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
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.
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...
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.
How did blowing this woman's cover benefit the White House politically?
The consenses seems to be that this was/is a message to any of those that do not agree with the president. Wilson embarressed bush and his 16 words. The WH is pretty much "untintentional leak proof" the way it stays that way is through the iron hand of K-A-R-L.
People that have gone on the record saying they fear this man and the wrath he brings. Wilsons words are (other then the lack of WMD) the biggest embarassesment to the white house regarding this war.
If you have to no detractors speaking against your policy or reporters or other officials are afraid to speak up with the truth then you or any politician can benefit greatly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whose lives were put in danger? Answer a simple question. A lot of "intelligence" isn't "covert" and doesn't involve "deep cover operatives", slinking about with pistols in a hostile environment. They're just very smart people who go out and ask questions and piece together data in a file. You seem to imply that everything the CIA does is cloak and dagger, deep-cover stuff. A lot of people who work for the CIA do things like: read newspapers. Look at satellite photos. Etc. There's no James Bond mystique involved.
Real spying hasn't been anything like James Bond since Britain and "ULTRA"--which included eminent mathematicians like Alan Turing--which broke a cryptographic scheme the Germans thought was unbreakable. The U.S. cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, "Purple", using very, very smart people--mathematicians. I don't think you know what real spying is actually about.
I think you're living in a James Bond world. Stop watching that crap and learn some real math.
Your willingness to hate America sickens me. And you haven't got the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
It's bad enough that the bureaucracy leaked a name. It shouldn't have happened. I agree completely.
William Buckley has publicly admitted he was a CIA agent at one time, however. No one has killed him, yet. His admission didn't endanger anyone, or presumably he would have been prosecuted. Knowing that someone worked for the CIA is NOT a terrible, horrible, ugly secret. It depends on what the person was doing for the CIA.
Should it be illegal to leak the names of people who do janitorial work at the CIA?
In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't actually matter. If you have better information, tell me who died, or what was compromised. Until I see evidence that something bad happened, I'm not convinced this was anything but a very stupid bureaucratic mistake. If the bureaucrat can be found, prosecute that person. But don't give me a stupid argument that the Bush administration is leaking information to punish people at a personnel level, from the top down. Bush doesn't have evil mind control over every fool in the bureaucracy, regardless of what "wannabe-Watergate II" theorists want to believe.
If you want to get nasty, we can talk about Linda Tripp, and what happened to her, in terms of personnel. THAT was a REAL top-down decision. Her stories about how she found all four of her car tires slashed and how her cat died are also interesting. THIS appears to be a leak from somewhere in the bureaucracy. Novak is saying the leak didn't come from the White House.
Get a life.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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!
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...
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
In an extensive interview on Democracy Now!, Wilson said that the outing of his wife as an alleged CIA operative and other attempts to discredit him "are clearly intended to intimidate others from coming forward."
But it's not just intimidation; it's a felony. Until now, a crime the Bush family has taken very seriously. According to Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst who worked under Bush Sr. at both the CIA and the White House, "The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was made draconian, it was made very, very specific, automatic penalties that would accrue to both officials and non-officials-anyone who knowingly disclosed the identity of a CIA agent or officer." The penalty: fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years.
Many believe the law was passed in direct response to former CIA agent Philip Agee's blowing the whistle on CIA dirty tricks in his book Inside the Company. George H.W. Bush, who was vice-president when the law was passed, said some of the criticism of the Agency ruined secret U.S. clandestine operations in foreign countries.
So seriously did the Bushes take the crime of exposing CIA operatives that Barbara Bush, in her memoirs, accused Agee of blowing the cover of the CIA Station Chief in Greece, Richard Welch, who was assassinated outside his Athens residence in 1975. Agee sued the former first lady and Mrs. Bush withdrew the statement from additional printings of her book. Still, at a celebration marking the fiftieth anniversary of the CIA, the elder Bush again singled out Agee in his remarks, calling him "a traitor to our country."
David MacMichael worked as a CIA analyst at the time the law was passed. He told Democracy Now!: "If former President Bush could define Philip Agee as a traitor for exposing the identities of serving intelligence officers, if his son's political advisor has done the same.it is a very serious felony under the current Act."
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.
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.
I really want to know just what he thinks beyond admiration for his son as a father. George W. Bush is just that different than his father. He has ruined international treaties, weakened coalitions, and lowered our standing among the world's other powers. He is unilateralist while his father is multilateralist. Most important to Wilsongate is that Bush Sr. harshly condemns intelligence leaks while Bush Jr. is all too willing to share classified date if it helps his administration politically- or use it to silence his critics. Someone in the Bush administration did it! Someone did it! Someone!
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.
I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.
I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.
The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
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
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.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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...
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.
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."
How did blowing this woman's cover benefit the White House politically?
The consenses seems to be that this was/is a message to any of those that do not agree with the president. Wilson embarressed bush and his 16 words. The WH is pretty much "untintentional leak proof" the way it stays that way is through the iron hand of K-A-R-L.
