home

Valerie Plame: "I Was Covert"

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:18:34 PM EST
Tags: Valerie Plame Wilson (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


Think Progress has the transcript and video of Valerie Plame's statement to the House Committee investigating the leak of her identity this morning. (Full hearing video is here.)

I’ve served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States, until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14th, 2003, after a leak by an administration official.

Today I can tell this committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq’s presumed weapons of mass destruction program.

While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

I loved my career, because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer. And I was dedicated to this work.

It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked. But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all the value of my years of service, were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.

< Stupid Arrest of the Week: 7 Year Old Handcuffed, Arrested for Riding Dirt Bike | Tony Snow: Backtracks on Harriet Miers as Orginator of U.S. Attorney Firing Idea >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Valerie Plame: "I Was Covert" | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Again? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:08:30 PM EST


    OK (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    Under oath she says she was covert and didn't recommend her husband. The CIA says she was covert, novak said she was covert, the DoJ says she was covert. But nooooo, you shrill shills refuse to beleive it. Fine.

    all of you 'covert' doubters should call your congress critters and get her indicted for lying to congress.

    Now instead of constantly regurgitating wrongwing talking points, do something!

    Then why didn't Fitz arrest Armitage?? (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    Really??

    Better yet, since Armitage confessed, why didn't he just say the investigation was over???

    And was she under oath??? I missed that.

    And when will her husband testify??

    And can you link to Novak saying she was covert??

    [ Parent ]

    Since Armitage confessed (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:48:39 PM EST
    ...why didn't the president fire him, or remove his security clearance?

    After all, HE CONFESSED to leaking classified information, and the president said that no one who did that would continue to be part of his administration.

    Did Mr. Bush lie about that?

    [ Parent ]

    Is Armitage a Presidential appointee??? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:05:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sure n/t (none / 0) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:18:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Proof?? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:49:46 AM EST
    Proof??

    I truly don't know, he is a DOS employee, and I don't think he was appointed by the President.

    [ Parent ]

    Please (none / 0) (#68)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    Are you saying that if GWB wanted Armitage fired, he couldn't make it happen?  Because that would EXCEED
    HIS AUTHORITY?

    Jim, Jim, I'm only a doctor.  I can't force you to think.  But if that is your BEST argument, why even bother?

    [ Parent ]

    Under Oath (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by mack on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:43:53 PM EST

    And was she under oath???
    I missed that.

    Pay attention next time.

    The first paragraph from Valerie Plame's opening statement:

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Valerie Plame Wilson and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the committee on oversight and government reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information.

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    a life... (1.00 / 3) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    Uh.... some of us have a life beyond watching political theater on TV...

    Evidently you don't.

    And thanks for the help...

    [ Parent ]

    And some of us ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:58:02 PM EST
    ... are willing to read a paragraph before spouting nonsense.

    The CIA, Waxman, Plame, the DoJ all knew she was covert and any attempts to keep spinning otherwise just show an extreme disregard for the truth.

    BTW, remember the 'investigation' that bush called for ... it never happened.

    Just like WMDs, a 9/11-AQ connection, 'we know where they are'

    [ Parent ]

    Plame was covert (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    and outing her was a crime.

    Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

    Patrick Fitzgerald:

    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

    Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

    The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

    Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

    Valerie Plame:
    "In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified," Plame sad in her opening testimony.
    more (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    When special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby in October 2005, he said that Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified information. (He repeated that at the trial.) And in a January 2004 letter to Democratic Representative John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), the CIA noted that the Valerie Wilson's CIA employment status was "classified information."
    [...]
    Representative Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), the committee chairman, read an opening statement in which he said that Valerie Wilson had been a "covert" officer" who had "served at various times overseas" and "worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States." Waxman noted that the CIA had cleared this statement. And during the questioning period, Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings (news, bio, voting record) reported that General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, had told him, "Ms. Wilson was covert."


    [ Parent ]
    That isn't the question. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:57:30 AM EST
    eported that General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, had told him, "Ms. Wilson was covert."

