote:
I'm pretty sure I saw her working a pole in Georgetown. Covert? Not even covered...


Quote:
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., just said he has been told by the CIA, in a statement authorized by CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, that "Miss Wilson's CIA employment status was covert." (Plame does go by the name Valerie Wilson, but is most often referred to in the media as Valerie Plame, her maiden name, because that is how she first came to be known when her name was leaked.)


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/03/cia_leak_hearin.html

covered
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:36 am
"Though she believes she was a "covert" agent covered by a separate law that makes it illegal to knowingly reveal the identity of such an operative, Plame conceded to Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., that she was not told by CIA officials at the time of the leak nor afterward that her status was legally defined as "covert."
"

Next on stage, give it up for Volumptious Val.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:01 pm
It appears that Valerie is telling two different stories, one to the senate intelligence committee, and another to Waxman's kangaroo court. Isn't that called "lying under oath?"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NhZWZlODljMjQxZjE4ZGIyNjVkYWQ5MzhiY2FjNDA=

I have always had great suspicions, as have others, that the Wilsons outed themselves. Did Fitzgerald put David Corn, Michael Isikoff, and Nicholas Kristof under oath? And how about Joseph Wilson?

And do I hear that the non-political Valerie went dining with Hillary before her congressional testimony? I thought they wanted to get politics out of this?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWJmYTRmY2Y3NjdjNGQ0NzVjMzQ5Zjk5YjA5OTU5N2Y=
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:08 pm
Okie
okie wrote:
It appears that Valerie is telling two different stories, one to the senate intelligence committee, and another to Waxman's kangaroo court. Isn't that called "lying under oath?"
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NhZWZlODljMjQxZjE4ZGIyNjVkYWQ5MzhiY2FjNDA=
I have always had great suspicions, as have others, that the Wilsons outed themselves. Did Fitzgerald put David Corn, Michael Isikoff, and Nicholas Kristof under oath? And how about Joseph Wilson?
And do I hear that the non-political Valerie went dining with Hillary before her congressional testimony? I thought they wanted to get politics out of this?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWJmYTRmY2Y3NjdjNGQ0NzVjMzQ5Zjk5YjA5OTU5N2Y=


Okie, have you had a session with your psychiatrist lately?

BBB
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:19 pm
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
And that computer search would have found nothing about Mrs Wilson or Plame working for the CIA.

But it might turn up any travels to a country or countries. That is if she actually did travel as she claimed. Do you remember Able Danger, which used computers to identify and find correlations of identities come up. I would think other intelligence services do similar things. I suspect that they would have files and information compiled for anyone and everyone involved with the CIA, and any family information or incidental information connected to them that they can collect.
And a computer search could prove pigs fly out of your ass. None of which show that Wilson's Who's Who reveals anything other than he is married to Plame.
Quote:

Therefore, I find it preposterous that a truly covert agent would desire to have their spouse become a high profile political operative, directly involved in the WMD issue whose wife purportedly specialized in WMD at the CIA, who regularly and routinely publishes information about their spouse. Not smart, Parados. That you blithely pass this off as normal, I can only conclude that you are so partisan that you cannot look at this issue objectively. I maintain as others do that the CIA and the Wilsons have alot of explaining to do, and they bear at least some responsibility in why her identity became known.
Wilson was a high profile ambassador before he got married. There is no reason to think he would stop doing work similar to that. His credentials existed. They don't cease to exist because his wife works at the CIA.

Before Plame was revealed to be a CIA agent a search for her would have found she and several other people worked for a company that seemed legitimate. That seems to be pretty standard practice for the CIA. They set up a shell company that people work for. Until someone finds out an employee or the company is CIA, to the casual observer and even the more interested observer both seem legit. There is no reason to make up fake names for the persons. They travel and do business under their real names simply because it is easier and safer. When you start trying to hide facts about that person is when you make people suspicious. It's called hiding in plain sight. It's been around for years. The more legitimate the person looks the less likely they are to look like they work for a spy agency. A legitimate person would be listed in Who's Who so to keep a CIA agent out of Who's Who would raise more suspicions than putting them in it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:20 pm
BBB, did you read Byron York's article titled:

"Senate Intel Committee: What Valerie Plame Didn't Tell Us
The differences between her House testimony and the Senate's findings."

Are you going to address the subject or do you prefer to make cute comments? Are you going to tell York to see a shrink too?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 05:40:40