|
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
|
 |
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
|
|

Oct 1st, 2003, 10:23 AM
Here's what I missed.
Where I said Karl Rove did it.
I said it was the sort of thing he's done. I said if he did it he was almost certainly professional enough to cover his tracks.
Which is pretty much what Wilson has said.
Jeeze Vinth, you/Boortz think that Bush should be allowed his 16 words becuase they're 'technically true'. What did I say that wasn't 'technically true'?
And before you recapittulate Boortz's argument today, that no one has said Plame was undercover and she couldn't have been because the CIA would never confirm the employment of an undercover agent, let me say:
1.) CIA agents are as capable of breaking the law as 'administration sources'. Th Boortz argument is totally specious.
2.) Absolutely the ONLY source I have been able to find that comments on the type of agent Plame was is the one that I already posted from The Hill Newspaper. I'll put it up again.
"CIA agents work under different sorts of “cover.” There’s “official cover” — like when an agent is assigned to a U.S. embassy under the guise that he or she is a foreign service officer. Then there’s “nonofficial” cover — like when your business cards say you’re a manager at Acme Overseas Energy Corporation, but you really work for the CIA.
Plame is in that latter category."
Blowing a NOC's cover is federal offense.
The CIA as of this morning has not officially commented on the nature of Palme's employment, and they are unlikely to do so unless required to by a federal prosecutor. Why? Because they are not supposed to.
There's a reason Boortz doesn't source his material. In this case, I'm fairly sure it's becuase he can't. Do you suppose if it comes out in the wash that Palme was absolutely an undercover agent, Boortz will print a retraction? I myself am not certain if Palme was undercover or routinely employed. But if the latter, I don't think the CIA and the FBI would currently be investigating. That's the way I'm leaning on this one.
IF she turns out to be a routine employee who had no cover at all, you can be certain I'll apologize, say this was a mere dirty trick and not a significant crime, and didn't need to be investigated. If she is, what will you do, Vinth? W. himself says he wants to get to the bottom of this and that it's a very serious mtter. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
|