    The question is, when she ceased being covert.

    See my comment with the law shown.

    [ Parent ]

    still with the wrongwing talking points (none / 0) (#105)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    and still wrong:
    She also disclosed that she had made "several secret" trips abroad in the last few years to gather intelligence on unconventional weapons, which she said proved that those who said she did not have covert or undercover status when her identity was disclosed were incorrect.


    [ Parent ]
    Jim can't give it up (none / 0) (#106)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    his world view would be utterly destroyed.

    When he responds to you, I suspect it will be the same nonsense he gave me earlier. You can check out my response here to see what will be coming.


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Sailor and Molly B (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department," Ms. Wilson testified

    If she wants to claim that, fine. But the facts are that it was the CIA who had her come to work everyday at Langley, and the CIA who, according to the Boston Globe, did an extremely poor job of providng cover for the fictitious company that was part of her cover.

    But the real stake in the heart of this story is that her husband wrote the now infamous and inaccurate NYT article of 7/6/03. Again, if she wants to claim she didn't know that this article would focus press and government attention on him and his wife, she can. But that is totally not believeable coming from such an intelligent and experienced person. She had to know he was writing it and she had to know it would bring attention on her. I can speak only for me, but if I had been in her shoes and if I were covert and NOC, I would have said, "Don't do that. It will likely get me outed and destroy my career."

    When we add the story of how someone, as unidentifed as the trips she caims to have taken, just happened to overhear her conversation with a junior employee seeking advice on the VP's office's request and recommend her husband... well, that just adds icing to a funny story.

    As to the law, I again note that the meaning of words within a law are important, debated, discussed and viewed with interest. "Served" is inexact, but common usuage tell us that it is not meant to be a short business trip.

    To that point, I seem to remember a fair amount of discussion of the meaning of the word "Militia" in one of our better known laws.

    And I note that she has not given us any details on these trips. Surely she could give us the number and time spent. That she doesn't, considering all of the unusual happenings above in this matter, raises questions that need answering.

    That we won't merely demonstrates that the Demos are in the majority.

    [ Parent ]

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    Armitage confessed. So what did Libby have to do with that??

    [ Parent ]
    OT (4.50 / 2) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    And what does any of that have to do with this thread?

    [ Parent ]
    But, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    but...

    [ Parent ]
    squewaky (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:57:17 PM EST
    Well, let me see....

    She got outed by Armitage and she is now complaining ..

    You are writing about Libby who was convicted after Arnmitage outed her...

    Novak wrote a column that outed her after he was told by Armitage but he wasn't charged..

    Armitage wasn't charged, even though he confessed to DOJ in 9/03... some three months before Fitzgerald was appointed to find out who outed her...

    but no one told Fitzgerald???

    What we got here is REAL failure to communicate..

    Is that what you trying to write anout, eh???

    [ Parent ]

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    So, you are going off topic because of things written on other threads?  

    Looks like you are just thrashing, squirming, and attacking others  because you finally have proof that Valerie Plame was covert.

    Changing the subject just makes you look foolish.

    [ Parent ]

    Failure to understand, maybe (none / 0) (#41)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    Libby, who knew Plame was convert,  leaked to Miller and Cooper (whether Miller/Cooper wrote an article wrt the leak doesn't really matter).

    Nothing Armitage/Woodward/Novak did absolves Libby of leaking. Or lying.

    [ Parent ]

    ding777 (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    The problem is, Libby wasn't charged with "leaking."

    Many people think he wasn't lying...

    [ Parent ]

    Many people think (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    a lot of things. This proves what?

    Hayden testified she was covert.
    Plame testified she was covert
    Plame's CIA classmates have stated (and presumably would testify) she was covert
    Fitzgerald has stated she was classified- meaning in context with what we now know, she was covert.

    All of the above were making these statements in the context of her status prior to be outed by Novak. Everyone who has personal knowledge of the facts agree on this point.

    You don't have much room to manuever here. Give it  up man!

