Well, first of all, the obvious answer that stares you right in the face in that "ugly girl at the bar who's had too much to drink" kind of way is the fact that the CIA says she's a Covert Agent of the CIA, and its kind of hard to argue with that logic. Oh yeah, logic, that magical wonderful thing that some of us use, and others don't.

In case y'all missed it....

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/03/sitroom.01.html

Joining us now to discuss that situation, here in THE SITUATION ROOM, the former CIA director, Stansfield Turner; and CNN security analyst Richard Falkenrath, former deputy White House homeland security adviser. Thanks, gentlemen, for joining us.

Admiral Turner, I'll start with you. You worked at CIA, you ran the CIA. Realistically, what kind of problems are they facing as a result of the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson?

ADM. STANSFIELD TURNER (RET.), FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: They've lost Valerie Plame as a possible operative. They may lose people she worked with who now associate those people with the CIA. And they have a more difficult time in recruiting new people to work for the CIA, for fear that they, too, will be exposed.

BLITZER: Is this a serious problem, Richard Falkenrath, for the CIA, or not so serious, based on what you're hearing?

RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Wolf, we really don't know. I think Admiral Turner got it right in the three basic risks that are run whenever someone is exposed like this. She may have had agents in the field who are now compromised and she certainly is not useful to them in future. And certainly, our future efforts to recruit agents are called into question by this in disclosure.

But we haven't -- we don't actually have a whole lot of facts. We don't know how active she was in the field and we don't know if they ever intended to put her back out there. So, yes, it's a problem; yes, there's damage. How bad? We don't know.

BLITZER: And we don't have results of the formal damage assessment, a post-mortem, if one was done by the CIA, which I assume one was done. We do know this, that Victoria Toensing, a former deputy assistant attorney general who was involved in writing that 1982 legislation, that law that makes it illegal to release the name of a CIA operative, says this in "The Wall Street Journal:

"Two decades later, the CIA either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name. The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft." In other words, she's blaming the CIA for all of this, not those who leaked her name.

TURNER: I don't understand where she casts that blame or how she casts that blame. It seems to me the blame lies with those people who exposed her.

BLITZER: Well, she's saying that in getting her husband to make this trip to Niger, Ambassador -- former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the CIA was looking for a critic, in effect, of the White House, someone who could embarrass the White House, given potentially some of the tensions that existed between the CIA bureaucracy on the one hand and the vice president's staff, shall we say, on the other.

TURNER: Well, I have a lot of respect for Victoria Toensing, but this sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.

BLITZER: What about to you, Richard Falkenrath?

FALKENRATH: Sounds like a stretch to me, too. The CIA can play hardball and has played hardball with the White House. But her theory there is a little contrived.

BLITZER: Here is a quote, I want to read it to you, from Mark Lowenthal, the former CIA counterproliferation division officer, quoted in "The Washington Post" a few days ago.

"You can only speculate that if she had foreign contacts, those contacts might be nervous and their relationships with her put at risk. It also makes it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources." I think that goes without saying. What do you think, Richard?

FALKENRATH: I agree. I think both are true. If she had sources in the field recruited when she was an operative there, they're in jeopardy if they're still in places of position.

BLITZER: One of the arguments that has been made, Admiral Turner, is that, you know what, she may have been a covert clandestine officer at one point, but in recent years, she had a desk job as an analyst at the counterproliferation division at the CIA. She would drive in the main gates of the CIA in Langley, Virginia, every day, drive out. It wasn't as if she was hiding, necessarily, what she was doing.

TURNER: Well, you can't not drive into the CIA if you work there. But they do take precautions to make sure that other people aren't standing around watching who comes in and such forth. It's one of those risks that you have you to take. But I think they do it in a manner that's acceptable.

BLITZER: Is that standard, Richard Falkenrath, for clandestine officers working undercover, the so-called NOCs who go out around the world under what's called non-official cover -- is that standard when they come to Washington? They go for briefings, debriefings, over at CIA headquarters?

FALKENRATH: Yes, it is standard. And there are a lot of operatives at the CIA who will periodically cycle through desk jobs at Langley or even analytic jobs like she had at the proliferation analytic center there. So that does go on. Some of them, I assume, never come in from their undercover operations, but I think that's the exception.

BLITZER: What's your bottom line assessment on this whole CIA leak investigation, this story right now? What do you come away with, Admiral Turner, and conclude?

TURNER: I conclude there was moderate damage done to the CIA. I conclude it was done for purposes of revenge against her husband, and I think that is entirely reprehensible. I conclude that it was done deliberately by the Bush administration.

BLITZER: We'll leave it there. Thanks very much, Admiral Turner, for joining us. Richard Falkenrath, as usual -- he's at the Brookings Institution right now.

So please, enough with that "she wasn't undercover" crap. Do any of us really know how the CIA operates with their covert agents? I highly doubt it. So, who are we to question sources more knowledgable than ourselves when they present something like this to us. And the FREAKIN CIA says she was a CIA AGENT. (< ugly drunk girl staring right at you)

Need more? Want more?

Wait. Was Stansfield Turner the Director of the CIA during Plame's service?

And what wolfie, or their analyst has to say doesn't really prove anything.

Look, don't get all pissed off, I am more on your side than on Libby's in this case. I just want to be rigorously honest here. That's all.

Oh, don't take it personal. If you go look in the "big debates" forum and the thread about pot, you'll understand. I'm just using you for warm-up, cuz its been so long since I've really been obnoxious in my posts.

anyhow, back to being obnoxious, or trying to, at least......

No, Adm. Turner was the CIA director close to 2 decades ago now. And I'd listen to the "CNN analyst" who happened to be a major figure in the Homeland Security Dept. Are you saying that things in the CIA have changed so drastically now that even a former DCI doesn't know the definition of "covert"?

I understand that. What I am saying is that if that is the "proof" then it is thin at best as to whether or not she was or was not covert. Thats all.

You can be obnoxious though. I don't mind.

No, the thing that you're not getting is that there doesn't need to be proof. Its not up for debate. She has been defined as a covert agent by the only people who can bestow that title upon her, the CIA. You can argue that she's not the type of covert agent that you think deserves the title of covert agent, but you can't argue that she was. Its a non-arguable point. Its not based on thin evidence, its based on what the CIA said.

