Her classmate disagrees

Post #214,640 by tuberculosis 7/13/05 12:57:12 PM Reply	Her classmate disagrees The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie. For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove. 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. [link\|http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340\|http://www.tpmcafe.c...5/7/13/04720/9340] It was a fuckin' reckless thing to do and he should be BBQ'd. "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #214,654 by jb4 7/13/05 2:27:09 PM Reply	Lemme get this straight... The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Hmmm...Victoria Toensing. That would be the same Victoria Toensing which is the source of BeeP's 'facts", now wouldn't it? jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #214,672 by bepatient 7/13/05 3:16:58 PM Reply	Yep Same one that authored the law in question. Everyone is lying. Pick which one you think might know more about what they are talking about than the others. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,676 by Another Scott 7/13/05 3:41:02 PM Reply	Maybe we should wait until the grand jury is done? Naaah. That takes all the fun out of it. [link\|http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2005/Hogan/2004-MS-407~5:57:29~6-30-2005-b.pdf\|Government filing of 6/30/2005 in Judge Thomas Hogan's court] (10 page .pdf) (Note it says submitted Under Seal on the first page, but nothing seems to be redacted - FWIW): CONCLUSION The Special Counsel seeks to bring the ongoing investigation, which he began in December 2003, to as swift a conclusion as possible. By fall 2004, the Special Counsel's investigation was for all practical purposes complete except for the testimony of petitioners [Miller and Cooper]. The unsuccessful negotiations with the reporters and the litigation on the motions to quash and the contempt citations began prior to the fall of 2004, and have proceeded in the months since, though the Special Counsel has endeavored to expedite the proceedings to the extent possible. Now that the reporters' appeals have been exhausted, the Special Counsel respectfully requests that this Court enforce its previous orders, so that the investigation may be brought to a prompt conclusion for the benefit of the citizens of the United States. (Typos mine.) The wait shouldn't be too much longer. Then we can argue about whether Novak was lying or whatever. :-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #214,680 by ChrisR 7/13/05 4:17:11 PM Reply	Reminescent of Whitewater?
Post #214,745 by bepatient 7/14/05 11:48:16 AM Reply	Why do that? Some here already have the future outcome of the prosecutor in hand...and present it in posts to me as fact...that DOJ, Prosecutor, WhiteHouse all know a crime was committed. How can it be that they haven't really decided yet? Inquiring minds want to know! If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,776 by tuberculosis 7/14/05 1:29:01 PM Reply	Fits his MO, done it before, leopards, spots, ya ya ya "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #214,787 by bepatient 7/14/05 1:57:11 PM Reply	Yep..and same result should apply. Fired. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,824 by tuberculosis 7/14/05 4:40:47 PM Reply	I would add jail "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #214,792 by Silverlock 7/14/05 2:07:21 PM Reply	I assume that was pointed at me. You misrepresent. I didn't say the outcome is forgone. I dispute the assertion that no crime was committed. My opinion is that Rove did it, it was illegal at the time he did it and the grand jury will find that to be the case. My beliefs are not facts. Just opinions. Much like the author of the spin job you first referenced from the Post. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #214,802 by bepatient 7/14/05 2:27:26 PM Reply	Good assumption You said "The CIA, The Justice Department, the special prosecuter and the White House all agree this is a crime." That doesn't sound like your current recantation of "I didn't say the outcome is forgone. I dispute the assertion that no crime was committed." And like I have stated all along...that "spin job" is from the two folks who wrote the law. I'll take their word for it until a Judge decides he's going to ignore it in favor of making his own law...(at which point we'll ba back on the subject of legislation from the bench :-p) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,810 by Silverlock 7/14/05 3:08:19 PM 7/14/05 3:23:00 PM Reply	"who wrote the law" I doubt that "only" these two were involved in writing this law. It doesn't matter though. The law, as written and as understood by a judge will be what is used. With that in mind, I looked up the law and don't seem to find anything in it about being "in country". But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. (note that the separate clauses are "or", not "and") TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, 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, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982, Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.) There is quite a bit more to this but the above seems relevant enough. For the