    As to whether or not Libby was lying, a jury of his peers clearly thought he was and they reviewed more evidence than you; they heard more argument from both sides than you.  You are entitled to disagree, but don't expect people to take you seriously.

    No serious person can believe Libby was telling the truth, given what we know. We know the OVP was obsessed with pushing back Joe Wilson's NY Times editorial. We know Cheney made notes in the margins of the paper about Wilson, his trip and Wilson's wife. We know Libby was "Cheney's Cheney" Yet Libby (and you) would have us believe Libby didn't remember learning Plame's id from Cheney. No reporter testified that they told Libby first. They all testified they learned this information from Libby. Objectively at this point the evidence is clear and consistent and beyond a reasonable doubt- Libby lied. No reasonable and serious person can conclude otherwise.

    What you are Jimbo is a Bush Administration apologist. Be up front about it. Say it loud and say it proud- "I don't care what the Bush Administration does, I support them."


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Molly B I expected better of you... (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:16:19 PM EST
    The fact that her employment was classified has nothing to do with her covert status. This was pointed out by Fitzgerald in his press conference.

    Plainer. One does not lead to the other.

    Since you are an attorney I find it strange that you reject the plain and simple law, which I posted. I will do it again, just to make sure you have had an opportunity to read it.

    Here is the complete law. Following is the definition of what a covert agent is.

    4) The term "covert agent" means--

    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--

    (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

    (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--

    (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
    (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

    (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

    Please explain to me why you think she meets this the legal definition.

    BTW - Since self-identification seems to be favored by you, I hereby define myself as an attorney. I am sure you will have no problems with that, and stand prepared to defend my right to decide.

    As for Libby, I have only said I do not believe he was lying.

    I have also said that I really don't care. This whole thing is politcs, and the Left struck first with Wilson's infamous article, of which I would like to see him put under oath and answer some questions.

    So turn off the lights on the way out. You can posture all you want but thinking people arem't buying it.

    [ Parent ]

    I took up your challenge (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 08:46:51 AM EST
    and answered your later  post repeating  this question, I didn't see this post at the time. That said, the article you cite here is not helpful to your absurd position.

    If granting for the sake of argument (and only for the sake of argument, for you are wrong) she was merely covert (Ai) and didn't qualify under A ii (and remember she and Hayden have testified she did) You are ok with this breech of national security? Outing an agent whose status was classified (a point you have conceded) and as a result, outing an entire CIA front, compromising other agents and officers? You, the putative national security voter, are ok with that?!

    If this is the case, spare us your voting on national security issues. I don't think we need or want your help with them. Its just not helpful to our country; just vote your liberal social views, that would be of help to the country.


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    On topic but a slightly bent tangent... ;>) (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    OldenGoldenDecoy at TPM Cafe has done a hilariously effective job of outing, and relegating to the "not worth paying attention to" zone, two of the most obtuse and frustrating of his trolls with a post today:

    The TPM "Apologists for the Scumbags" ... the MSM and Valerie Plame

    Well, let's see what Valerie Wilson Plame personally had to say today about all this knowledge that the press and pundits were parroting, while carrying the water for the White House propaganda machine.

    But first: In relationship to this apologist for the scumbags, and this apologist for the scumbags that haunt these TPM Cafe pages, just keep cutting and pasting the following in your replies so as not to waste your time playing tit-for-tat with these TPM Cafe bullsh*t artists.

    "In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified..." Valerie Plame Wilson
    ...
    "It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked." Valerie Plame Wilson
    Have a great weekend ... you can all have fun playing tit-for-tat with the apologists for the scumbags till your eyes glaze over.
    Heh!

    And (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    Editor & Publisher today:

    "I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert,"  she said, disputing claims to the contrary.


    [ Parent ]
    Even the head of the CIA... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by TomStewart on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    Says she was covert. I guess they were all lying.

    [ Parent ]
    hmmmmmm (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    Later on she said she wasn't a lawyer...and that she didn't know if she was....