If I asked your mother what your name was, and she said "James" and I said, "umm, no, I don't think so, his name is Jimmy, I need to see some proof that he's named James" and then she says, "well, I NAMED him James, and here's his birth cirtificate" how am I going to argue otherwise? Your mother (the CIA) named you (Plame) James (covert agent), what's there to prove?

Wait. The title of this thread indicates that you are going to demonstrate her covertness. Then you cite CNN not the CIA.

Simple, just post the real proof and not bobbing haircut opinions. You say the CIA says it is so, but you offer the transcripts of a television program.

But my mom would have said Seamus, and she would have said shimmy not jimmy.

From the Indictment of Libby.... I hope this can satisfy at least your own personal desire for evidence.

The Central Intelligence Agency
c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States
whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence
information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President,
the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association
with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was
classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential
to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those
individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and
endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the
CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation
with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

5. On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed
to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the
Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed,
among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After
receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President
handwrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents.

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY
in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State
Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by
telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY
whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that
the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA
in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure
telephone line.

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the behavior of a man who knew that the reason he's not supposed to discuss the matter over a non-secure line was CIA confidentiality and that the CIA would be upset about the information getting to the press was to maintain a covert status for the person, no?

14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective
leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s
trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801086.html

This is the best I could do, Seamus. I even checked the CIA website, but their section for "Listing of Covert Agents" must've been down, I couldn't find it. Damn lazy webmasters.

It does beg the question, though, why is Libby NOT indicted for revealing a covert agent's status? If it is as open and shut as some claim, he should at LEAST be charged with that. Yet, he is not.

It does beg the question, though, why is Libby NOT indicted for revealing a covert agent's status? If it is as open and shut as some claim, he should at LEAST be charged with that. Yet, he is not.

I think the bigger charge is lying to the Grand Jury investigation. The govt. seems to go for this over substance. i.e. Clinton; Stewart. The outing of an undercover agent may be harder to prove, as it needs to show: 1. They knew she was undercover. 2. They deliberately outed her.

Libby's error was in lying about what he knew and said to various people. Like Clinton and Stewart if he'd fessed up there might have been an immediate fuss followed by ho-hum.

As far as CIA agents go, I remember when I was in the Peace Corps the ID of the CIA agent in the consulate was well known. Why? Because he was the economics officer. Also whenever I met him socially he'd ask me pertinent questions about my area. We'd talk to ourselves about this but we never considered we'd outed him, rather that his "cover" was flimsy and nobody cared.

I think the bigger charge is lying to the Grand Jury investigation. The govt. seems to go for this over substance. i.e. Clinton; Stewart. The outing of an undercover agent may be harder to prove, as it needs to show: 1. They knew she was undercover. 2. They deliberately outed her.

Libby's error was in lying about what he knew and said to various people. Like Clinton and Stewart if he'd fessed up there might have been an immediate fuss followed by ho-hum.

As far as CIA agents go, I remember when I was in the Peace Corps the ID of the CIA agent in the consulate was well known. Why? Because he was the economics officer. Also whenever I met him socially he'd ask me pertinent questions about my area. We'd talk to ourselves about this but we never considered we'd outed him, rather that his "cover" was flimsy and nobody cared.

I also find it interesting that some of the same people who are now shocked and dismayed that an agent's cover was compromised have demonstrated contempt for the CIA in the past and have actually desired to shut down all covert operations. Because of that, it looks like a political witch hunt. I do agree that Libby should have come clean early on. He's pleading innocent, though, so it should be a good court battle.

It does beg the question, though, why is Libby NOT indicted for revealing a covert agent's status? If it is as open and shut as some claim, he should at LEAST be charged with that. Yet, he is not.

Did you even read the indictment ?

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about
Wilson’s wife.

Libby knew who outed Plame ... and he lied to the FBI under oath the coverup that fact ... we was not accused of outing her

IF Plame was outed, it was by her Attention-***** of a husband, who actually had her name posted on his website prior to going to Niger.

IF Plame was outed, it was by her Attention-***** of a husband, who actually had her name posted on his website prior to going to Niger.

Attention whoring ... not a crime

Lying under oath ... a crime

revealing classified information ... a crime

any questions ?

Attention whoring ... not a crime

Lying under oath ... a crime

revealing classified information ... a crime

any questions ?

Of course. If Joe Wilson's report was so important, why did the CIA allow him to write the editorial? Why was he not required to submit a written report, instead of the oral report which he promptly contradicted? Why was he sent to do a spy's job when he wasn't a spy? Why is he not being investigated for lying?

Of course. If Joe Wilson's report was so important, why did the CIA allow him to write the editorial?

Its a free country ... well mostly ... unless he was under some non-disclosure agreement ... he is free to publish

Why was he not required to submit a written report, instead of the oral report which he promptly contradicted?

1)Ask the CIA
2)He did not contradict himself

Why was he sent to do a spy's job when he wasn't a spy?

Wilson served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under Clinton ... basically ... he was well connected in Niger ... and your comprehension of how the intelligence agencies work is all TV and James Bond ... most intel is collected by "non spies"

Why is he not being investigated for lying?

Why should he be?

No one has posted a single, substantiated lie from Wilson

And for the record ... lying is not a crime ... if it were washington DC would be a ghost town .. however lying under oath is ... just ask Libby

Then you haven't paid attention.

The July 1004 Congressional Committee report included the findings that Wilson's report on his Niger mission supported the Bush Administration's view that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Again - the results of Wilson' Tea Junket support the Administration's claim.

His Op-Ed campaign to state otherwise is a clear and blantant litany of lies.

hey bo, got any new stupid ideas to tell us? you know, these same old lies and misdirection posts are getting tired, try a little harder to be original....

hey bo, got any new stupid ideas to tell us? you know, these same old lies and misdirection posts are getting tired, try a little harder to be original....

I'm sorry to see that in order to be obnoxious, you stoop to the level of baiting the poster instead of sharp wit deflating a post. I had higher hopes for you than that.