rest, try [link\|http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html\|here]. And as far as this bit You said "The CIA, The Justice Department, the special prosecuter and the White House all agree this is a crime." That doesn't sound like your current recantation of "I didn't say the outcome is forgone. I dispute the assertion that no crime was committed." I'm not sure I understand your point. You say no crime was committed, I disagree. Many others disagree. Weather or not a guilty verdict comes out of this is another matter. My opinion is that Rove is as guilty as sin and this law, as written, can cause him jail time. As a matter of fact, according to what his lawyer said, he is guilty by his own admission. Where we disagree is your contention that a technicality will keep him from being adjudged guilty. I say the technicality (covert and in country) is not as presented. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards Edited by Silverlock July 14, 2005, 03:23:00 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #214,812 by boxley 7/14/05 3:25:03 PM Reply	where is the definition of "covert agent"? Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #214,814 by Silverlock 7/14/05 3:40:52 PM Reply	Try dictionary.com or google or findlaw ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #214,816 by boxley 7/14/05 3:57:39 PM Reply	lets ask the cia [link\|http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/faq.html\|http://www.cia.gov/c..._affairs/faq.html] Only the President can direct the CIA to undertake a covert action. Such actions usually are recommended by the National Security Council (NSC). Covert actions are considered when the NSC judges that US foreign policy objectives may not be fully realized by normal diplomatic means and when military action is deemed to be too extreme an option. Therefore, the Agency may be directed to conduct a special activity abroad in support of foreign policy where the role of the US Government is neither apparent nor publicly acknowledged. Once tasked, the intelligence oversight committees of the Congress must be notified. now we have a definition of covert activity lets see if Ms. Wilson fits. The determining factor is abroad, non US space. Ms Wilson had not been abroad for 6 years at the time of the outing. She was certainly available prior to her name being splashed over the papers so that outing did potentially hurt the ability of the US. What I think the real problem is that Rove doesnt want to lose his pension and cushy benefits if convicted. thanx, bill Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #214,820 by Silverlock 7/14/05 4:12:00 PM Reply	Already been discounted I brought up earlier that the CIA is the one who initially brought this action. They seem to be under the impression that Valerie Plame was, indeed, a covert agent at the time she was outed by Novak. Beep says that doesn't count. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #214,831 by bepatient 7/14/05 4:59:36 PM Reply	Here [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_426.html\|http://caselaw.lp.fi.../section_426.html] If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,836 by ben_tilly 7/14/05 5:31:49 PM Reply	That definition might fit. The question is whether she fits under 4 A. Part i) is easy, she clearly passes that. The quibble is who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States. To my way of thinking, it is serving abroad to take a "business trip" abroad where you are contacting spies, picking up documents, and doing other things which could get you executed if the locals learned your activities. It is my understanding that she was doing exactly this. (It is my suspicion that she did quite a bit more of this than the CIA wants to publically discuss...) Therefore, despite the fact that she resided in the USA for the past 5 years, I would be inclined to accept that she had served outside the United States in those 5 years. Which makes her a covert agent and means that Rove should serve jail time. Of course that is just my uninformed opinion. Hey, perhaps putting your life on the line in a foreign country isn't consider service. Certainly the neocons don't consider it something worth respecting. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #214,847 by Simon_Jester 7/14/05 6:39:16 PM Reply	Ah, the key... It is my understanding that she was doing exactly this. (It is my suspicion that she did quite a bit more of this than the CIA wants to publically discuss...) We don't know what work she was doing and (surprise) unless we have a clearance, we're not supposed to know. So there's a whole lotta guess work going on. But, when Plame was outted, they outted (whether they realize it or not) the front company she was working for and potentially many other agents.
Post #214,849 by broomberg 7/14/05 6:54:10 PM Reply	The ripple effect is huge Every person she spoke to and every person who dealt with that company in every country for the last 'x' years will be scrutinized. 'y' people WILL be tortured and killed. Before those people die, they will crack, and give up more people. Hey Beep? How many people need to die before it becomes something a bit more than a firable offense?
