The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.No, our intel COULDN'T SUPPORT the claim. It didn't contradict it.;
It didn't have to be that thorough if it wasn't to begin with. The uranium consortium in Niger is very heavily monitored. The International Atomic Energy Agency was monitoring Iraq's nuclear facilities, including the famous one at Tuwaitha that was looted.Iraq didn't have the facilities to enrich uranium.We also sent a four star Marine General named Carlton Fulford to investigate:
Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.
Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.
Quote:
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.
Well, poeple may be looking at past history and Rove has been a leaker in the past. I don't know who is at fault here, but I think the investigation should be fair and meticulous and the guilty parties should deal with the legal consequences.
JOHN ASHCROFT: The truth of the matter is that if the law's been violated, we should be able to ascertain that.
We can, if we have an independent person without a conflict of interest?
ROWLAND EVANS: ?The attorney general has shaved down all the allegations that Vice President Gore apparently down to one single allegation -- which telephone he used to make these fundraising calls from.
Do you really think that alone is worthy of a special prosecutor?
ASHCROFT: ?you know, a single allegation can be most worthy of a special prosecutor.
If you're abusing government property, if you're abusing your status in office, it can be a single fact that makes the difference on that.
So my own view is that there are plenty of things which should have caused [Attorney General Janet Reno], a long time ago, to appoint a special prosecutor, an independent investigator.
We asked for that on March the 13th of this year in letters from Republican members on the Judiciary Committee. And she's in a bad position?
?The man who signs her check is the man that she's investigating, and she hasn't been very aggressive about it.
Rover Hen: Phew! I thought i was plucked for sure...
Hold the phone...
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 ? Deep political ties between top White House aides and Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer.
"They may try and recover deleted email files for certain dates..."
"The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?"
Nina Totenberg, on NPR this evening.
This really is absolutely unbelievable. Where is the outrage? We need some answers to those questions.
UPDATE: Digby adds:
One would have thought that the Commander in Chief would have personally ordered his staff to preserve all e-mails and documents relating to a possible felony and breach of national security during wartime on the morning after the leak was revealed in Robert Novak's column.
That's what a leader does. He doesn't depend upon legal technicalities and partisan firestorms to make him do the right thing. He takes the bull by the horns and demands that anyone under his watch who commits such an act, or knows who committed such an act, comes forward or he'll know the reason why. He would make it crystal clear that there will be zero tolerance for political games with national security. He would immediately put in place safeguards to ensure that it never happens again. He would fire the perpetrator and send all evidence to the proper authorities.
Of course, strutting around in a fighter pilot costume is good, too.
Can any lawyers in the crowd get a copy of the 1982 statute in question and paste it in this thread? Particularly interesting would be a definition of a "covert agent".
If Mrs. Wilson meets the definition of a 'covert agent', AND, if the column by Novak meets the criteria of the statute, then someone, it would seem, is indeed, in Trouble.
Until that time, it seems that no one knows for sure what Mrs. Wilson does at CIA. Is she a receptionist, an analyist, or a fire-eating Marta Hari?
Lot of questions to be answered (and rather easily I should think) before the Monty Pythonesque Mob Burns The Witch.
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.
Scottalicious!
For the most part you've been good so far. That is, open minded. But I have to say that at least around here people don't seem to 'want' to pin it on Rove so much as Rove seems to be the right guy. I mean, all the Bush haters, given a choice, would probably wish that Bush himself could be proven to have broken the law. That would be the best option. People are pegging Rove because the evidence points to Rove.
I know I'd rather this get pinned on Bush himself, rather than Rove. I'd say 10 years in the slammer for GBII would be worth it all.
Until that time, it seems that no one knows for sure what Mrs. Wilson does at CIA. Is she a receptionist, an analyist, or a fire-eating Marta Hari?
The only people calling her anything but an operative (including the counsel to the white house that used the term "undercover") are that republican congressman from georgia that suggested she might be a "glorified" secretary and novak who called her an "operative' then an "analyst" who knows what he will claim what she is tomorrow.
