This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse! - Page 6

No, it's a lie, at least an indirect lie. If he had better intelligence from his own sources that said the otherwise, he knew the britts were mistaken. Including it in his speach after what he new is decieving with intention. Which is, basically, a kind of lie.

Its not just an irresponsible use of a statement. Attemting to mislead the whole american public, In the State of the Union. Come on... What does "the little voice inside you" really say?

Just for the sake of discussion...can you reveal any names? I mean, since it's no big deal and all.

How do you know any lives were not put in danger? So please enlighten us as to what Wilson's wife did at the CIA since you're such an "expert" here.

OK, you talk a lot about what spying isn't. Tell us what spying IS then. Put your money where your mouth is.

Are you serious? Can you tell from such an innocent discussion that he hates America? Again, you are being all talk and not much substance. PLease enlighten us on the subject.

How do you know his admission, voluntary and not by a leak, did not endanger anyone? It appears Mrs. Wilson was involved with weapons of mass destruction.

Irrelevant. You just said that it all depends on what the person was doing for the CIA. You're being silly now.

Well, why don't you enlighten us with what you know. You make all these assertions but then end up asking questions. Why don't you prove us NO ONE has died or will die, or NOTHING has been compromised.If some informant in XXX country died because of this..do you really think we'd hear about it? Did you read the original Novak article? Have you seen how his story has changed? So if it's just a "stupid bureaucratic mistake" let's make sure it is. Let's find out and move on.

Whoaaaa!

I'm sorry but the level intense rhetoric has been ratcheted up chiefly by you.

"Feces in a bucket"
"Get a life."
"B.S."
"Psychology borders on psychotic"
"Radical left-wing ecoterrorists"
"Self-centered psychotic reality"

I mean you really are that far out there that you respond like that. It's terrible. It's nothing but a guttural reaction to the potential political harming of your president and the potential imprisonment of his chief aides. I say potential, of course, because none of us actually believe that justice will be served 100%. You have to admit that somebody broke the law.....and somebody should go to jail for it....and it was somebody in the Bush administration.

hmmm... has he been convicted of something?

damn, hit the wrong button.

Oh well, "they, the brits" believed it was the right button!

The crime isn't that Novak reported that Plame was an operative. The crime was that someone TOLD NOVAK... and possibly 6 other reporters that Plame was an operative. It doesn't even matter if the person(s) called reporters or reporters called them... and it "slipped" out... just the act of telling someone is a crime.

This isn't Bush bashing... maybe Rove bashing.

My prediction: the leaker wasn't Rove. The journalists involved won't tell (if you want to work in DC, you don't burn your sources) but the FBI will find out who it was anyway. It won't be Rove.

Hmm.

I find it really interesting that you think you have knowledge just through association. I could also very much invoke that, but won't.

The real issue is what you have studied yourself. It's clear you haven't done much but talk to a couple of people about some general issues. You obviously have not read any of the significant texts regarding intel in all of it's various forms. I bet you couldn't even name 20 of the US intel systems.

But let's just go to the main part of your statement. You seem unable to differentiate between 'operative' and 'analyst.' Really, it's more complicated than that, anyway. There are quite a few different roles one could play. You can bet special forces/CIA folks in Iraq and Afghanistan are in roles you're pretending don't exist. You also seem to forget the high-profile death of Kelly. But most importantly, you are ignoring what intel services from all over the world have been doing in the middle east.

Now, it's true that 95% of intel is open source, but human intel covers some of that ~5%, along with the many technological collection systems.

So, in the end, while the area you've had contact with deals with simple analysis, which is why highly skilled people like your father's students are so valuable, projecting that on to this situation shows a basic ignorance of this situation within the larger context of US intel collection and analysis.

There is no question that 'outing' someone working undercover outside of the country is very dangerous and stupid, not only on the personal level, but also for the work that she has been doing. This is true whether she was working as an academic or in a business role.

My guess is that she may have been an academic, but the web is so saturated with stories that it is hard to sift through it all and find sources on her from before this incident.

But we know the leaker is a 'senior white house official' and a 'senior administration official.' That means the group of people whose names you know. It's clear, if you know anything about Rove, that he was one of the two. This is classic Rove from every angle. Who else do you think it is? Powell? Wolfowitz? You do realize that the list of suspects is really, really short and consists of only these people, don't you?

Furthermore, it's clear that it was Rove because the reporters have been saying it, though not publicly.

However, I will be surprised if it gets put on Rove. He has been very loyal to the Bushies and is a powerful force keeping the republicans in power. They simply can't afford to lose him. If Rove goes, the republicans lose power. Simple as that. So it will be interesting to see how they weasel their way out of this one.