Post #214,867 by ben_tilly 7/14/05 8:56:21 PM Reply	And there is no question... that many of those indirectly outed that way will be covert agents. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #214,872 by bepatient 7/14/05 9:03:34 PM Reply	Watching too many movies Barry Your Y value is likely to be zero in the real world. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,902 by broomberg 7/14/05 10:37:11 PM Reply	Nope, just CIA torture manuals [link\|http://www.google.com/search?q=cia+torture&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official\|http://www.google.co...la:en-US:official] Neither of us will ever come up with a real number of how many. You say zero, I say some number above zero.
Post #214,851 by Another Scott 7/14/05 7:08:45 PM Reply	We know what she worked on. At least if you believe Novak. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27¬Found=true\|Washington Post] from 9/28/2003: Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq. "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak. [...] The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public with it was Novak, the conservative columnist, who wrote in The Washington Post and other newspapers that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He added, "Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover. Emphasis added. There's a lot more in that story too on the early days of the event. If you take all of this stuff at face value, then the 2 officials who called the 6+ reporters, and leaked her name, are different from Rove (as reporters called him, IIRC.). As such, Novak could be telling the truth when he said that it wasn't Rove. It'll sure be nice when this is wrapped up... Cheers, Scott.
Post #214,871 by bepatient 7/14/05 9:02:00 PM Reply	Stop that add to your story that Novak was not threatened about revealing the name when he called hte agency (something about actively concealing her ID) and you have considerable reasonable doubt that it was Rove. He should still be fired. He can't be convicted..those who smell blood notwithstanding. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,875 by Another Scott 7/14/05 9:12:29 PM Reply	I've wondered why Rove is still around. I would think that his greatest joy is winning a campaign. Bush isn't running again, Cheney isn't running. None of the cabinet secretaries are talked about as serious contenders for the 2008 Republican nomination. He's not, IMO, going to help Bush convince Congress to change Social Security in any meaningful way. Rove could have left on top in January 2005 and made millions as a consultant for the 2006 and 2008 elections. Why is he still hanging around? If Bush had any scruples about Rove, he would have fired him before the 2000 South Carolina primary (where McCain was savaged). :-( Putting all that together, unless Rove is indicted, I think he's going to be around. Bush won't fire him, for some reason. It's all rather mysterious to me. Maybe he does want to be Supreme Court Chief Justice?!? ;-j Cheers, Scott.
Post #214,884 by bepatient 7/14/05 9:38:55 PM Reply	Bite your tongue Lets keep him out of any office. He's done enough already. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,887 by Silverlock 7/14/05 9:43:30 PM Reply	I don't understand you The frigging CIA, who she worked for, brought this action. It was submitted to the justice department by the CIA. Both the CIA and the Justice Department thought it actionable. You discount them as authoritative while accepting the opinion of a junior level member of the team who wrote the most applicable (Note: not the only) law that makes this action a felony. (Dare I say treason? I dare, I dare.) You never address my assertins of the partisanship of this person as a possible reason for her "interpretation" of the law. I know your not stupid, so what gives? ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #214,945 by bepatient 7/15/05 8:10:17 AM Reply	This is all partisan The prosecutor wasn't demanded by CIA, it was demanded by the Dems, In addition, this is supposed to be an investigation about how Novak got the name and outed the agent. There's still no evidence that this was Rove. In fact, it seems more and more likey that it wasn't him that fed Novak the story. AND, if the agency was so damned determined to keep her name a secret, why didn't they tell Novak >when he called them BEFORE running the story<. This smells like setup on BOTH sides. Now they have a note that says Rove told a different reporter to clarify the absolute lies being stated by Wilson (on 2 separate occassions stating that Cheney sent him) and dropped dime to this guy on wife...and suddenly he is "the leak" to Novak and deserves the chair? Come on now... There's blood in the water in Washington and I don't care which side your on...this whole mess should show you why they should have most of their authority removed and placed back at state and local. We've got >real, current< problems and everybody there is worried about crap that happened 2 years ago. Lets spend hundreds of millions investigating a phone call now instead of a hummer. Yay, I'm so excited. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,958 by jb4 7/15/05 9:49:52 AM Reply	Hey Beep: $200MM == 1 day in Iraq According to the current Washington calculus, "Lets spend hundreds of millions investigating a phone call" is all in a day's work. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #214,960 by bepatient 7/15/05 10:05:49 AM Reply	Instant justification? :-/ If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,998 by Silverlock 7/15/05 12:10:29 PM Reply	Whatever. You win. Rove never mentioned anything at all to anyone about Wilson's wife being an agent. Novak is an honorable patriotic reporter just digging out the truth about a non-covert, low level CIA employee with the power to send her husband on a fun filled vacation to sunny Africa. Wilson is a lier who categorically stated "Cheney sent me" even though the reports of what he said seem to indicate, "Cheney's office asked the CIA for info and the CIA sent me in response to that request" is more exact. His diplomatic career and similar fact finding trips in the past make him in no way qualified for the mission he should never have been sent on. Plame was just a desk jocky anyway. No harm, no foul. Her outing in no way comprimised a CIA front comapny and all of it's assets. The CIA never asked Novak not to use her name as so many reports say. And there is no truth to the rumor that this whole mess is just a smoke screen for the real reason she was outed- WMD analyst disagrees with WMD hyping? Out her and get her off our case. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #215,003 by bepatient 7/15/05 12:43:12 PM Reply	Are you that dense? I've not said any of these things. What I've said is that 1) Rove is likely NOT to be convicted under this law 2) Rove SHOULD BE fired for speaking to the Time reporter. 3) There is no proven connection between the Novak outing and the Rove converation with Time magazine (ie there multiple leaks) 4) The current cries of "hang him, hang him" are partisan attacks just as the Wilson trip and op/ed (and following Sunday talk appearances where he claimed he VP request to go) and the subsequent outing of his wife. All partisan. All crap. One side says she was a desk jockey. The other side has her as one step further into spook territory than 007. Having had CIA operatives interview family members, I can certainly assure you that investigation of commercial transactions or attempted commercial transactions is not "super secret spy stuff" and hardly worthy of pulling out excerps from the torture manual. But, since the blood is in the water...check reason at the door and fly off the handle as much as you like. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #215,004 by ChrisR 7/15/05 1:13:56 PM Reply	Part of the larger picture Before War: Bush => Saddam has WoMD. After War: Military => We can't locate them. Bush => Our best intelligence before the war indicates Saddam had WoMD. CIA => Yes, that's what we said. Bush => We did not lie. Bush and company had no interest in seeing the intelligence in any way other than they wanted to see it. Intimidation of detractors was part of a larger effort to get the bureaucracy singing their song. They made a conscious effort to cook the books by giving 100% credibility to the Iraqi exiles, and openly attacking any and all that said we needed to be more cautious in our assessment. The Rove involvement shows just how screwed up this administration was, and how much "faith" they had that they were right and everyone else was wrong. Now the NeoCons can hoot and holler all they want. But the case that was made for the invasion of Iraq rates as the biggest blunder in American history. Little wonder that the rest of the western world was either lukewarm or again' it. This assessment of blunder is not to say that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq - that's a question that was short-circuited by the histrionics of this administration. Maybe we should be there and maybe we shouldn't. But one things for certain, this administration entered the war in the worst way imaginable, pissing off most of Europe (not to mention any semblance of support among moderate Islamists). Does the current row over Rove's being involved in the middle of the yellow Uranium story merit a full blown inquisition? Well, like most political stories, the big stories are incapable of being covered. It's the fringe things (e.g. Watergate, Abu Gharaib, etc...) that occupy our attention. The big story is that Bush and Company are incapable of even the tiniest shred of diplomacy. And for that feat, the American public re-elected him. Having gotten us involved in Iraq, there's no easy way out of this. But as long as I'm gonna roam further. IMHO, the U.S. needs to tell the ME countries that we plan to let them solve their own problems. Diplomacy and brinksmanship rely not only on what you actually do, but what the other sides imagine that you are capable of doing. Well, the current strategy of the U.S. is that we have absolutely zero room for maneuvaribility. What we can and can't do has been relegated to little leverage. We are in Iraq for the duration, come hell or high-water. What this means is that (a). we are a convenient scape-goat - nothing they say or do will get the U.S. to change the policy, so they have little need to refrain; (b). we are the responsible party - meaning that there is no requirement for locals to fix their own damn problems.