There really is no more "dancing around" what she was.
A) The CIA would not have brought it up if she was a "janitor"
and
Multiple sources reported today that she did indeed work for the "Directorac(sp) of Operations" basically the "super secret" part of the CIA that falls under the statute.
So posting the statue really doesn't matter any longer.
The law was broken. A CIA operative was "outed" and 8 people know at least, exactly which "senior administation official" committed this felony.
to 'want' to pin it on Rove so much as Rove seems to be the right guy
Egg-sactly..
Thanks bunge.
Based on his past and the stories we have heard about him and this white house we might find out Libby,Libby,Libby, is the fall guy but I would still find it very hard to believe K-A-R-L did not (as the political operations officer of a very political white house) have at least some tacit part in this Felony.
Are you purposefully being dense? We're talking about a hypothetical situation where he's guilty of the accusation. If you're going to be dense, don't bother to subtract anything from the conversation.
you sure didn't sound hypothetical. you asked if anyone thought that Karl Rove should get less than 10 years for this? Where's the hypothetical part? You've already assumed that he's guilty based on the irresponsible assumption that he was behind this. There isn't any evidence to that end beyond the conjecture of an admitted Bush-hater.
you sure didn't sound hypothetical. you asked if anyone thought that Karl Rove should get less than 10 years for this? Where's the hypothetical part? You've already assumed that he's guilty based on the irresponsible assumption that he was behind this. There isn't any evidence to that end beyond the conjecture of an admitted Bush-hater.
You could only truly believe this if you were ignorant (hadn't read the thread) or were lying. Take your pick.
SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982, Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)
A case to prosecute would require the following elements:
1. "intentionally discloses" It would have to be shown that the release of information identifying the covert agent was intenetional, and not accidental (ie: leaving a file on your desk that someone who shouldn't be looking at did. - that would be reckless but not intentional.)
2. "not authorized to receive" The person receiving the information would have to be someone not legally cleared at a classified level.
3. "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent" You have to prove that the disclosure actually identifies the covert agent. Simply saying that Wilson's wife was a covert agent wouldn't meet this standard.
4. The individual actually has to be a covert agent, and the person would have to KNOW that they were a covert agent as accorded wherein it states: "and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States"
The fourth would be the most difficult to prove at this point since it appears that it was common knowledge around Washington that Amb. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Even if she had "covert" status, but it was reasonablly well known that she worked for the CIA, it would be a defense to a charge under this act that the United States wasn't taking affirmative measures to conceal her relationship.
Additionally, there would have to be mens rea, whereas the individual intended to violate the law.
edit: I should say, in all fairness, that just because you can't make a case doesn't mean that what happened was wrong. I'm not passing judgement on that, but I am saying that this is what it would take to rise to level of a criminal conviction.
You could further have someone who did in fact violate the law but still not be able to make your case on the elements, in which case there would be no conviction. I only posted that, and made those comments because someone asked for the information. Each is still obviously free to disgusted at the actions of those who may have broken the law. If in fact they have, whoever they may be, they should be prosecuted.
I would only stipulate that we actually have to discover if 1. the law was actually broken, and 2. who broke it.
You could only truly believe this if you were ignorant (hadn't read the thread) or were lying. Take your pick.
Quite an arguement... only give me two choices to choose from. And such unpleasant choices at that. Perhaps there is another reason that stems from your zealous hatred of Bush and all things Bush, and because of the comments you make here.
Quite an arguement... only give me two choices to choose from. And such unpleasant choices at that. Perhaps there is another reason that stems from your zealous hatred of Bush and all things Bush, and because of the comments you make here.
You've got a whole world of choices, but I'm going to guess that most of them aren't correct. Luckily there's a clear answer in this thread, a few posts prior to your original post so feel free to go check it out.
I don't think my supposed belief of anything has anything to do with your lack of understanding.
Hagel is a Republican, even if not much of a loyalist, and he's pointing at what everyone's saying: that the problem centers on the vice president's office. And people are adding a name: Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff and close advisor.
