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.
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.
My father has trained many of the people who now work at the NSA and the CIA. My father is a mathematician--many of his graduate students found jobs there. I have stayed in their homes in Washington.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
What can i say that was not said before in the wonderful posts above?
Oh I got one,
How do you know CIA agent lives weren't put in danger?
Can you post exaclty why there is no chance what so ever any CIA operative,contacts or this country were not put in danger?
I'll wait....tick tick tick tick.......
Page on calendar turns.
Oh look its christmas.....
I'm still waiting.....
Happy New Year!!!
Maybe in the fantasy that you live in the "outing' of CIA agents results in a 100%, iron clad, i gar-rontee, 30 day money back, return if you are not satified, fact that agents or contacts were not put in danger.But in the real world that is an unfortunate possibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? \
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?
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.
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.
Comments
10 years. Anyone think Rove shouldn't spend 10 years in prison for this?
hmmm... has he been convicted of something?
Oh well, "they, the brits" believed it was the right button!
This isn't Bush bashing... maybe Rove bashing.
Originally posted by JamesBSD
My father has trained many of the people who now work at the NSA and the CIA. My father is a mathematician--many of his graduate students found jobs there. I have stayed in their homes in Washington.
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.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
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.
Originally posted by giant
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...
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.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
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.
Note to Mods: I was just curious....have we seen some of the names on this thread "before"? seems like "deja vu all over again" to me in some cases.
Seems like deja vu all over again...
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.
What can i say that was not said before in the wonderful posts above?
Oh I got one,
How do you know CIA agent lives weren't put in danger?
Can you post exaclty why there is no chance what so ever any CIA operative,contacts or this country were not put in danger?
I'll wait....tick tick tick tick.......
Page on calendar turns.
Oh look its christmas.....
I'm still waiting.....
Happy New Year!!!
Maybe in the fantasy that you live in the "outing' of CIA agents results in a 100%, iron clad, i gar-rontee, 30 day money back, return if you are not satified, fact that agents or contacts were not put in danger.But in the real world that is an unfortunate possibility.
To quote a james bond move once more...
Oh James...
Que cera cera - Let them eat yellow cake!
(Man this guy sounds familiar...)
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.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
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.
Your willingness to hate America sickens me.
Oh almost forgot this one #$%#...
I love this country and its people.
This country IMO is the greatest country on earth.
Who I hate are americans who lie to start wars.
Who i hate are americans who, under the guise of patriotism, wipe thier ass with our consitiution and take away our freedoms.
Who i hate are americans who out CIA agents purely for politcal revenge.
Originally posted by giant
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.
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
Originally posted by Aquatic
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.
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?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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
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.
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.
Whoa.