    Some news stories created initial confusion over Plame's status by suggesting that disclosure of her name and employment may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That law, passed in response to disclosure of the names of CIA officers serving overseas by former CIA employee Philip Agee, made it a crime to disclose the names of "covert agents," which the act narrowly defined as those serving overseas or who had served as such in the previous five years.

    "Covert agent" is not a label actually used within the agency for its employees, according to former senior CIA officials. Plame, who joined the agency right out of Pennsylvania State University, underwent rigorous spycraft training to become an officer in the Directorate of Operations. (The term "agent" in the CIA is only applied to foreign nationals recruited to spy in support of U.S. interests.)



    [ Parent ]
    Okay Jim... (none / 0) (#43)
    by TomStewart on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    From Waxman's statement, as veted and cleared by the CIA:

    "Ms. Wilson was undercover...Ms. Wilson's employment status was covert...Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA...Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA...It is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States."

    Sounds pretty clear to me. Now, if Fitz didn't think he could prove intent, that's something else and you should take that up with him, NOT Mrs. Wilson.

    [ Parent ]

    Tom, (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:17:17 PM EST
    I'm not making this stuff up.
    Here's the link to the WaPost article that said what it said. Is the article wrong??

    At one point Valerie Plame-Wilson makes the statement that she was like a General. And being a General overseas, she was a General in the US. Of course this is not true. She was covert overseas, and for a time, five years, after she returned to the US. At the end of that, she no longer was covert.

    I think that statement illustrates that her ego has become very inflated.

    As for what Fitz thought he could prove against Armitage, so what? His job was to determine who had "leaked" Plame, and to deteemine if a law had been broken. Once he had done that, why the rest??

    And tell me this. Valerie Plame-Wilsom claims to have been discussing who should be sent to Niger to investiage the VP's request when some one just happened to to overhear the conversation as they were walking by and suggestted her husband.

    Huh?? I would not have let my teenagers get by with such a story.

    There is a phrase called "Need to know." It means that just because you have a certain level of clearance, let's say Secret, unless you need to know certain information, you don't get to know it.

    So someone wandered by??? What the he*l are they doing in Langley, standing around a Cube Farm discussing Secret Information like a Monday Morning Quarterback meeting?

    Let's look at this lady. She's discussing Secret Information in an open forum, unprotected from casual listeners? And she can't identify who that person was??

    She gave a $1000 bucks to the Demos in her cover name??? Huh? If she was covert, why put her name in a database??

    And why send her husband if she is covert?? Wouldn't any information about his trip draw attention to her?

    This politics. Pure and simple politics.


    [ Parent ]

    Really, ppj? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:04:59 AM EST
    Of course this is not true. She was covert overseas, and for a time, five years, after she returned to the US. At the end of that, she no longer was covert.

    How do you know that. Spreading misinformation again?.

    THIS SHOULD CLEAR THAT UP FOR YOU.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's the law. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:57:43 AM EST
    The term "covert agent" means--

    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--

    (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

    (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and--

    (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

    (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

    (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.



    [ Parent ]
    poor ppj (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    Your favorite wingnuttia talking point is DOA. Look at the video in my link. Read her lips. She was overseas within the five year time period.

    And to make it worse for your talking point, that is not the only standard for having a classified status. The five year time period only relates to one criminal law, the IIPA. There are other laws and standards regarding secret agents.

    There is the Espionage Act of 1917 for instance.

    Obvioulsy you have not been following the hearings too closely. I can understand, it must be quite humiliating for you.

    [ Parent ]

    His favorite (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    president is DOA over this, too.

    [ Parent ]
    This is politics... (4.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TomStewart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:47:12 AM EST
    Yes it is.Politics practiced against a covert CIA and her husband. I think we argee on that.

    Not sure what the link was supposed to prove, as it's basically a rundown/preview of the testimony with little, if anything new in it.

    Someone walking by? Could be. Life is strange and full of things just like that. She told that story under oath, under the questioning of the Dems AND the Repubs. Let's get Karl and Cheney under oath, or would the bible crackle and hiss when they touch it? She can't identify the person? I don't think it's not that she can't remember the person, but that person is another CIA officer, and guess what, she's not going to out the guy. Maybe she has some ethics.