People that have gone on the record saying they fear this man and the wrath he brings. Wilsons words are (other then the lack of WMD) the biggest embarassesment to the white house regarding this war.
If you have to no detractors speaking against your policy or reporters or other officials are afraid to speak up with the truth then you or any politician can benefit greatly.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
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.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
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.
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.
Whose lives were put in danger? Answer a simple question. A lot of "intelligence" isn't "covert" and doesn't involve "deep cover operatives", slinking about with pistols in a hostile environment. They're just very smart people who go out and ask questions and piece together data in a file. You seem to imply that everything the CIA does is cloak and dagger, deep-cover stuff. A lot of people who work for the CIA do things like: read newspapers. Look at satellite photos. Etc. There's no James Bond mystique involved.
Real spying hasn't been anything like James Bond since Britain and "ULTRA"--which included eminent mathematicians like Alan Turing--which broke a cryptographic scheme the Germans thought was unbreakable. The U.S. cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, "Purple", using very, very smart people--mathematicians. I don't think you know what real spying is actually about.
I think you're living in a James Bond world. Stop watching that crap and learn some real math.
Your willingness to hate America sickens me. And you haven't got the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
It's bad enough that the bureaucracy leaked a name. It shouldn't have happened. I agree completely.
William Buckley has publicly admitted he was a CIA agent at one time, however. No one has killed him, yet. His admission didn't endanger anyone, or presumably he would have been prosecuted. Knowing that someone worked for the CIA is NOT a terrible, horrible, ugly secret. It depends on what the person was doing for the CIA.
Should it be illegal to leak the names of people who do janitorial work at the CIA?
In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't actually matter. If you have better information, tell me who died, or what was compromised. Until I see evidence that something bad happened, I'm not convinced this was anything but a very stupid bureaucratic mistake. If the bureaucrat can be found, prosecute that person. But don't give me a stupid argument that the Bush administration is leaking information to punish people at a personnel level, from the top down. Bush doesn't have evil mind control over every fool in the bureaucracy, regardless of what "wannabe-Watergate II" theorists want to believe.
If you want to get nasty, we can talk about Linda Tripp, and what happened to her, in terms of personnel. THAT was a REAL top-down decision. Her stories about how she found all four of her car tires slashed and how her cat died are also interesting. THIS appears to be a leak from somewhere in the bureaucracy. Novak is saying the leak didn't come from the White House.
Get a life.
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.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
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".
Originally posted by keyboardf12
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.
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!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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...
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?
Originally posted by giant
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.
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.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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?
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.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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?
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?
Originally posted by tonton
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?
some of the more important yellow cake comments:
In an extensive interview on Democracy Now!, Wilson said that the outing of his wife as an alleged CIA operative and other attempts to discredit him "are clearly intended to intimidate others from coming forward."
But it's not just intimidation; it's a felony. Until now, a crime the Bush family has taken very seriously. According to Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst who worked under Bush Sr. at both the CIA and the White House, "The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was made draconian, it was made very, very specific, automatic penalties that would accrue to both officials and non-officials-anyone who knowingly disclosed the identity of a CIA agent or officer." The penalty: fines of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years.
Many believe the law was passed in direct response to former CIA agent Philip Agee's blowing the whistle on CIA dirty tricks in his book Inside the Company. George H.W. Bush, who was vice-president when the law was passed, said some of the criticism of the Agency ruined secret U.S. clandestine operations in foreign countries.
So seriously did the Bushes take the crime of exposing CIA operatives that Barbara Bush, in her memoirs, accused Agee of blowing the cover of the CIA Station Chief in Greece, Richard Welch, who was assassinated outside his Athens residence in 1975. Agee sued the former first lady and Mrs. Bush withdrew the statement from additional printings of her book. Still, at a celebration marking the fiftieth anniversary of the CIA, the elder Bush again singled out Agee in his remarks, calling him "a traitor to our country."
David MacMichael worked as a CIA analyst at the time the law was passed. He told Democracy Now!: "If former President Bush could define Philip Agee as a traitor for exposing the identities of serving intelligence officers, if his son's political advisor has done the same.it is a very serious felony under the current Act."
Sr. must be LIVID at JR.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
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.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Sr. must be LIVID at JR.
Rove is Sr.'s man. HW got Rove in the game, IIRC
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Sr. must be LIVID at JR.
I really want to know just what he thinks beyond admiration for his son as a father. George W. Bush is just that different than his father. He has ruined international treaties, weakened coalitions, and lowered our standing among the world's other powers. He is unilateralist while his father is multilateralist. Most important to Wilsongate is that Bush Sr. harshly condemns intelligence leaks while Bush Jr. is all too willing to share classified date if it helps his administration politically- or use it to silence his critics. Someone in the Bush administration did it! Someone did it! Someone!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
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.
I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.
I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.
The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.
Nick