Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 30th, 2007, 01:57 PM        CIA doc proves Plame WAS covert
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment
By Joel Seidman


function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false :true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633160670495300000');
WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.
The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
Undercover travel
The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."
Criminal prosecution beat national security
After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak.
The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment and cover status."
The CIA has not divulged any other details of the nature of Plame's cover or the methods employed by the CIA to protect her cover nor the details of her classified intelligence activities. Plame resigned from the CIA in December 2005.
Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson have filed a lawsuit against four current or former top Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career at the CIA.

'I felt like I had been hit in the gut'
In March at a House of Representatives hearing, Plame testified saying, "My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White house and the State Department"
She described how it felt to see her true identity exposed in the morning paper, her career destroyed she said.
"I felt like I had been hit in the gut, it was over in an instant, I immediately thought of my family's safety."
Plame's identity was leaked to reporters in 2003, after her husband began criticizing the Bush administration. She claims her constitutional rights were violated by the administration and is demanding compensation.
No leak charges
Several administration officials, including Libby, former State Department official Richard Armitage and Bush advisor Karl Rove, disclosed Plame's identity to reporters.
No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents.

Fitzgerald wrote last week in the 18-page memo, "Particularly in a case such as this, where Mr. Libby was a high-ranking government official whose falsehoods were central to issues in a significant criminal investigation, it is important that this court impose a sentence that accurately reflects the value the judicial system places on truth-telling in criminal investigations."
The special counsel recommended to the judge that Libby not receive any leniency, because, he writes, "He has expressed no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no recognition that there is anything he should have done differently - either with respect to his false statements and testimony, or his role in providing reporters with classified information about Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA."
Libby was convicted in March of four of five felony counts against him. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 5th before U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton.
Joel Seidman is an NBC producer, based in Washington.
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old May 30th, 2007, 02:22 PM       
If it's possible, I'd love for you guys to just TRY and read that article from an objective standpoint. Pretend you are the editor of your high school newspaper, and you were reading something someone had just turned in for publication. That is a completely one-sided editorial piece of crap disguised as a news story.

As for the meat of it, who really cares anymore? Seriously. This could simply not matter any less at this point.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 30th, 2007, 04:13 PM       
Funny, you seem to think she's a "story" every "time" you want to "dismiss" "Max" or anybody "else" who brings up her being "outed".

It matters that members of the executive branch went after the wife of a political enemy who made them look silly. It matters that they publicly outed a covert CIA agent. This matters, yes.

It matters that the Right-Wing noise machine spent the last two years attempting to argue the contrary. This matters.

So hard did they try, so smug did they become, that Conservative media called for investigations into the claim.

Obviously, it was a story as long as you were right. Now? Ho hum...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 30th, 2007, 06:08 PM       
I think this story matters not in terms of it's particulars, like who got hurt, if a law was broken (and I think at this point it's clear one was), if all the leakers broke the lawe knowingly, etc.

Where the story matters in my opinion, lies in what it shows about the administration in general. First, they were willing to enage fully in the personal destruction of their political enemies at a time when their efforts really should have been focused on more weighty matters, and second, it shows how rabid they were on supporting a uranium claim that they almost certainly knew was false. It's illustrative of how they moved the country toward war, ie. they 'fixed the facts'.

The administration performs more like a gang of thugs than even Nixons gang of thugs. Their strategy is to say 'old news, old news, yawn'. But to me if the news is that ones country is run by liars and thugs and that their thuggery has lead to the deaths of thousands and the destabilzation of a very volatile region... well, that story won't get old for me until what we as a nation have allowed to happen really sinks in.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old May 31st, 2007, 12:00 AM       
Oh my god this is great:

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore View Post
Funny, you seem to think she's a "story" every "time" you want to "dismiss" "Max" or anybody "else" who brings up her being "outed".

It matters that members of the executive branch went after the wife of a political enemy who made them look silly. It matters that they publicly outed a covert CIA agent. This matters, yes.
From the post you quoted:

Quote:
"Richard Armitage was the one that "outed" Plame, if anybody, and Fitzpatrick KNEW that before the hearings began. This was simply a witch-hunt for process crimes from the beginning. Maybe they were looking for tips of your larger iceburgs, but if all they could come up with to that end was contradictory testimony that highlighted other contradictory testimony, why are you so proud to call this a victory? This is no where near on the same level as Sandy Berger, whom I know you disapproved of yet didn't use to paint the Clinton Royal Family red with the blood of innocent babies..."
Kevin, is Richard Armitage a cog in a gear of the Gigantic Republican Smear Machine?

I talk about it because it has never mattered and it never will and it aggravates me to see it being treated as an actual topic of public debate, in much the same way as the Jerry Springer Show makes me just a bit sick. If I actually ever brought it up, it was likely to illustrate the modern "left's" dependence on the ignorance of "Joe Six Pack," our good ol' American strawman...

When people talk about the time at which she was "outed" they are using the media defined point in time at which it could be proven someone knew mentioned it improperly. Improperly, in this context, meaning when it could be proven in a hearing. I said from the beginning that her employer was public knowledge among her peers and acquaintances at the time. I'll say now that she was told to quit after an internal investigation into the question of just how secret her secret identity actually was.

It says right in your link (below) that the CIA "allowed" the proceeding to continue. The agency had provided her with protection of her identity up to a point that was retroactive to the date at which she was "outed." The protection was a service provided, and services cost something to a consumer. She was supposed to be paying the price of keeping her mouth shut about it at least, and she was deemed to be in violation of the contract at the inevitable point at which she was inevitably "outed" in a newspaper, given (if nothing else) the political nature of her involvement in CIA assignments of people as unreliable as her husband to diplomatic missions meant to determine truths about things as sensitive as the run up to war with Saddam's Iraq?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore View Post
It matters that the Right-Wing noise machine spent the last two years attempting to argue the contrary. This matters.
Uh huh? Why?

If you start lying about stuff and I spend the next two years calling you a liar, why would that make me more likely to be a liar?

How bout instead of lying you just started being generally wrong about most things, and I just pointed it out sometimes... would I be somehow wrong sometimes because you were?

How about if I'm calling you a liar all the time but you never lie... Would that make me eventually right, forcing you to lie?


Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore View Post
So hard did they try, so smug did they become, that Conservative media called for investigations into the claim.

Obviously, it was a story as long as you were right. Now? Ho hum...
Here's the headline and byline for the story you just quoted: "Investigate the CIA
An "outing" was the result of either incompetence or an effort to undermine the White House."

Are you saying there hasn't been enough investigation, firings, reorganizations and relegislation that you aren't yet quite convinced that "incompetence" exhibited in the function of the CIA at that time hasn't been aptly proven, at least to the degree that your radar actually starts to pick up on reality?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old May 31st, 2007, 10:44 AM       
dude youre a fuckin faggot
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #7  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old May 31st, 2007, 10:52 AM       
kevin, you work in dc, right? are there like scads of former intelligence officials running around holdin a. prepared testimony b. book proposals or c. amusing cocktail anecdotes of disastrous interviews with douglass feith?
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.