Additionally, the NYTimes finally posts a legitimate, original story that approaches the Washington Post's level of excellent coverage: Indeed, the Attorney General is closely linked to inquiry figures. Read all about it, naysayers.
Quote:
Even some Republicans, while united in their belief that there is no need for an outside counsel, say Mr. Ashcroft will be hit hard by his political detractors if the investigation drags on.
"All of these so-called scandals can snowball and every new crumb of information turns into a front-page story above the fold," a Senate Republican aide said. "The Democrats are going to make of this what they will, but the reality is you could have the pope do the investigation and they'd still be screaming bias."
For the most part you've been good so far. That is, open minded...
Whoop-de-freaking-doo! Bunge, I don't give a damn whether or not you think I've been open-minded. If you have a problem with something I write, it's a pretty safe bet I'm on the side of the angels.
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.
Now you are just making stuff up! Of course, it's much easier to regurgitate a short Cliff May op-ed (and call it 'the verdict' of all things!) than to actually deal with the reality.
You are apparently extremely adverse to actually learning about things before talking about them.
I thought it was pretty clear that the CIA sent a request to investigate to the Justice Department because they felt the law was broken... the CIA knows whether or not she's Classified... and it's been dertermined that she is in fact working in Operations NOT the Intelligence office where analysts work...
if you notice above... a former agent talks about being in the same CIA training class as Plame... even says that he only knew her by her first name and last initial.... no one goes by the last name because they're being trained as covert operatives.
It's already been determined that she's NOT an analyst...
Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.
Quote:
Mr. Wilson said on Wednesday, "Her career as a clandestine officer is over."
While what you posted is correct, it's interesting that you did not provide a citation. What's further interesting is that you apparently just got it off of findlaw rather than go directly to the real source and call it by it's name: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That would not only have been the clear and proper way to do it (which a real professor should do out of habit), but it is also the easy way.
Comments
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.
This is not what i understood. Links? Thx.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.No, our intel COULDN'T SUPPORT the claim. It didn't contradict it.;
It didn't have to be that thorough if it wasn't to begin with. The uranium consortium in Niger is very heavily monitored. The International Atomic Energy Agency was monitoring Iraq's nuclear facilities, including the famous one at Tuwaitha that was looted.Iraq didn't have the facilities to enrich uranium.We also sent a four star Marine General named Carlton Fulford to investigate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
From the article:
Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.
Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.
Well, poeple may be looking at past history and Rove has been a leaker in the past. I don't know who is at fault here, but I think the investigation should be fair and meticulous and the guilty parties should deal with the legal consequences.
Courtesy of Atrios via Liberal Oasis.
John Ashcroft Flashback!
October 4, 1997
CNN?s ?Evans & Novak"
JOHN ASHCROFT: The truth of the matter is that if the law's been violated, we should be able to ascertain that.
We can, if we have an independent person without a conflict of interest?
ROWLAND EVANS: ?The attorney general has shaved down all the allegations that Vice President Gore apparently down to one single allegation -- which telephone he used to make these fundraising calls from.
Do you really think that alone is worthy of a special prosecutor?
ASHCROFT: ?you know, a single allegation can be most worthy of a special prosecutor.
If you're abusing government property, if you're abusing your status in office, it can be a single fact that makes the difference on that.
So my own view is that there are plenty of things which should have caused [Attorney General Janet Reno], a long time ago, to appoint a special prosecutor, an independent investigator.
We asked for that on March the 13th of this year in letters from Republican members on the Judiciary Committee. And she's in a bad position?
?The man who signs her check is the man that she's investigating, and she hasn't been very aggressive about it.
*dances*
Ashcroft the Fox: You bet.
Rover Hen: Phew! I thought i was plucked for sure...
Hold the phone...
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 ? Deep political ties between top White House aides and Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/po...partner=GOOGLE
WTF?? This is just sick.