Attention whoring ... not a crime

Lying under oath ... a crime

revealing classified information ... a crime

any questions ?


Lying in an Op-Ed ... unethical

Putting wife's identity on website ... crime (if she was indeed undercover at the time)

So take your pick. If Plame was indeed undercover, then Wilson violated the law by identifying her on his website. If she wasn't, then no crime was committed by the White House clarifying how Wilson got his Tea Junket assignment.

hey bo, got any new stupid ideas to tell us? you know, these same old lies and misdirection posts are getting tired, try a little harder to be original....

^ Personal Attack

Preserved in this post as evidence.

Bo's posting style in regards to me (I really don't know how she responds to other people's posts) does not deserve any effort from me to think up a thoughtful, intelligent response. She's proven that time and time again.

I'm sorry that you think less of me for it, but I choose to respond to people who have intelligent points to discuss about the topic at hand, like yourself. Flippancy will be returned with flippancy, and just so you know, I didn't write that last for Bo just because of my new "obnoxious" streak, I've always considered her that way since I started posting here again.

So..... back to to original intent of this thread. Does anyone still want to say that Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert CIA operative? The indictment notes her as just such a person, and I posted the CNN transcript not as proof, but as an explanation that "covert" does not imply overseas and can apply to people who drive right into CIA headquarters everyday.

She was not a Covert Operative by any reasonable or legal defintion.

She had a desk job at HQ. She was not undercover. She and her AW husband unit were (and still are) frequent fixtures on the DC cocktail circuit. The fact that she worked at the CIA was well-known in DC prior to her "outing".

Also, people who wish to remain anonymous generally Do Not Pose for multi-page spreads and a cover for Vanity Fair.

She was not a Covert Operative by any reasonable or legal defintion.

She had a desk job at HQ. She was not undercover. She and her AW husband unit were (and still are) frequent fixtures on the DC cocktail circuit. The fact that she worked at the CIA was well-known in DC prior to her "outing".

Also, people who wish to remain anonymous generally Do Not Pose for multi-page spreads and a cover for Vanity Fair.

^lies lies lies ... spin spin spin ... just like the serial liars at the BA


d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

PWNED AGAIN

Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

this is something we all wanted to know... :p i wonder who was watching her kids :rolleyes:

She was not a Covert Operative by any reasonable or legal defintion.

Really? And what's the legal definition for covert operative? And as far as reasonable, I'd think its reasonable to say that she was, unless you think that Fitzgerald lied in his indictment. Or, are you throwing around big words like "legal" to try and prove to yourself and to us all that what you're saying is right. This is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA agent.

She had a desk job at HQ. She was not undercover. She and her AW husband unit were (and still are) frequent fixtures on the DC cocktail circuit. The fact that she worked at the CIA was well-known in DC prior to her "outing".

Did you even read through the interview with a former DCI and former deputy of the Homeland Security Department that I posted? She does not fit your definition of undercover, and she does not fit the common definition of undercover, yet she fits the CIA's definition of undercover, unless Fitzgerald is just pulling it out of his ass.

GASP! A wife of a former US diplomat was a regular on the cocktail circuit! STOP THE PRESSES! MY GAWD! We got it all wrong, guys. She had a life outside of the CIA and went to cocktail parties. That's not what undercover agents do! They fake accents and wear wigs and drive cars with missiles that shoot out of the tailpipes, duh.....

And her employment at the CIA was well-known in DC, really? So that's why Libby had to be informed of it, right? Of course, Libby must've gone to a different set of cocktail parties, the ones clearly labeled "no undercover CIA agents allowed". Yet, after Joe Wilson made disparaging remarks about the Bush Admin, he had to be informed that his wife was a CIA agent. Oh, plus, there's that little line in the indictment that says the exact opposite of what you're CLAIMING as fact.

aww..RR, you think Bo's asian, don't you :D

Valerie Plame is interesting to me. She's the daughter of an Air Force colonel, was recruited by the CIA right out of college and 5 years later she marries a guy 15 years older than her.hmmm..i don't know..something just odd about her. And yes, she was trained as an "operative" which is even more interesting and yet she is defined as a WMD analyst.

from what i know about the "Company", i'd hardly qualify her as "covert", but they're a pretty odd group (atleast the ones i have worked with personally :p )

she is a pretty hot lookin babe..i'll say that much :D

Indeed... Is anyone willing to consider that maybe, just maybe there is a reason her ID's classifeid that we dont know about?

S

Also, people who wish to remain anonymous generally Do Not Pose for multi-page spreads and a cover for Vanity Fair.

That was several months after she was outed.

aww..RR, you think Bo's asian, don't you :D


:scratch:

I don't get it.

Plame is part of the vast right wing conspiracy that help to take down building 7.

So, is it me or am I hearing crickets in place of people who can come up with anything that shows that Plame wasn't a covert agent of the CIA who's identity was not public knowledge before the outing? Anyone? Anyone?

of course ... anyone who has had a cocktail at a DC party cannot be a covert operative ... if Rove and the RNC said it .. it's GOT to be true !

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down there Javaman my good buddy. Karl Rove said that? Karl Rove, that, that..... wonderfully astute and benevolent man of morals? Well, why didn't Boedicca site him as her source for that statement then! Golly, I feel awfully sheepish.

I'm sorry, Bo, I didn't realize that it was Karl Rove who said that Valerie Plame was going to cocktail parties with a "Kick Me: I work for the CIA" sign on her back. I take back everything I previously posted, that dirty Patrick Fitzgerald should have checked with Karl Rove before stating that it was not public knowledge that she worked for the CIA in the indictment. Sheesh, those darned special prosecutors!

You didnt get the memo ?

They are working on the secret expose' of Fitzgerald next ... it turns out he stole the gold crayon from Susie in the first grade

So any day now the RNC homepage will say "PAT FITZGERALD , NOT JUST A LIAR, A THIEF TOO !

Well, first of all, the obvious answer that stares you right in the face in that "ugly girl at the bar who's had too much to drink" kind of way is the fact that the CIA says she's a Covert Agent of the CIA, and its kind of hard to argue with that logic. Oh yeah, logic, that magical wonderful thing that some of us use, and others don't.

