Originally Posted By DlandDug Beau, it is still a matter of legitimate debate whether Plame was covert or not. Juat as you are certain she was not, others are certain she was. What we do know now is who initially leaked her identity. No mystery there.
Originally Posted By gadzuux If we suppose that plame was not covert, what's the point of the gossip? The only reason the gossip is interesting is because it's a "secret". If I walked around telling people that so-n-so's wife works behind the register at kragen's, it's not going to travel very far. Yet we now know that plame's identity was indeed a matter of discussion within the white house and that cheney, libby, powell, and others were informed - by the press - of her identity as both wilson's wife and a CIA operative.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <If you ever worked for a company that engaged in classified information, you'd know if you even told your spouse, you'd be in a world of trouble. < yep, they're called non disclosure agreement usually and companies take then VERY seriously -- break them and it's a great way to be shown the door, many times 1 strike , you're gone.
Originally Posted By jonvn There are different levels, too. An NDA for just commercial reasons is one thing. For that you can be sued. But if you work for a defense contractor, for example, and you are shown material that is rated classified, or secret, and you reveal it to someone you are not supposed to, you can go to prison.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting to note what Joe Wilson said.... <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html" target="_blank">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA NSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html</a> >>BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that. What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you? WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity. BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that? WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department. She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And from July of 2005... <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050718-092253-3802r.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com /op-ed/20050718-092253-3802r.htm</a> >>What is known thus far suggests that:1) Mr. Wilson has misrepresented his wife's role in getting him the assignment and his own findings of his investigation in Niger; 2) In July 2003, when columnist Robert Novak first mentioned in passing that Mrs. Plame worked for the CIA, she was not functioning as a covert agent and her work for the CIA was common knowledge; and 3) That if there were-- against the public record -- a covert status to be exposed, it was possibly Mr. Wilson, with a speculative assist from David Corn, who writes for the Nation magazine. Given what is known about Mr. Wilson and his veracity, it was almost surreal watching him interviewed on the "Today" show answering one softball question after another as he urged the president to fire Mr. Rove, and watching Mr. Wilson lionized as a purveyor of truth by Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer in their effort to destroy the senior White House adviser. Last July, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report that calls into serious question virtually every substantive assertion Mr. Wilson made about his Niger trip. In July 2003, Mr. Wilson publicly accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence in order to create a case for war with Iraq. He claimed that his investigation 17 months earlier should have debunked the idea that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. <<
Originally Posted By jonvn You can't summarize it? I'm not going to wade through the pages of quoted text that show up here. Put a couple of sentences summarizing it and the link to the source.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If we suppose that plame was not covert, what's the point of the gossip?> To answer the question, "why was Joe Wilson chosen to go to Niger?" His wife, who worked for the CIA, arranged it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You can't summarize it?<< Armitage=Plame leak Got it? >>I'm not going to wade through the pages of quoted text that show up here.<< Yeah... why bother with all that pesky information? Facts-- what a waste of time!
Originally Posted By jonvn It's not information. It's called flooding. The information can be summarized and a link can be put in to the original source. That's how you do things. You don't dump pages and pages of text into these boards. Summarize and link.
Originally Posted By woody Facts never stopped a good conspiracy theory that's been perpetuated for the past three years.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The real problem with posts like #141, is that it's just an op-ed piece from the Wash. Times, with no input from the poster. And they make certain statements that are clearly opinion rather than fact (actually, all three of their 1-2-3 bulletpoints fall into that category). There's little point in posting dueling editorials. Someone else could post an op-ed piece from, a left-leaning newspaper or mag that refutes everything said in #141. Great. But this is supposed to be a board for our thoughts (backed up by judicious use of links, sometimes), not just dueling opinions from, say, the Washington Times and Mother Jones.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's exactly right. There really is no point in putting in editorials here from other people. Who cares what they think, unless they bother to post here. This is not a clipping service, it's a discussion board.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If Plame had been undercover, Fitzgerald would have arrested someone for outing her. Don't ya think. He would have arrested somebody, anybody. But he didn't. Why??? Because Plame was about as covert as George Tenent and last time I checked the libs say Tenents name all the time without going to jail. If you really think Plame was outed and that people should go to jail for outing her you are confused to the point of being hopless with all the facts that are on the table to clear it up. ( This is where the conspiracies start by the left so they can explain away pesky facts )
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan He would have arrested somebody, anybody.<< There was no question she was 'outed', yet you don't seem to understand that. The question was: What was the intent of the person outing her? Was it political revenge? Or a slip of the tongue? Or is it, as is widely reported, simply 'gossip'? If it's gossip, you have a person with a high level security clearance sharing information with a reporter that isn't suppossed to be shared. I don't think everyone gets to just shrug it all off. I think that matters. You don't. What else is new. And for that matter, I would like to know if Joe Wilson's trip to Niger is proper procedure as well. My curiosity cuts both ways.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This has all been explained and people STILL don't get it.<< No, you don't get it. The question is not whether she was outed or not. It's unquestionable that once Novak's article appeared, everyone learned she worked for the CIA. He says he didn't 'think' she would be in danger. He made that call himself? How would he know she wouldn't be in danger? Answer: He didn't. But, he's a partisan guy, so he does what partisan guys do, spread 'gossip' and let the chips fall where they may. The question is whether she was COVERT or CLASSIFIED, among other things. Now, your radio wants the story all over so it tells you things, but there are still lingering questions. You have no way of knowing at this point, nor do I, what her status was. The debate about that rages on. You can GUESS or read right wing op-ed pieces that tell you no way was she covert. But they don't know, either, because no one from the agency has said one way or the other.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.<< <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html</a> So, in other words, if her being involved in getting her husband sent to Niger was a violation, due to her status, it should have been handled, and she should have been disciplined, 'in-house' -- not via 'gossip.' I would think you'd take a dim view of anyone, during a war on terror especially, casually putting out an agent's name in this way. For 7 seconds, take off the partisan blinders and think it through: You are in favor of wiretaps and practically anything else done to fight the war on terror, yet you're okay with outing an agent so long as she isn't on the GOP side? Talk about a Terrorist Bill of Rights. Sheesh.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Now, your radio wants the story all over so it tells you things, but there are still lingering questions. You have no way of knowing at this point, nor do I, what her status was. The debate about that rages on. You can GUESS or read right wing op-ed pieces that tell you no way was she covert. But they don't know, either, because no one from the agency has said one way or the other.>> The radio tells me? Uh no. The facts of this story are available all over the place and it has been apparent for YEARS that Plame was not covert. Bottom line time. If a crime was committed by outing Plame, Fitzgerald would have come out and said she was outed and it was a crime. He never said that, and in fact made it clear that no crime happened. What is so hard about this. I would reccoment you look up Christopher Hitchens from Slate and read his pieces about this story on ver the last few years. He has been dead on accurate and in the end was proved correct. The crime here is Amritage and Colin Powell KNOWING the entire time that Rove or Cheney never outed anyone and they just sat their silent as Bush was attacked for years by crazed liberals who pushed this BS on the country. It's over.. move on.