    Why send her husband? Well, AGAIN, she didn't send him, the CIA saw someone they felt was qualified (and they wouldn't have to risk one of their own people), so they asked and Wilson went. Why would the CIA think that this White House would be so reckless that it would out a covert officer, and ruin an entire network AND put dozens of people in danger of their lives over a fact finding trip? Who would have thought that?

    Who indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    Please don't put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:17:39 AM EST
    Why can't you make a straightforward statement. It is really juvenile

    We don't agree that she was covert. Now, why did you make the statement that we agree?

    Someone walking by? Could be. Life is strange and full of things just like that.

    Sure. The CIA just sits around discussing things waiting for someone to walk by and offer some sage wisdom and advice.

    Again. Do you understand that secret information is discussed on a "Need To Know?" Not on a, "I'm On The  Way To The John And Just Happened To Over Hear You."

    If it happened, then where are the two people besides Plame???

    I don't know whether to cry, gag or laugh...

    the CIA saw someone they felt was qualified (and they wouldn't have to risk one of their own people), so they asked and Wilson went.

    Uh, try to understand something. First, it was not  a dangerous situtaion. And if it had been, then that is even more reason to send a real, trained, experienced agent.

    But the most important reason is simple. We have a CIA that we pay billions of dollars for. They should have been used.

    Did you ever think that if they had, the agent might have comeback and said:

    Nope. Didn't happen. And I don't even believe they were trying.

    Could that have been the issue that cooled off the belief that we needed to go to war?

    You don't know, do you? No one does. But just how much damage did sending Wilson cause??

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#90)
    by TomStewart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    How much damage did sending Wilson cause?

    I don;t understand that, sorry. It did a lot of damage to the Wilson's, when Cheney and his Pettiness Squardron went after them, it did damage to the crediblity of GWB in that it pointed out that they had none.

    Really Jim, you're talking youself in circles, trying hard to ignore facts. You should be really dizzy by now.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    So then riddle me this:

    1. Armitage was the source of the leak

    2. Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage within a few weeks (possibly sooner) of the start of the investigation

    3. Note that (2) above torches the "Libby obstructed Fitzgerald from finding the truth" theory

    Given that, how is it that Plame was covert and Armitage was not indicted under the 1917 espionage act (and the successor legislation to it)?

    Seems like "Plame wasn't actually covert" is the obvious answer to that.

    Have to agree with Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    But once more from the top. The fact that Armitage may or may not have been the original leaker, doesn't mean Libby didn't lie to the GJ or otherwise obstruct the investigation. These things are not mutually exclusive


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Molly B (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:04:33 PM EST
    But the question is, why did the SP continue when the DOJ was told three months earlier that Armitage was the leaker????

    This whole thing was manufactured.

    Turn the light out on the way out.

    [ Parent ]

    You really are desperate to shut this down (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:10:32 PM EST
    aren't you Jimbo?

    There is nothing manufactured about outing a covert agent a CIA front.  


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Molly B. (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    Not at all.

    I just want all the facts, out. See my reply to Tom Stewart.

    So let's get her back on Monday and ask some hard questions. And let's get her husband sworn in.

    Let's give them both a chance to be asked questions, not make statements.

    And along with them, Fitzgerald.

    Turn out the lights on the way out.

    [ Parent ]

    How does the Armitage Leak absolve Libby (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 06:59:38 PM EST
    of leaking to Miller and Cooper?

    Just because Miller and Cooper didn't write about it, Libby still leaked to them.

    [ Parent ]

    ding777 (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:23:19 PM EST
    Uh, please remember that Libby was not charged with outing Plame.

    Or are you saying that Fitzgerald screwed the pooch??