So please, enough with that "she wasn't undercover" crap. Do any of us really know how the CIA operates with their covert agents? I highly doubt it. So, who are we to question sources more knowledgable than ourselves when they present something like this to us. And the FREAKIN CIA says she was a CIA AGENT. (< ugly drunk girl staring right at you)

Need more? Want more?
Yes I need more and want more. From what I have read her employment status is "classified" ..that is not the same as a covert agent. From what you posted I do not see where the CIA says she is a covert agent.

The prosecutor knew who leaked the information of her status to Novak. He did not charge that person with leaking the identity of a covert agent. I conclude from this she wasn't "covert"



Logically Yours

Caddis

USC > TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 426

4) The term “covert agent” means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Dont be fooled by RNC / Rove spin ... She most certainly was 'legally' a covert agent.

Sorry Cadis ... the United States Code trumps your "logic" ;)

Resident Rice has proved that CNN transcripts defined covert.

Java-man has demonstrated that the US Code defines covert.

Netiher is demonstrative that Valerie Plame was a covert agent.

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

There is no argument here

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

Proven by the text in the Libby indictment

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States

Can anyone provide objective evidence that she never served outside the US in the last 5 years ?

USC > TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 426



Dont be fooled by RNC / Rove spin ... She most certainly was 'legally' a covert agent.

Sorry Cadis ... the United States Code trumps your "logic" ;)Thank you for telling me something I already knew. I asked for proof she was "covert" and you give me the definition of covert and tell me she was covert :hmm: essentially you are begging the question. Your logic sucks rod
There is no argument here



Proven by the text in the Libby indictment



Can anyone provide objective evidence that she never served outside the US in the last 5 years ?Now you wish us to prove a negative :nice:

This thread makes the claim Plame was covert, why don't you go and prove she served outside the US in an official CIA capacity

Neither RR or j-m have provided any proof that she was covert.

CNN transcript and US Code defintions not withstanding.

What is contained in the indictment doesn't serve to prove you are right.

They have not been tried as facts.

And this issue is key to the case?

I guess we should just start frog marching people because Wilson says right?

And btw there has been 500 tons of uranium found in Iraq.

And no one has proved ... or provided credible evidence ... she was not covert

Obviously, The CIA does not make a habit of publishing the travels of their agents, she worked full time overseas until '97 then transferred to the US , it does not take much of a logical leap to presume she maintained activities with overseas contacts.

And you mean 500 tons of ore, so what ?

So now you admit that you and RR are incapable of legitimately proving that she was covert?

That is big of you.

Jimmyjude, if you'd stay on topic here....

From the indictment.....

"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

So, you're going to tell me that Fitzgerald lied in his indictment of Libby? Or are you willing to admit that what he says in the indictment is the truth?

....and if Java and myself could conclusively prove that she was a covert agent without the use of public documents, she wouldn't have been very covert, would she? that's not a negative argument, that's a realistic argument.

You said that you were going to prove conclusively that she was covert. She is not covert anymore and you haven't proved that she was.

The indictment is an allegation and it is for lying not outing a CIA agent.

And how are you doing on prosecuting Bob Toricelli?

The indictment is also one of the most carefully carried out pieces of investigation ever carried out in modern times. You're going to tell me that you actually think that that line is a mistake?

I know what the indictment is for, no wonder java gets frustrated with you.......

Argue what I'm arguing, god, refute the line that I quoted. What does that have to do with what the indictment is for? Why don't you find that Fitzgerald is accurate? What reason do you have for that?

You said that you were proving something. You started with transcripts and then said that was sufficient to prove it.

When obviously what an octogenarian former head of the CIA has to say has nothing to do with today's CIA. Nor does Pravda's , I mean a CNN analyst.

Then you say an indictment for lying is proof that Valerie Plame is proof.

How can that be? The indictment is for Libby lying, not whether or not Plame is a covert agent.

But even if that was the point of the indictment it would still have to be tried as a matter of fact and not ResidentRice opinion.

OK, first... if you had a modicum of analytical skill without having to be spoonfed, you would realize that the transcript was in no way meant to prove that she was a covert agent. It was put up simply to show that what the common definition of covert agent is is not necessarily what the realistic definition of it is. I was trying to expose people who are as ignorant of the CIA as myself what a former DCI and a former Deputy Advisor at the DHS said about what defines a covert agent, and how her behavior was completely consistent with their knowledge of covert agents who work for the CIA.

Then, I presented the Fitzgerald Indictment of Libby as a source of impeccable credibility for facts. And in that indictment, it was stated as a matter of fact that Plame "was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified." You know, since you keep missing that point.

And your obviously infantile jab at CNN, while you keep screaming bloody murder for more serious debates, shows me where your heart and head lie, and this thread has been a clear indicator to me that you are just another conservative fool who can't look past his own prejudices and preconceived notions of this world. Goodbye.... PM me when you have an intelligent, thought-provoking thing to say.

OK, first... if you had a modicum of analytical skill without having to be spoonfed, you would realize that the transcript was in no way meant to prove that she was a covert agent. It was put up simply to show that what the common definition of covert agent is is not necessarily what the realistic definition of it is. I was trying to expose people who are as ignorant of the CIA as myself what a former DCI and a former Deputy Advisor at the DHS said about what defines a covert agent, and how her behavior was completely consistent with their knowledge of covert agents who work for the CIA.

Then, I presented the Fitzgerald Indictment of Libby as a source of impeccable credibility for facts. And in that indictment, it was stated as a matter of fact that Plame "was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified." You know, since you keep missing that point.

And your obviously infantile jab at CNN, while you keep screaming bloody murder for more serious debates, shows me where your heart and head lie, and this thread has been a clear indicator to me that you are just another conservative fool who can't look past his own prejudices and preconceived notions of this world. Goodbye.... PM me when you have an intelligent, thought-provoking thing to say.

Still haven't proved anything.

And it is funny that you thought you could prove that she was covert by the CNN transcripts.

OK, first... if you had a modicum of analytical skill without having to be spoonfed, you would realize that the transcript was in no way meant to prove that she was a covert agent.