Post #215,007 by bepatient 7/15/05 1:25:28 PM Reply	No quibbles here. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #215,011 by imqwerky 7/15/05 1:34:51 PM Reply	Well said. It is like the difference between a parent who threatens to beat the crap out of you and you respond with better behaviour without being beaten---and---a parent that grabs a baseball bat and starts swinging with extreme predjudice. To which would you get a better response? That is what made Reagan a better pres in terms of foreign policy. "Ol Sabre Rattler" Unfortunately, Shrub is as awkward in foreign policy as I'm sure Laura finds him in bed. Pray for Peace, Amy "Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in sideways totally worn out shouting 'Heilige Sheisse, what a ride!'" .
Post #215,016 by ChrisR 7/15/05 2:08:28 PM Reply	Must disclose that reviewer has nepotistic ties... ...so when are you gonna get me that ambassador job I always wanted?
Post #215,019 by Silverlock 7/15/05 2:37:50 PM Reply	I guess I must be I've not said any of these things. My hyperbolistic rendition Wilson is a lier who categorically stated "Cheney sent me" even though the reports of what he said seem to indicate, "Cheney's office asked the CIA for info and the CIA sent me in response to that request" is more exact. of your previous comment the absolute lies being stated by Wilson (on 2 separate occassions stating that Cheney sent him) Prove it. Show me the transcript of his actual words stating this. Not what some right wing fucktard with a radio show says, not the instructions of the RNC talking points, not the mouthings of some republican shill with a tv show, the actual transcript of the actual words of Wilson saying "Cheney sent me" I'll start with the original op-ed this right wing lie was drawn from. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake \ufffd a form of lightly processed ore \ufffd by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. (emphasis mine) [link\|http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm\|Link] Since you seem convinced of at least one of the lies in the RNC talking points memo, I merely tried to pre-empt you using some of the others. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #215,021 by bepatient 7/15/05 3:36:31 PM Reply	Fine Cheney asked the agency to verify the docs so they the asked him. Whatever. [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_wilson\|http://en.wikipedia....iki/Joseph_wilson] wiki author must be Rush too. Seems o think the "distinction" a bit fine. In the end,I don't care enough to care. Hang him. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #215,024 by Silverlock 7/15/05 3:47:47 PM Reply	Transcript? Anything in Wilson's own words that supports the "he lied about Cheney sending him to Africa" charge? ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #215,035 by bepatient 7/15/05 5:07:36 PM Reply	No. Maybe there. Maybe not. Maybe implied. Such a minor nit that I don't really care to look that hard. So I officially retract anything bad I've ever said Mr Wilson. It's not central to any issue. He's the most honest man on the planet. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #215,039 by ben_tilly 7/15/05 5:13:51 PM Reply	ICLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #215038 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=215038\|ICLRPD] I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #215,043 by Another Scott 7/15/05 5:42:22 PM Reply	Senate Intelligence Committee report. Long excerpt. The full report (from July 7, 2004) is [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf\|here] (521 p. .pdf). It's a .pdf image, so cutting and pasting won't work. (U) apparently means unclassified. (XXX) apparently means that portions of the paragraph are redacted. Typos are mine. Page numbers are the original numbers, not the .pdf page numbers. [p.39]B. Former Ambassador (XXX) Officials from the CIA's DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. XXX who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger. (X) Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicated that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable XXX requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. (XXX) The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf XXX. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region XXX. Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about XXX during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit. [p.40] [...] (U) On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes. [...] [p.44] (U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations." The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation. (X) When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rogue nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but that did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the XXX intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of [p.45] the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from XXX intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report XXX. (U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents. [...] [p.46] (X) The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, XXX. The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. XXXX The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believe