    [ Parent ]

    jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#58)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:35:58 AM EST
    Uh, please remember that Libby was not charged with outing Plame

    the question I responded to was centered on the investigation:

    But the question is, why did the SP continue when the DOJ was told three months earlier that Armitage was the leaker????

    so my answer still stands: The SP continued investigating because there was more than one leaker (knowing Armitage leaked doesn't absolve Libby of leaking).

    [ Parent ]

    What Fitzgerald said (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:46:09 AM EST
    Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.


    [ Parent ]
    its what you said, not Fitz (none / 0) (#73)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    you were asking about the investigation of the leak - now you switch to the charge in the indictment.

    What exactly is your question?


    [ Parent ]

    I didn't say that. (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:34:49 PM EST
    The quote us from Fitzgerald's press conference

    [ Parent ]
    Because he wasn't just asked to find the leaker(s) (none / 0) (#80)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    Finding the leaker(s) was only part of his task. Here is the relevant part (pdf)

    At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue

    You are way out on the limb and as near as I can tell the saw is more than 3/4's through the branch. Happy landings!


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Molly B (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    So after he had known about Armitage for two months, he decides he needs more power??

    That, dear Molly is my question.

    Turn the light out on the way out. It is blinding you.

    [ Parent ]

    No after 2 months (none / 0) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    he knew someone was obstructing and lying. Next question.


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    No. (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    He was tasked with finding the leaker.

    When Armitage confessed, the leaker was known.

    He had no need to go further.


    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, PPJ, but again from the press conference: (none / 0) (#98)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    FITZGERALD: I'll be blunt.

    That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.

    FITZGERALD: And I'd say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.

    When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.

    In Philadelphia, where Jack works, they prosecute false statements and obstruction of justice.

    When I got to Chicago, I knew the people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases.

    FITZGERALD: And we do it all the time. And if a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something where they go into a grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time.

    Any notion that anyone might have that there's a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.

    If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it's a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.


    [ Parent ]

    ::::This:::: from Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.
    Is a good description of exactly what the scumbags try to bamboozle their opponents into doing with all of their lies , obfustications, and feces hurling.

    Fortunately, no one is buying. And there is a process that has been lost.

    [ Parent ]
    That clearly wasn't his instructions (none / 0) (#103)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    As I already pointed out. You are just making things up at this point, cause you are out of gas.

    Besides the fact that Armitage may have leaked the information doesn't absolve any other leaker, including Libby and Rove. Nor would it absolve members of any conspiracy to leak her name.

    Clearly Fitz had more investigating to do. In the unlikely event that Fitz's investigation had been limited to that one point, JC would have said so.

    According to you, if the police are called to investigate one crime under one statute, they are limited to bringing a case only on one particular statute, not on what the facts show. If the police are called in to investigate murder, and the facts show manslaughter, the killer goes free under you theory. Under  your theory, if the police are called in to investigate robbery by Defendent A and find in the course of the investigation that not only was the vicitm robbed, but was raped and murdered as part of a conspiracy by A, B and C, well, the police can only charge A with robbery and everyone else goes scot free. "Brilliant. Just brilliant" as the Guiness commercials say.

    Totally aburd on its face. And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously.


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Dishonest Question (4.66 / 3) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    You obviously are only chatttering. This has been answered to you many many times. At this point it is clear that you are just acting like a troll.

    [ Parent ]
    ::acting:: like a troll? Heh. (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:29:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    SOP (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:28:10 PM EST
    And you and squeaky, neither of you able to answer the question, can only resort to smearing.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST ......

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    Please feel free to continue in your usual standard operating procedures.


    [ Parent ]

    OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    and consisting of nothing but personal attacks.

    [ Parent ]
    sailor (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    Let me see.

    By quoting someone I have made a personal attack?

    LOL, sailor. LOL

    [ Parent ]

    Answered... (1.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:21:04 PM EST
    If it's been answered, then explain why Armitage wasn't indicted.  If she was covert, then his leak was probably a violation.  Stop calling reasonable questions trolling and actually answer them.

    Try Google (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:21:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    we don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:46:36 PM EST
      .. but a good guess is that Fitzgeral did not believe (or at least believe the could prove) the disclosure was made with the requisite specicic intent.