THE VERY NEXT POST

And it is funny that you thought you could prove that she was covert by the CNN transcripts.

Were you put in this thread to annoy me?

Noooo, of course there's no proof of it, all those indictments are just so unofficial and don't hold up in "real" courts of law. I mean, its funny that they even bother printing out those pesky indictments, they're so unreliable, sheesh!

Noooo, of course there's no proof of it, all those indictments are just so unofficial and don't hold up in "real" courts of law. I mean, its funny that they even bother printing out those pesky indictments, they're so unreliable, sheesh!

It is good that you are admitting that you can't prove what you set out to prove.

That was your express purpose when you posted the original "proof" that you used in another thread for this one.

And I suppose you have never heard the expression that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich?

And of course you know that president Clintoon was indicted. It was called an impeachment.

So are you saying that even though he wasn't convicted his impeachment/indictment serves as proof all the charges against him?

Were you put in this thread to annoy me?

yes, the vast right wing conspiracy is out to get you. Be afraid, be very afraid.


Either that or get your tinfoil hat resized.

no, I'm saying that everything Ken Starr wrote in his indictment that was presented as factual was factual

and a grand jury can indict a ham sandwish, sure, but a prosecutor can't write down lies in that same indictment, now can they? and especially not with the entire weight of the US government and media bearing down on that said indictment

once again, you're eyes are glazed over with your point of view, so much so that you're not even reading my posts, its not almost laughable, it is laughable

RR, I think Jimmy's arguing from an existentialist point of view. Begin asking him to prove that he's actually human. And then blatently deny it, because such a thing cant be proven.

no, I'm saying that everything Ken Starr wrote in his indictment that was presented as factual was factual

and a grand jury can indict a ham sandwish, sure, but a prosecutor can't write down lies in that same indictment, now can they? and especially not with the entire weight of the US government and media bearing down on that said indictment

once again, you're eyes are glazed over with your point of view, so much so that you're not even reading my posts, its not almost laughable, it is laughable

GEEZ everything in the OJ Simpson indictment was factual and accurate too then.

Why have trials when we have these great, flawless indictments?


That seems like an awful big waste of money.

GEEZ everything in the OJ Simpson indictment was factual and accurate too then.

Why have trials when we have these great, flawless indictments?


That seems like an awful big waste of money.

Jimmy: how about this--The CIA was the source of information regarding whether she was covert or not.

Now, I want you to tell me why you believe that someone knows more then the CIA about the secrecy of there own members then they do. Why these people would have access to Plames work history as the CIA does, and can comment on whether she was covert or not, which would be contrary to what the CIA says.

Now, your entitled to your opinion, Im just curious where in the hell your getting it from.

so, jimmy, prove to me that you're a human, and not a figment of my imagination

so, jimmy, prove to me that you're a human, and not a figment of my imagination

not possible to do ... existentially

Now Jimmy ... listen to me very very carefully

The indictment includes FACTUAL front-matter that establish the FACTS about the case ... these FACTS are NOT the same thing as the ALLEGATIONS of perjury by Libby ... got that ? ... good

There is no credible debate about the FACTS noted in the front matter

These include the FACT that Plames status at the CIA was classified

Now ... a very simple logical test that even YOU can understand

The ONLY agency that could credibly contradict the FACT that Plames status was classified is the SAME agency that formally requested the attorney general to investigate the illegal outing of her ... that agency is the Central Intelligence Agency ... obviously they did not contradict the FACTS stated in the front matter of the indictment.


Therefore ... you could safely bet everything you own that Plames employment status was classified

there is no sane debate on this ... period

this is the 4th or 5th time I have posted this ... this directly from the indictment

2The Central Intelligence Agency

c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States
whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association
with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

e. Joseph Wilson (“Wilson”) was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire
uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Well, thank you javaman, its nice to finally say that you really can't prove at all that Plame was what you say she was.

And I suppose you have never heard the expression that a grand jury can indict a bulldog wearing a pink tutu while balancing a small purple ball on its nose?

And of course you know that Natalee Holloway has gone missing? Its called Fox News.

GEEZ everything in the Robert Blake indictment was factual and accurate too then, right Java?

Why have common sense and a functioning analytical ability when we have talking points that even the Bush administration won't support?

Reading your posts seems like an awful waste of time, seeing as I will refuse to believe anything you post.

RR ... keep this on the low-down ... you know the Clinton's ? there the ones that really outed plame as part of their plan for global domination

remember ... shhhhhhhhhhh !!

people that know that disappear at night ! :|

You said that you were proving something. You started with transcripts and then said that was sufficient to prove it.

When obviously what an octogenarian former head of the CIA has to say has nothing to do with today's CIA. Nor does Pravda's , I mean a CNN analyst.

Then you say an indictment for lying is proof that Valerie Plame is proof.

How can that be? The indictment is for Libby lying, not whether or not Plame is a covert agent.

But even if that was the point of the indictment it would still have to be tried as a matter of fact and not ResidentRice opinion.


Obtuse

Main Entry: ob·tuse
Pronunciation: äb-'tüs, &b-, -'tyüs
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ob·tus·er; -est

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin obtusus blunt, dull, from past participle of obtundere to beat against, blunt, from ob- against + tundere to beat -- more at OB-, CONTUSION

1 a : not pointed or acute : BLUNT b (1) of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2) : having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> -- see TRIANGLE illustration c of a leaf : rounded at the free end

2 a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

synonym see DULL

so, jimmy, prove to me that you're a human, and not a figment of my imagination

I can't.

But then I didn't set out to do that either.

Jimmy: how about this--The CIA was the source of information regarding whether she was covert or not.

Now, I want you to tell me why you believe that someone knows more then the CIA about the secrecy of there own members then they do. Why these people would have access to Plames work history as the CIA does, and can comment on whether she was covert or not, which would be contrary to what the CIA says.

Now, your entitled to your opinion, Im just curious where in the hell your getting it from.

Actually I don't disagree with java and RR. And last night I fooled around with lexusnexus and google for a little while and was able to find the kind or proof that I was asking for.

It just kind of bothered me that I was being told to accept as fact something from someone who is rather pugnacious. (Not you RR).

