Post #247,598
3/11/06 8:01:24 PM
|
Plame stuff
This article talks about how "light" her cover was:
[link|http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/14076459.htm|http://www.duluthsup...tics/14076459.htm]
So of course, I needed to then Google what they were talking about.
This is the current resume of someone who "worked" at the same places, yet then became a CIA case officer.
[link|http://www.akerman.com/public/attorneys/aBiography.asp?id=908|http://www.akerman.c...graphy.asp?id=908]
And here is her cached entry, before she removed the tell-tale lines:
[link|http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:JvdzqcHHHqUJ:www.akerman.com/public/attorneys/aBiography.asp%3Fid%3D908+%22Brewster-Jennings%22+%22engineering+consultant%22++%22case+officer%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1|http://72.14.203.104...l=us&ct=clnk&cd=1]
So now you only have to do a more generic search:
[link|http://www.google.com/search?q=resume+%22Central+Intelligence+Agency%22+%22Case+Officer%22&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&start=10&sa=N|http://www.google.co...f=1&start=10&sa=N]
Weed out the chaff,and you get people who sometime in their career claim to be
a CIA case officer. Simply look at the preceding jobs and you KNOW they are cover.
So then you just have to cross ref those companies with other people to find out who's working for the CIA.
What a bunch of idiots!
|
Post #247,599
3/11/06 8:05:18 PM
3/11/06 8:07:06 PM
|
This guy look CIA to me
[link|http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:OcPjgI9klNkJ:www.aac.edu/soubory.php/Ellmann_resume.doc%3Fid%3D573+%22Brewster-Jennings%22+resume&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11|http://72.14.203.104...=us&ct=clnk&cd=11]
HEY: CIA WEB CRAWLERS!
Please have your guys take these known companies off their online resumes!
And have Google dump their cache of them!
Edited by broomberg
March 11, 2006, 08:07:06 PM EST
|
Post #247,622
3/12/06 8:22:27 AM
|
This is why it is bad to out an intelligence officer.
They wanted to get Plame...but now, in effect, they've outted everyone who's EVER used that company as a cover (put anyone who's innocent and worked there in the line of fire).
What's funny about this - is given the timing (Libby just got approval to get those classified documents), I think someone (not in Libby's camp) leaked this to the press. The (cough) smart foreign-intelligence officers have already looked at this info when it first came out.
I wonder how much intelligence has been compromised and how many other agents we've lost.
|
Post #247,667
3/12/06 5:35:42 PM
|
No way to really know
Nothing has been specifically said of course, but I've seen articles that reference unnamed CIA sources that say it seriously damaged our nuclear monitering work and in particular cut off almost all of the little hard information they had on Iran's nuclear program.
However, that may be something of an exaggeration by officals upset at Bush. This White House has royally pissed off the CIA in several different ways.
Jay
|
Post #247,725
3/13/06 12:35:29 PM
|
But now you have to ask why it was leaked to the press
One reason that is plausible is that it is some CIA officer knew that people's cover was blown but couldn't get higher-ups to listen to it. So leak the story, and now the higher-ups can't ignore it.
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 #247,746
3/13/06 2:02:02 PM
|
When....the first time or this latest one?
I think the first one was retaliatory in nature.
The second, I think, is based on a mitgating damage approach. (See, everyone knew she worked for the CIA, it's not our fault that we blew her cover.)
Note that they're getting a lot of other people in this second one.
Your theory is plausable as well. One advantage your theory has (over my primary theory above) is that it explains the broad based approach as well.
(It is possible that this is merely a coincidence. That someone simply started looking around the net and starting finding other people that could be agents.)
|
Post #247,809
3/13/06 7:05:30 PM
|
Little of both
The first was retaiatory, like you said. The second was Ben's point: once Plame was out, someone knew it would out a bunch of other people, and no one wanted to hear it.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,665
3/12/06 5:31:17 PM
|
Hmm...So, did Novak KNOW her cover was bad, when he blew it?
|
Post #247,670
3/12/06 6:05:44 PM
|
That's what he claimed.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=216848|#216848]. It seems clear that if Plame was undercover, Bill Harlow shouldn't have answered Novak's question about who sent Wilson. Especially when it was easy to figure out who she was based on what he was told.
But the problem started when Libby and/or Rove and whoever else it was in the White House that talked to Rove about Wilson's mission in a way that attempted to discredit it.
I would hope that the Clandestine Service people have learned about the risks and problems that can occur when "innocuous" information is released and easily put together using tools like Google.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