    [ Parent ]
    Sigh (1.00 / 3) (#8)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    So bottom line, you don't have an answer.  The first result that comes back from a search for "Armitage Plame" has this paragraph:


    If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. On "Larry King Live" last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor's investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a "smear campaign" but rather a "kind of gossip, as chatter ... I don't see an underlying crime here."

    Which backs up my assertions about this - Fitzgerald knew there was no actual crime, and decided to go looking for a scalp.  Since he couldn't get one for the thing he was investigating, he ended up questioning until he caught someone in a lie.

    Now, as I recall, when other special prosecutors took this tack during the 90's, the left was extremely displeased.  Which again, goes back to "whose ox is being gored".

    If we elect a Democrat in 2008, and anything vaguely like this happens, I predict that TL and the entire left will go bats.

    Dishonest (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    I personally have answered your question regarding Armitage several times. Your feigned ignorance is dishonest. Obviously you are just trolling.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll bite (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:15:46 PM EST
    There were several leaks and leakers (and not one leak and leaker).  

    On the side issue of Armitage - he wasn't against the Iraq war, he had ties to both Rove and Cheney (his firm once employed Cheney's daughter), and it is far from clear what his role was and what his motivations were.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: I'll bite (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KM on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    he wasn't against the Iraq war

    That's putting it rather mildly.  The guy was one of the original signatories of PNAC's 1998 "Letter to Clinton" urging military action against Iraq to overthrow Saddam.

    Just check out that list of co-signatories.

    [ Parent ]

    KM, consider this (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    Endorsing Clinton's 1998 action does not prove that he was for invading Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Plame's word (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    Hmm.  Why should I trust Plame's word?  On the one hand, she says it was not her idea to send Wilson to Niger.  On the other hand, we have today's testimony:


    An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.

    She said she was ambivalent about the idea because she didn't want to have to put her 2 year-old twins to bed by herself at night. Still, she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor.

    Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in.

    Yeah, I'm ready to take her word on things.  If my daughter tried to fly an excuse like that by me, I'd take away a privilege for a small period of time.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    Why indeed?

    I guess she lied under oath, right jarobster?

    [ Parent ]

    Looks Like (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    Jarober has finally got the goods on Plame. I suggest he make a citizen's arrest.....hahahaha

    [ Parent ]
    He might have to (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    when his children are old enough to say "I'm outta here!"

    [ Parent ]
    edger and squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    I have no idea if she lied. I make no such claim.

    Neither do you.

    But I do know that is a very unlikely story.

    So I do think we should convene a GJ and bring the junior person she was comforting and the person who was wondering by and see if their memory matches her memory of the conversation.

    I would also suggest a review board to investigate the very sloppy way secret infomation was handled in this instance.

    Oh, BTW - The conversation she describes supposedly was on 2/12/02. Problem is, the VP asked the question on 2/13/02..

    Stranger and strangee, eh??

    [ Parent ]

    haha (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:22:44 PM EST
    I have no idea if she lied. I make no such claim.
    Neither do you.

    A Big left wing conspiracy? Enginered by the CIA?  Kool Aid anyone?  

    More likely they are aliens, plotting a coup.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ's first four words (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dark Avenger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:43:18 PM EST
    are always operative, btw.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:52:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and btw - neither of you can respond (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:24:04 AM EST
    to the point.

    How drool for you to try and avoid the issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Squeaky the smear king. (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:22:49 AM EST
    Where do I claim a Left Wing Conspiracy??

    As usual, you just make things up.


    [ Parent ]

    Drool (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    is an appropriate description of the intellectual content of PPJ's posts.

    Sea Monkey would be useful for PPJ, but then having a spell-checker takes all the fun out of being lectured by someone with claims of superior morality and reasoning skills.

    [ Parent ]

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    Thanks for dropping by and showing the world you are not capable of commenting about the subject.


    [ Parent ]
    Au contrare (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    that you have no substantial reply to my last comment tells us all about your intellectual honesty in this matter, PPJ.