Anyways maybe we can mutually add our names to that list of biggest ahole on DA ever list the RR started.

Hmmm, your lack of attention to detail once again prevails. I didn't start that thread.

And what's with the sudden retraction? You've refused to hear our argument for the case by repeatedly denying that it was evidence and using logic and reason to connect the dots, but .....?

And a fact is just that, a fact, regardless of who's telling you. Learn the difference between fact and opinion if you want to earn my respect as a contributing member to the debate forums, whether or not you care for my respect.

You seem like an okay person.

I have to say though that there is a tendency of preachiness here and in that last post you just exemplified it...

lots of advice being slung around is really insults hidden inside of them. . . I suppose that might have to do with the moderators. . . but it also probably has to do with making the author feel clever.

Anyways what you provided was opinions not facts. The press release from the CIA is on the web confirming that Plame had covert status....just got to look a little.

I am much, much better than just "OK"... I am, for a lack of a better phrase, godlike in my thinking and rational abilities. Stick around, you might learn something.....

Preachiness comes with the territory, its up to each individual poster to cut through the bullpoop and get whatever it is they wish to get out of this site. As far as I can see it, the advice given in these debate forums are always insults thinly veiled as advice, and everyone knows that already. I don't need to make myself feel clever, as I know that my sharp wit and quick-thinking brain could do a tapdance on any other poster's here.

And I beg to differ, what I presented as factual will, I promise you, always be factual. I take great strides to make it very clear of what I present as fact and what I present as opinion, and (this is serious now) that's one of the things I take pride in and appreciate in people, not just on the internet. Once again, let me recap that what I presented as evidence was evidence. The statements made in the Libby indictment should be construed as factual. I posted the CNN transcript to provide added insight as to what defines a covert operative, having watched that segment while I was eating lunch, and CNN having a wonderful website with easy access to such things. That is not factual in nature, but opinionated. But its also worth noting that the opinions of the two people interviewed should greatly outweigh our own, less educated about the matter, opinions.

Plame was in no way a covert agent in the CIA. If this is so, why is it that her name was published in a who's who of Washington book?

Plame was in no way a covert agent in the CIA.

Well um... Sorry, the CIA begs to differ with your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

Seriously. You think you know all of her involvements? You think the moment her name got leaked they revealed all the connections and tasks she was currently doing? The CIA has spoken, get over it.

Plame was in no way a covert agent in the CIA. If this is so, why is it that her name was published in a who's who of Washington book?

As Wiki notes, "Novak also suggested that Plame's relationship to Wilson could be assumed by reading his entry in Who's Who In America, though it was her CIA status rather than her marriage which was a secret."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

So much for that Novakian talking point.

The unamerican scumbag traitor Novak even published the name of the front company she used

As Wiki notes, "Novak also suggested that Plame's relationship to Wilson could be assumed by reading his entry in Who's Who In America, though it was her CIA status rather than her marriage which was a secret."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

So much for that Novakian talking point.

Her CIA status was not secret. Everyone knew she worked for the CIA. Its not like she went around pretending to be a real estate agent. She was not a spy. She was the wife of a liar, thats all.

Her CIA status was not secret. Everyone knew she worked for the CIA. Its not like she went around pretending to be a real estate agent. She was not a spy. She was the wife of a liar, thats all.

are the cons here blind ... or just obtuse ?

It is one or the other

2The Central Intelligence Agency

c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States
whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association
with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

e. Joseph Wilson (“Wilson”) was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire
uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Her CIA status was not secret. Everyone knew she worked for the CIA. Its not like she went around pretending to be a real estate agent. She was not a spy. She was the wife of a liar, thats all.

She claimed she worked for Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was a front company for the CIA until it was exposed.

Reminder: To date, no one has been indicted for outing a covert CIA agent in this case.

On a side note, it's amazing to watch the liberals in Congress pretend to be upset about this, when they've been trying to hobble the CIA for decades.

Reminder: To date, no one has been indicted for outing a covert CIA agent in this case.

On a side note, it's amazing to watch the liberals in Congress pretend to be upset about this, when they've been trying to hobble the CIA for decades.

What's even more amazing is to watch the supposed Conservatives here and on The Hill defend to the point of ludicrousness what Rove and Libby did and the potential effect such selfish, puerile actions could have on the intelligence community and its ability to gather information vital to your national security.

All to protect Scooter and Shrub. :nonono: :nonono:

The unamerican scumbag traitor Novak even published the name of the front company she used


Yup, we might never know if this cost people their lives, why the neo-cons here defend this act of treason is beyond reason, and it shows that the goals of any fascist rise above anything else. I remember all the talk amongst the neo-cons how being against the Iraq invasion was "treason", well then just what exactly is it when people defend an actual act of treason? It's seditious... :mad:

Her CIA status was not secret. Everyone knew she worked for the CIA. Its not like she went around pretending to be a real estate agent. She was not a spy. She was the wife of a liar, thats all.


A total lie and straight frm the RNC's page of dishonest talking points...

A total lie and straight frm the RNC's page of dishonest talking points...

Evidently, the evidence disagrees with you, as no one has been charged with outing a covert spy.

Evidently, the evidence disagrees with you, as no one has been charged with outing a covert spy.

Just because nobody has been charged yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, the very fact we are discussing how Valerie Plame was outed blows the spin out of the water.

One reason the investigation has taken so long is because of the usual stonewalling and lying by Bush administration officials, hence Libby's indictment for lying. Lying about them outing Valerie Plame, since they won't come clean, they are getting caught for lying about it. This isn't about Blowjobs or tax evasion, this is about outing a CIA agent and her operation as revenge for her husbands reporting of the truth about the pre-war claims. This is about mass murder, treason, war crimes, theft, etc. The chickens are just coming home to roost..

And since this post was ignored and I keep seeing these lies being tossed about..


"Before this whole affair, no one would ever have thought of her as an undercover agent," said David Tillotson, a next-door neighbor for seven years who got to know the Wilsons well over back-fence chats, shared dinners and play dates for their grandchildren with the Wilsons' children, Trevor and Samantha.

"She wasn't mysterious," Mr. Tillotson said. "She was sort of a working soccer mom."