the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting. (U) IC analysts had a fairly consistent response to the intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip in that no one believed it added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story. An INR analyst said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR's position, but said that the "report could be read in different ways." He said the report was credible, but did not give it a lot of attention because he was busy with other things. (U) DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales. (U) Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue. Wilson's story does not seem to be air tight. Whether the discrepancies make any difference in the greater scheme of things, I can't say. Based on the evidence in the report, it does not seem that Cheney sent him - rather the CIA did, at least partially based on his wife's recommendation. (Note this excerpt is from the body of the Senate report, not from the appendices that give the individual committee members' views.) FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #215,058 by bepatient 7/15/05 6:20:37 PM Reply	Yeah, but... ...who sent him doesn't matter. Really it doesn't. It has little to nothing to do with the situation. A reporter was going to print (according to what I've heard) that the request to go to Niger was made by VP. Rove called and said that wasn't accurate, his agency wife did. (dunno how he would have ever gotten that idea since Wilson was so up front about it however). But, at same time someone else, apparently (or before per Rove testimony) called Novak and dimed her out. Regardless, Rove was id'd as a "double secret source" aka >leak< and should be fired for it (cause W said he would and it will make the Dems happy). If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #215,066 by Simon_Jester 7/15/05 6:51:58 PM Reply	Wilson has always claimed that the CIA sent him.... the question is whether or not the VP requested the CIA to do so. And, to be fair, it is entirely possible that someone lied when they told Wilson that the VP had requested someone to check it out. (Everyone could be telling the truth) The only aspect of this that IS interesting is to reverse the situation. Consider this for a moment: You're the VP of the US. You've got a report on Iraq trying to buy yellowcake. The President just made a big deal on this in the State of the Union address. Some idiot claims to have gone to Niger for the CIA and claims that there wasn't any attempt to buy yellowcake. Do you : Call your CIA head in and ask what the hell is going on? Wonder that maybe, just MAYBE your CIA head isn't giving you the full data and call Wilson and find out what's going on? Close ranks and send out a story to the papers that guy doesn't have all the facts and try to quell the story? Apparently Rove and company choose 3....and unfortuately for the US, no one actually wondered whether or not we had bad intelligence.
Post #215,080 by Another Scott 7/15/05 8:08:35 PM Reply	I'd rather avoid the hypotheticals myself. There's too little known and too much he-said/they-said in this case. From the excerpt and my skimming of the rest of the Senate report, it seems that Cheney didn't insist for a followup on the Iraq-Niger report. Why? I don't know. The tone of the Senate report is that Wilson's trip didn't really add any thing new to what was already known and/or suspected. AFAIK, Wilson was only attacked after he went to the Post with his story - a story that was wrong in the very least in many, possibly minor, details. According to the Senate report (above), the Niger uranium story first came to the attention of the CIA on October 15, 2001. There was a second report to the CIA with more details on February 5, 2002. The CIA wrote a report about it on February 12, 2002 and Cheney read it. The same day Cheney asked for more information and Plame wrote a memo suggesting Wilson. He left for Niger on February 21, 2002. He arrived on February 26, 2002. The State Department intelligence agency (INR) prepared a report on March 1, 2002 titled, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely." The CIA disagreed with that assessment. Cheney requested more information on the Iraq-Niger issue in "early March". Cheney was updated and Wilson was debriefed on March 5, 2002. Wilson's report was distributed on March 8, 2002. The British government report stating that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa was dated September 24, 2002. The fake Niger uranium documents were given to the US Embassy in Rome on October 9, 2002. The INR immediately thought they were fake. They were distributed to the CIA and other agencies, but were filed away and nothing more was done with them there. November 22, 2002 there was a meeting with a French intelligence official who said they believed they had reliable information indicating Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Wilson was the source for the June 12, 2003 Washington Post [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46957-2003Jun11?language=printer\|article] by Walter Pincus. (It's dated June 13 in the Senate report.) Novak's [link\|http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml\|article] on Wilson and Plame was July 14, 2003. --- Obviously, none of us