Atrios.blogspot.com
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_09_2...05425381725151
"They may try and recover deleted email files for certain dates..."
"The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?"
Nina Totenberg, on NPR this evening.
This really is absolutely unbelievable. Where is the outrage? We need some answers to those questions.
UPDATE: Digby adds:
One would have thought that the Commander in Chief would have personally ordered his staff to preserve all e-mails and documents relating to a possible felony and breach of national security during wartime on the morning after the leak was revealed in Robert Novak's column.
That's what a leader does. He doesn't depend upon legal technicalities and partisan firestorms to make him do the right thing. He takes the bull by the horns and demands that anyone under his watch who commits such an act, or knows who committed such an act, comes forward or he'll know the reason why. He would make it crystal clear that there will be zero tolerance for political games with national security. He would immediately put in place safeguards to ensure that it never happens again. He would fire the perpetrator and send all evidence to the proper authorities.
Of course, strutting around in a fighter pilot costume is good, too.
If Mrs. Wilson meets the definition of a 'covert agent', AND, if the column by Novak meets the criteria of the statute, then someone, it would seem, is indeed, in Trouble.
Until that time, it seems that no one knows for sure what Mrs. Wilson does at CIA. Is she a receptionist, an analyist, or a fire-eating Marta Hari?
Lot of questions to be answered (and rather easily I should think) before the Monty Pythonesque Mob Burns The Witch.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.
Scottalicious!
For the most part you've been good so far. That is, open minded. But I have to say that at least around here people don't seem to 'want' to pin it on Rove so much as Rove seems to be the right guy. I mean, all the Bush haters, given a choice, would probably wish that Bush himself could be proven to have broken the law. That would be the best option. People are pegging Rove because the evidence points to Rove.
I know I'd rather this get pinned on Bush himself, rather than Rove. I'd say 10 years in the slammer for GBII would be worth it all.
Until that time, it seems that no one knows for sure what Mrs. Wilson does at CIA. Is she a receptionist, an analyist, or a fire-eating Marta Hari?
The only people calling her anything but an operative (including the counsel to the white house that used the term "undercover") are that republican congressman from georgia that suggested she might be a "glorified" secretary and novak who called her an "operative' then an "analyst" who knows what he will claim what she is tomorrow.
There really is no more "dancing around" what she was.
A) The CIA would not have brought it up if she was a "janitor"
and
So posting the statue really doesn't matter any longer.
The law was broken. A CIA operative was "outed" and 8 people know at least, exactly which "senior administation official" committed this felony.
to 'want' to pin it on Rove so much as Rove seems to be the right guy
Egg-sactly..
Thanks bunge.
Based on his past and the stories we have heard about him and this white house we might find out Libby,Libby,Libby, is the fall guy but I would still find it very hard to believe K-A-R-L did not (as the political operations officer of a very political white house) have at least some tacit part in this Felony.
Are you purposefully being dense? We're talking about a hypothetical situation where he's guilty of the accusation. If you're going to be dense, don't bother to subtract anything from the conversation.
you sure didn't sound hypothetical. you asked if anyone thought that Karl Rove should get less than 10 years for this? Where's the hypothetical part? You've already assumed that he's guilty based on the irresponsible assumption that he was behind this. There isn't any evidence to that end beyond the conjecture of an admitted Bush-hater.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
you sure didn't sound hypothetical. you asked if anyone thought that Karl Rove should get less than 10 years for this? Where's the hypothetical part? You've already assumed that he's guilty based on the irresponsible assumption that he was behind this. There isn't any evidence to that end beyond the conjecture of an admitted Bush-hater.
You could only truly believe this if you were ignorant (hadn't read the thread) or were lying. Take your pick.
TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982, Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)
A case to prosecute would require the following elements:
1. "intentionally discloses" It would have to be shown that the release of information identifying the covert agent was intenetional, and not accidental (ie: leaving a file on your desk that someone who shouldn't be looking at did. - that would be reckless but not intentional.)