No it's not. This White House is notorious for NOT leaking. Whoever did this was out of step with the way Bush likes to do things. That ain't Rove.

He's got previous. Him, betcha.

There will, however, be an escape route due to some technicality and some lackey will take the blame.

He'll get away with his 'I did not have sexual relations' line.

Huh? Did I say 'The bush admin is notorious for leaking?' No. If you actually had a clue about this and had ever looked at Rove's background you would know what I am talking about, but apparently you have not and therefore don't.

BTW: I don't need you telling me about the bush admin's information policies. I literally make part of my living knowing about it.

Actually... there's a difference between the types of leaks we're talking about...

Stories leak out of the white house from "senior administration" officials all the time... but these are things that the White House WANTS out there...

the kind of leaks that are rare from this White House are insiders giving out dirt on the administration... unfavorable things...

Right now there is someone dishing it out and saying that indeed someone from within the administration wanted Wilson's intergrity impuned... and thought that saying there was some nepotistic link between Wilson and how he got the Niger assignment... they are in the administration and is saying that 6 reporters were called with the info of Plame being a CIA operative.

All this and still Scott and SDW are MIA.

You guys lay off trumptman and get back on topic. He didn't say anything except for one dumb comment about watching us "Who wants to spin, it's more fun to watch all of you salivate, rant, and scream for blood." And that was because you asked for it.

This is a different kind of leak- an intentional leak as opposed to an unintentional leak.

Given that, I don't know how you can categorically deny that Rove is involved. Wilson's point was that if Rove wasn't the leaker, he at least condoned the illegal act given the White House's gross inaction. It's entirely possible that any senior administration official, including Rove, is involved in some capacity.

The unfortunate thing is that the White House had 11 weeks to clean up.

Not to be rude but no man or woman makes a party. I'm sure people thought the Republicans would crumble when Gingrich, or Lott or whomever went down. If anything I think that getting rid of someone who is considered problematic sometimes builds credibility and improves the ability of the party to operate.

Nick

Similarly off-topic comment.

One question.

Did Valerie Plame ask to be dragged into the limelight?
Did Valerie Plame ask to be revealed as a CIA operative?
Did Valerie Plame ask to have her career ruined?
Did Valerie Plame ask to have her contacts' lives jeopardized?
Did Valerie Plame ask to have her contacts' careers jeopardized?

No.

My question is WHY aren't Bush apologists either outraged or upset or worried about the facts of this case which undisputedly point back to the administration? \

Was that one question thing intentional?

I haven't read up enough to make firm conclusions about the first two questions, but do you have any evidence for the last three?

Nick

Here's a transcript from the NewsHour last night...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...aks_09-30.html

An interesting segment that interviews a Journalist and a former CIA Official discussing the issues of confidential sources and the damage that outing a CIA operative does.


The difference between a CIA analyst and a spy
TERENCE SMITH: Tom Rosenstiel, the notion that Bob Novak put forward: an analyst, not a spy. I talked to the CIA -- they urged me not to do it but didn't suggest it would endanger anyone. What do you think of that reason?

TOM ROSENSTIEL: Well, I think it's weak. Bob Novak has done a really dangerous and terrible thing. If you are going to get involved in something like this where you're bumping up against breaking the law, as a journalist you have a civil disobedience test you have to meet. What's the public good of this story? What's the -- balanced against what's the danger to the people involved publishing the story. The third part of the test is, is it necessary in telling the story to do this or is there another way to do it, do you need to divulge this person's name, in other words, to convey the information you think is of the public interest.

This doesn't meet any one of those three tests. It's not of overriding public interest. Novak may be really just an instrument of Republican revenge here. Whatever the public good is of the story is far overwhelmed by the danger to this woman and her network of operatives. And it's gratuitous. You could have told the story without her name.

TERENCE SMITH: We should point out for the record that we invited Bob Novak to join this discussion. He told me this afternoon that he had said all he had to say on this. Your reaction, Larry?

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

Those were the facts of the case phrased as rhetorical questions, my real question followed. I'm not surprised you missed the distinction. (kidding! i hope you were joking too.)

The CIA is looking into the extent of the damage as we speak. But do you seriously disagree that naming a CIA operative doesn't at least jeapordize the things I listed? Of course it does. Undisputedly!

And Bush apologists don't seem to be either outraged or upset or worried about the facts of this case that undisputedly point back to the administration.

I can't and I didn't. All I did was make a prediction. I have as much information as the rest of you and I don't know who did it. I'm just saying it's not likely it was Rove.