were there and we didn't see what happened when. And there are ways to make even a saint look like he's being shifty or lying. But I'm inclined to take the Senate report at face value. A lot of the reporting on the Iraq uranium story has been terribly muddled. A lot of the reporting (including Pincus's) seems to indicate that the reporter believed that since the Niger documents in Rome were fake, then there was no evidence that Saddam wanted uranium from Niger (or somewhere else in Africa). I believe, and I think the Senate report gives some weight to the belief, Saddam was looking for ways to get uranium from Africa, but that it never went beyond initial probing. It seems to me that Pincus's article makes it clear that Wilson helped throw the first bucket of mud in this particular scandal. He and a couple of other unnamed officials made lots of damning claims. Someone or some group at the White House fought back in an extremely dirty way. But Wilson's hands aren't clean. Subsequent [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html\|reports] in the press have pointed out inconsistencies his story. So, in summary, I agree with Beep. Rove should go (even if he didn't do the leaking initially), and anyone else in the White House involved in planting the story about Plame should go too. I don't think that they could be convicted (due to the very narrow way the rule is written), but they shouldn't be serving in a position of trust in the US government. I sure hope the Grand Jury finishes up soon. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #215,089 by bepatient 7/15/05 9:39:53 PM Reply	Be very careful So, in summary, I agree with Beep. You better read the talking points memo now. You'll be expected to quote it verbatim;-P If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #215,090 by Silverlock 7/15/05 9:53:34 PM Reply	Actually, I agree also. Odds are very good Rove won't go to jail. But twisting your tail is ever so much fun. I happen to think you picked up on the wrong technicality though. My guess is that they will use the defense that since Rove wasn't authorized to be privy to this info and that the law says one who is authorized to know this can't release it, he will slither out of this like the snake he is. I hope that he is hung out to dry for the several other laws he most likely violated though. Even that is really a pipe dream since Crusader Bunnypants will give him a pardon for any and all crimes he has ever committed. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards
Post #215,123 by Simon_Jester 7/16/05 7:04:49 AM Reply	I tend to agree. but my point 3 isn't a hypothetical. Everyone seems to agree that Rove was talking to Cooper in an attempt to get him NOT to run the story. (In fact, that's a defense of Rove, that he was attempting to stop a leak) The point being is that regardless of how you feel about Wilson, it was an opportunity to reflect on the quality of the intelligence at that point. That is not the choice that the administration made at that point. And, of course, ultimately the administration complained about the quality of intelligence in finding WMD.
Post #215,125 by Another Scott 7/16/05 8:47:54 AM Reply	Had to blame someone. Can't admit a mistake, you know. ;-)
Post #215,026 by boxley 7/15/05 3:52:03 PM Reply	big banner on the top, neutrality of this page disputed :-) Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #215,051 by boxley 7/15/05 6:02:40 PM Reply	so rove is guilty, why shouldnt he get the same punishment as Sandy Berger? Who was swiping contolled documents under his shirt. What was that punishment again? thanx, bill Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #215,052 by Another Scott 7/15/05 6:06:38 PM Reply	Lost his clearance. That would mean Rove would have to go.
Post #215,061 by boxley 7/15/05 6:36:03 PM Reply	nope he is a political architect not a spymaster Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #215,074 by Another Scott 7/15/05 7:12:43 PM Reply	I'd be very surprised if he didn't have a secret clearance. He's surrounded by people who have such a clearance. They would have to stop what they were doing every time he walked by if he didn't have a clearance. If he doesn't, then why are some trying to restrict his access? [link\|http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/15/senate_rejects_bid_to_restrict_rove_access/\|Boston Globe]: By Rick Klein, Globe Staff \| July 15, 2005 WASHINGTON -- The Senate yesterday turned back a Democratic-led attempt to deny White House aide Karl Rove access to classified documents, as the dispute over the revelation that President Bush's top political adviser spread information about a covert CIA agent reached a new level of bitter partisan sniping. The Democratic bill aimed at revoking Rove's security clearance was part of the party's growing campaign to highlight the disclosure that Rove gave information about the covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. Wilson's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, came to the Capitol yesterday at the invitation of Democrats to call on Bush to fire Rove. ''Karl Rove made his bones doing political dirty tricks," Wilson said, noting that his wife now must work in a different capacity at the CIA because her cover has been blown. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!