He recalled his incredulity on July 14, 2003, when his wife, Victoria, spotted in The Washington Post, in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, a line identifying their neighbor by her maiden name and calling her an "agency operative." Ms. Tillotson kept calling out: "This can't be! This can't be!"

The Wilsons' neighbor on the other side, Christopher Wolf, was similarly aghast. As he sat on his deck staring at the Novak column, Mr. Wilson came out his back door.

"I said: 'This is amazing! I had no idea,' " Mr. Wolf recalled. "He sort of motioned to me to keep my voice down."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05wilson.html?ex=1278216000&en=06e4601f703cf17a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Just because nobody has been charged yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, the very fact we are discussing how Valerie Plame was outed blows the spin out of the water.

One reason the investigation has taken so long is because of the usual stonewalling and lying by Bush administration officials, hence Libby's indictment for lying. Lying about them outing Valerie Plame, since they won't come clean, they are getting caught for lying about it. This isn't about Blowjobs or tax evasion, this is about outing a CIA agent and her operation as revenge for her husbands reporting of the truth about the pre-war claims. This is about mass murder, treason, war crimes, theft, etc. The chickens are just coming home to roost..

If it was so cut and dried, such a slam dunk, and if the prosecuter was as certain as you are that Rove and Libby have committed treason, then there should at the very least be an indictment. Evidently, Rove didn't lie about anything.

i was reading an article yesterday on how Wilson was giving the press CIA classified information and it insinuated that the info could only have come from his wife.

my bet is Libby or someone will go down and then Wilson/Plame will be in a big pile of poopoo.

my bet is Libby or someone will go down and then Wilson/Plame will be in a big pile of poopoo.

Very possible at this point in the game.

i was reading an article yesterday on how Wilson was giving the press CIA classified information and it insinuated that the info could only have come from his wife.

my bet is Libby or someone will go down and then Wilson/Plame will be in a big pile of poopoo.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the press pulled into this mess. They all pretend to be so surprised at all of this, yet if it were not for them, there would be no issue at all.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the press pulled into this mess. They all pretend to be so surprised at all of this, yet if it were not for them, there would be no issue at all.

This case is very unusual in that virtually all the witnesses for the prosecution are the press, who typically do not get forced into testimony, and some of the factual data is still classified, not to mention, the press do not have security clearances.

These are some of the reasons the investigation took so long

It's actually worse than Plame just feeding her Attention-***** husband info. There is a French Connection as well.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4970


Why haven't these two been charged with TREASON?

It's actually worse than Plame just feeding her Attention-***** husband info. There is a French Connection as well.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4970


Why haven't these two been charged with TREASON?



Ummm ... because unlike the serial liars at the BA .. they did nothing wrong ?

And ridiculous partisan glop like that tin-foil-hat-too-tight OP by Lewis ranks just a notch under the weekly world news for truth and objectivity

Hmmm...somehow Bush controls the weather in order to kill Black People in New Orleans - but Plame & Wilson collaborating with their French Friendos and the permanent bureaucrats of the CIA to discredit Bush is somehow beyond the realm of possibility?

Ummm ... because unlike the serial liars at the BA .. they did nothing wrong ?

And ridiculous partisan glop like that tin-foil-hat-too-tight OP by Lewis ranks just a notch under the weekly world news for truth and objectivity

Well, at least we know Rove didn't lie to the grand jury about this.

Hmmm...somehow Bush controls the weather in order to kill Black People in New Orleans - but Plame & Wilson collaborating with their French Friendos and the permanent bureaucrats of the CIA to discredit Bush is somehow beyond the realm of possibility?

Kathuksung's brain being controlled by the FBI is not "beyond the realm of possiblity" either ... but I would not bet on that being the case

Still wondering when Wilson is going to be indicted.

Retired Army General and FOX News contributor Paul Vallely says he knew former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent long before she was outed in a newspaper column in 2003 because Wilson told him so. Vallely says Wilson volunteered the information in at least three separate conversations while both men were waiting to appear on FOX News programs during the fall of 2002.

Wilson's lawyers are demanding a retraction and an apology and in an e-mail received by the World Net Daily, Wilson himself called the claim "slanderous." Vallely, however, is refusing to back off his story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174851,00.html


Wilson outed his own wife, if indeed she was considered under cover (which is not a given).

Still wondering when Wilson is going to be indicted.

Retired Army General and FOX News contributor Paul Vallely says he knew former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent long before she was outed in a newspaper column in 2003 because Wilson told him so. Vallely says Wilson volunteered the information in at least three separate conversations while both men were waiting to appear on FOX News programs during the fall of 2002.

Wilson's lawyers are demanding a retraction and an apology and in an e-mail received by the World Net Daily, Wilson himself called the claim "slanderous." Vallely, however, is refusing to back off his story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174851,00.html


Wilson outed his own wife, if indeed she was considered under cover (which is not a given).

If the general had a proper security clearance than it is irrelevant.

Still wondering when Wilson is going to be indicted.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174851,00.html

Wilson outed his own wife, if indeed she was considered under cover (which is not a given).

Keep trolling for tabloid stories Bo ... I'm sure youll find more Clancy-ish potboilers like that Lewis hallucination ... have you tried VNN or WND yet ? ;)

EDIT

Looks like Faux and WND were reading off the same playbook

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242

Keep trolling for tabloid stories Bo ... I'm sure youll find more Clancy-ish potboilers like that Lewis hallucination ... have you tried VNN or WND yet ? ;)

EDIT

Looks like Faux and WND were reading off the same playbook

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242


Expect to see all sorts of wild claims about the Wilsons being thrown around by the GOP, the latest spin I hear is that there is some big conspiracy at the CIA to make Bush look bad or some nonsense like that.

Jeez as if Bush needs any help looking bad or stupid for that matter.

If it was so cut and dried, such a slam dunk, and if the prosecuter was as certain as you are that Rove and Libby have committed treason, then there should at the very least be an indictment. Evidently, Rove didn't lie about anything.


This is why Reid & The Moonbats are in such a tizzy. They had been salivating for months that Rove could be taken out (ie, Wilson's demand for Rove's resignation upon the announcement of Libby's indictment) - that they are now flailing at anything to cause damage.