2. "not authorized to receive" The person receiving the information would have to be someone not legally cleared at a classified level.
3. "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent" You have to prove that the disclosure actually identifies the covert agent. Simply saying that Wilson's wife was a covert agent wouldn't meet this standard.
4. The individual actually has to be a covert agent, and the person would have to KNOW that they were a covert agent as accorded wherein it states: "and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States"
The fourth would be the most difficult to prove at this point since it appears that it was common knowledge around Washington that Amb. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Even if she had "covert" status, but it was reasonablly well known that she worked for the CIA, it would be a defense to a charge under this act that the United States wasn't taking affirmative measures to conceal her relationship.
Additionally, there would have to be mens rea, whereas the individual intended to violate the law.
edit: I should say, in all fairness, that just because you can't make a case doesn't mean that what happened was wrong. I'm not passing judgement on that, but I am saying that this is what it would take to rise to level of a criminal conviction.
You could further have someone who did in fact violate the law but still not be able to make your case on the elements, in which case there would be no conviction. I only posted that, and made those comments because someone asked for the information. Each is still obviously free to disgusted at the actions of those who may have broken the law. If in fact they have, whoever they may be, they should be prosecuted.
I would only stipulate that we actually have to discover if 1. the law was actually broken, and 2. who broke it.
You could only truly believe this if you were ignorant (hadn't read the thread) or were lying. Take your pick.
Quite an arguement... only give me two choices to choose from. And such unpleasant choices at that. Perhaps there is another reason that stems from your zealous hatred of Bush and all things Bush, and because of the comments you make here.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Quite an arguement... only give me two choices to choose from. And such unpleasant choices at that. Perhaps there is another reason that stems from your zealous hatred of Bush and all things Bush, and because of the comments you make here.
You've got a whole world of choices, but I'm going to guess that most of them aren't correct. Luckily there's a clear answer in this thread, a few posts prior to your original post so feel free to go check it out.
I don't think my supposed belief of anything has anything to do with your lack of understanding.
TPM
Hagel is a Republican, even if not much of a loyalist, and he's pointing at what everyone's saying: that the problem centers on the vice president's office. And people are adding a name: Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff and close advisor.
Additionally, the NYTimes finally posts a legitimate, original story that approaches the Washington Post's level of excellent coverage: Indeed, the Attorney General is closely linked to inquiry figures. Read all about it, naysayers.
Even some Republicans, while united in their belief that there is no need for an outside counsel, say Mr. Ashcroft will be hit hard by his political detractors if the investigation drags on.
"All of these so-called scandals can snowball and every new crumb of information turns into a front-page story above the fold," a Senate Republican aide said. "The Democrats are going to make of this what they will, but the reality is you could have the pope do the investigation and they'd still be screaming bias."
Well that's just too bad.
Originally posted by bunge
Scottalicious!
For the most part you've been good so far. That is, open minded...
Whoop-de-freaking-doo! Bunge, I don't give a damn whether or not you think I've been open-minded. If you have a problem with something I write, it's a pretty safe bet I'm on the side of the angels.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.
Now you are just making stuff up! Of course, it's much easier to regurgitate a short Cliff May op-ed (and call it 'the verdict' of all things!) than to actually deal with the reality.
You are apparently extremely adverse to actually learning about things before talking about them.
anyway, we'll try this again:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc....interview.pdf
if you notice above... a former agent talks about being in the same CIA training class as Plame... even says that he only knew her by her first name and last initial.... no one goes by the last name because they're being trained as covert operatives.
It's already been determined that she's NOT an analyst...
Cover story kept work for CIA secret (NYTimes)
Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.
Mr. Wilson said on Wednesday, "Her career as a clandestine officer is over."
Originally posted by OBJRA10
someone asked for this:
While what you posted is correct, it's interesting that you did not provide a citation. What's further interesting is that you apparently just got it off of findlaw rather than go directly to the real source and call it by it's name: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That would not only have been the clear and proper way to do it (which a real professor should do out of habit), but it is also the easy way.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html