    What you perusing your last comment in my second link at comment #74 here where you bring up the subject of the rear end of dogs, a field where I will concede your expertise over mine.

    You are better at this ignorance business than I am, so you should learn to control your jealousy in this area.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    DA (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    So, what comment did you make about Valerie Plame that I ignored??

    Really DA, you are so shallow and perfectly transparent.

    [ Parent ]

    What Fitzgerald said in his press conference (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    in response to your inane assertion that Fitzgerald should've stopped investigating when he found Armitage had revealed Plames' identity.

    You managed to ignore that because facts and logic aren't at your side, so you attempt your tiresome strategy of insult instead, and demonstrate why you won't get your Rove points today.

    Your twisting and turning that would require a mereconversion to Islam to complete your transformation into a Whirling Dervish of venom, misinformation, poor reading comprehension and other assorted crimes against the intellect.

    Got anymore questions?  No?

    Typical.

    you are so shallow and perfectly transparent

    That line that might've gotten a girl to go on a Louisiana Hayride 50-odd years ago with you and anyone can go to my second link at comment 74 to determine who hold the record in shallowness and transparency.

    PPJ, the Canine Gluteus Maximus of TL.

    [ Parent ]

    Please... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    stop it. You're making my jaw muscles hurt from laughing.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't conclude (none / 0) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    that Armitage is necessarily out of the woods yet.

    Neither are the (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    bush apologists.

    [ Parent ]
    Our howler monkey (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:31:14 PM EST
    s like arguing with a howler monkey whose sitting in a tree throwing feces at you.

    Yes, he certainly does get that way.

    Although it might not be such a bad thing to have such an ill tempered beast around. In any case it is better to think that way because he is here to stay. Why?..... It's a mystery.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    Follow the money ... or in this case the hit count AKA 'when ppj attacks.'
    Reasonable people try to respond with facts. He goes off on a tangent. Newbies (and oldbies) still try to respond. ppj makes a personal attack and folks respond personally.

    For every post that ppj responds to TL's hits go way up because folks feel obligated to defend themselves from ppj's personal attacks.

    TL profits by ppj's feces launching. I don't mean to sound cynical, but the only explanation for allowing this commenter to continue constant violations of TL's policies is because TL benefits by the increased traffic.

    [ Parent ]

    Three points (4.00 / 1) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    One: ppj is not leaving. Whatever deal he has here it seems pretty solid. So, my take is get used to it.

    Two: A petty tyrant is not such a bad thing to have around. Kind of like having homeless people around, as opposed to carting them off where they are out of sight out of mind. It keeps things in perspective up front and close. And to get to the point where his BS isn't irritating, however mild that irritation may be, would be a feather in one cap regarding emotional/spiritual development.

    Three: Personally I would have no idea how the wingnuts think as I am sans MSM. Yes I do get the latest spin via lefty blogs, but I see ppj as my personal portal to the machinations brewing in wingnuttia.

    [ Parent ]

    Shorter version (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    PPJ is cheap entertainment- if you don't take him seriously (and who does?)


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Molly B (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:26:57 PM EST
    As an attorney, just for the entertainment value, explain how Plame meets the legal definition of covert.

    The applicable definition is posted above.

    If you can't, I will understand.

    [ Parent ]

    As You Like It (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:53:50 PM EST
    4) The term "covert agent" means--
    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency--

    Surely you don't dispute she was, at the time of crime, an employee of an intelligence agency- the CIA

    (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

    I believe you conceded her identity  was classified.

    (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    I believe she tesified she had served outide the US. General Hayden also testified that she was covert, presumably he knows the definition requirements as well. Both Plame and Hayden, of course, have personal knowledge of the actual facts in this case.

    Since she qualifes under A, we need not visit B or C.

    QED as my mathematician hubby would say... or Res ipsa loquitur as we lawyers say.

    Fact is Jimbo you are running out of gas. Give it up man, you are only embarressing yourself!


    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    <