Look, I don't give a crap about Rove. Maybe I should care - I know Bush relies on him and on most issues I back the president - but I don't. I just don't see his fingerprints on this. How did blowing this woman's cover benefit the White House politically? Whatever else Rove is, he's first and foremost a political animal. Show me the political advantage that came from this leak and I'd be willing to reconsider.

Well... Rove is kinda known for being a hothead... and vengeful. There doesn't necessarily have to be a politcal advantage other than you hurt someone you don't like... someone who is speaking out against your president.

It has been reported that he told reporters "She's fair game." After her name was published.

NOT "Leave her alone she works at the CIA."

Then you don't know much about Rove's past. How about you start here: http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm

But as I've said over and over: what other 'senior admin official' would do this? I'm actually asking this for real, since we know that two of them did it and I'm still not sure who the other one is.

Furthermore, it's clear that this was a message to all of the other CIA folks that were increasing speaking in the lead-up to the outing of Plame. Or maybe you didn't notice how deafeningly silent the anonymous analysts becamed following Novak's article.

Oh, you're absolutely right. It backfired on whoever decided to leak the information. The leak, by some criminal twist of imagination, was intended to discourage other whistle blowers from coming forward. Wilson has stated all along that naming his wife has little to do with stopping him from coming forward since he already did. It certainly punished him, taking away his wife's job. But what about the CIA operative who is fairly high on the pay scale and has two kids in college? Will he be discouraged if he knew someone in the Bush Administration might blow his cover if he comes forward? Remember, once you're named, your career is over. It's over. There's a distinct political advantage to be gained from squashing dissent. I can't believe you don't see it.

Yawn. If someone in the White House committed a felony, then he/she should stand trial and do the time if found guilty. I get the impression you're giving this a non-event status because it leaked from George Bush's White House.

Point made perfectly!

I find it interesting the Novak seems to have no problem sleeping at night knowing he single-handedly destroyed this woman's career. She was working on a high-security project like WMDs. She'll NEVER be allowed to work on national security projects EVER AGAIN. And I find it disgusting when some try to belittle her job at the CIA with statements like "she's probably just a glorified secretary." If this happened to a male operative I guarantee you NO ONE would be trying to belittle his position as "secretarial".

Thankyou! Now we might, with luck, see the end of Scott's obsession with "anti-American" this and "anti-American" that...whenever anyone lays criticism upon Bush and co!

So now Wilson is a whistle blower?

I got the whole somebody was trying to hurt Wilson angle. I just don't see someone as politically savvy as Rove losing sight of the bigger picture just to try and settle a score or even to send a message. I'm not convinced.

I'd also like to know: do CIA operatives have a habit of using their real names?

Screw Novak. Screw Rove. Leave all that aside for a moment. If CIA operatives are talking to reporters, THEY are playing with fire. I HOPE they are deafeningly silent for THEIR sakes. At any rate, it's only been a couple of months. I don't know how you could possibly measure this so-called deafening silence.

No. They go by numbers. Didn't you ever learn anything from James Bond? Duh.

Oh, and good job not learning anything about Rove. Very impressive.

Wilson's OP-ED in the New York Times blew the whistle on Bush's "yellowcake uranium" claim. Wilson went to Niger before the State of the Union address, found out that no sale occurred, reported back to the CIA and Bush STILL USED THE CLAIM in his State of the Union Address (this time attributing it to British intelligence- our intelligence obviously contradicting his claims). You missed my point if you only see the angle of hurting Wilson- which was minor in comparison to threatening other whistle blowers from coming forward.) How can you not see that as attempting to gain political advantage through squashing dissent? That's a very clear, very simple point.

Concerning CIA operatives using their real names, I think the entire point is that she was identified as a CIA operative. Regardless of her real name or code name, the intention was to identify the wife of a whistle-blower as a CIA operative. Even if her code name was Valeria Pizzeria, the intent was to identify her as the wife of Joseph Wilson (thus blowing her cover, as marriage records would easily show). So it doesn't matter what name she used, only that she was identified as a CIA operative. Am I making things clearer for you?

And that is why in this case the Dept. of Justice is NOT the right agency to look into these allegations. That is exactly why this would be a conflict of interest for Ashcroft. That is exactly why we need an independent investigation.

Furthermore, Rove was a campaign advisor to Ashcroft in the past. If it becomes clear to the Justice Department that a felon roves the white house, then that's a clear conflict of interest. Can someone honestly prosecute a person with whom you had a prior personal or business relationship?

He was already fired ONCE (by Bush I)for doing the same thing....WITH Novak of all people...see a mini pattern here?

By the way, have any of you heard that Rove was Ashcroft's campaign manager a couple of times in the past? Could there be a political favor paid back in the near future?

Edit: LOL...I should've read all the posts first. A number of people beat me to it.