I love how the Dems challenged Bush not to pardon Libby - without one shred of evidence that he has any plans to do so. Typical Moonbat Tactic: accuse the opposition of something and then force them to prove their innocence.

Lets settle this for all and ask her husband Joe Wilson.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html






More:

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r_page2.htm


More:

"Former Time magazine correspondent Hugh Sidey told the New York Sun in a story published Sunday. "[Plame's] name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."

NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, in an appearance on CNBC's "Capitol Report," Oct. 3, 2003, was asked how widely it was known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger," she said." --
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47289

sorry but the wash times and worldnet daily have no more crediblilty than the national enquirer

2The Central Intelligence Agency

c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States
whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association
with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson

e. Joseph Wilson (“Wilson”) was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire
uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

One need not say more than a still plummeting 36% approval rating and over 50% dont feel Bush is honest to show the opinion of the country in this matter. Even 22% of Republicans according to the survey see the BA as breaking the law in "Outing" Ms. Wilson.

So am I not a college student because it's Sunday and I'm off? :D

Oh wait, I am, I have class on Sunday morning! Ugh...

sorry but the wash times and worldnet daily have no more crediblilty than the national enquirer

Actually both those sources are very credible.

One need not say more than a still plummeting 36% approval rating and over 50% dont feel Bush is honest to show the opinion of the country in this matter. Even 22% of Republicans according to the survey see the BA as breaking the law in "Outing" Ms. Wilson.

Yes, the left-wing propaganda machine IS very powerful indeed...

Yes, the left-wing propaganda machine IS very powerful indeed...

Or perhaps is just that people started critically reading what's been available online for several years now about the Bush Administration and the depraved tactics they'll use to squelch those that dare criticize them, about the war in Iraq, about the stonewalling of the 9/11 commission and so on. One needn't read "liberal" media to get the real skinny on these douchebags.

Or perhaps is just that people started critically reading what's been available online for several years now about the Bush Administration and the depraved tactics they'll use to squelch those that dare criticize them, about the war in Iraq, about the stonewalling of the 9/11 commission and so on. One needn't read "liberal" media to get the real skinny on these douchebags.


Yea, it's funny too, because REAL conservatives are saying the same thing liberals are, "Rubicon" isn't conservative, and neither are the propagandists pushing all the BS surrounding Iraq.


Forging the Case for War

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?

by Philip Giraldi

From the beginning, there has been little doubt in the intelligence community that the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame was part of a bigger story. That she was exposed in an attempt to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, is clear, but the drive to demonize Wilson cannot reasonably be attributed only to revenge. Rather, her identification likely grew out of an attempt to cover up the forging of documents alleging that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

What took place and why will not be known with any certainty until the details of the Fitzgerald investigation are revealed. (As we go to press, Fitzgerald has made no public statement.) But recent revelations in the Italian press, most notably in the pages of La Repubblica, along with information already on the public record, suggest a plausible scenario for the evolution of Plamegate.

Information developed by Italian investigators indicates that the documents were produced in Italy with the connivance of the Italian intelligence service. It also reveals that the introduction of the documents into the American intelligence stream was facilitated by Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), a parallel intelligence center set up in the Pentagon to develop alternative sources of information in support of war against Iraq.

The first suggestion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium to construct a nuclear weapon came on Oct. 15, 2001, shortly after 9/11, when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his newly appointed chief of the Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare (SISMI), Nicolo Pollari, made an official visit to Washington. Berlusconi was eager to make a good impression and signaled his willingness to support the American effort to implicate Saddam Hussein in 9/11. Pollari, in his position for less than three weeks, was likewise keen to establish himself with his American counterparts and was under pressure from Berlusconi to present the U.S. with information that would be vital to the rapidly accelerating War on Terror. Well aware of the Bush administration’s obsession with Iraq, Pollari used his meeting with top CIA officials to provide a SISMI dossier indicating that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. The same intelligence was passed simultaneously to Britain’s MI-6.

Liberal website? no, it's from...

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_21/feature.html

The American Conservative, imagine that...


Mission Statement

Today the United States has no shortage of magazines that would call their orientation, and be described by others as, “conservative.” Add the conservative dominance of talk radio, the popularity of several talented right of-center television commentators, the current Republican majority in the House, and the Bush presidency, and one could argue that conservative ideas have as much resonance as they have ever had.

And yet there is a great, often unarticulated discomfort in the ranks of many who considered themselves conservative during the past few decades.A friend of ours recently told of an encounter with one of his colleagues.“You’re a conservative,” the colleague said—“so you must agree with Paul Wolfowitz that we should attack Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and all those places.”

Well, no. Not all conservatives do agree that the United States should engage—for reasons that hardly touch America’s own vital interests —in an open-ended war against much of the Arab and Muslim world.

A variant of that conversation might be had about immigration—an issue around which genuine debate erupted for a brief time in mid 1990’s—only to be extinguished by the regnant factions of the conservative Establishment. “So you’re a conservative” that conversation would run. “You must believe that ‘there shall be open borders’ as the Wall Street Journal editorial page habitually puts it.

Well, again, no. We believe that America has gained and still does from new immigrants.But we also, after two decades of intense immigration, believe that the nation needs a slowdown to assimilate those already here.

We are told—by some of the more powerful voices on the Right—that these debates are over. Neoconservatism, that influential and in many ways admirable tendency that emerged during the 1970s and flowered during the 1980s, has triumphed. It is now the dominant, nay, the only American conservatism worth talking about.

And if you look at the array of conservative media outlets, that would almost seem to be the case. The major conservative magazines now compete over which can bray loudest for the widest war, the most ambitious expansion of an American military imperium. More discretely, they vie to articulate their relief that the shock of 9-11 has not, as yet, translated into a decisive political push for serious immigration reform.


Yes, there is a difference between neo-cons and conservatives, which is why it's so wacky when the neo-cons claim they don't exist..

Or perhaps is just that people started critically reading what's been available online


LOL are you talking about extreme left-wing websites like indy-media and the ones that CA pushes that claim planes did NOT fly into the WTC on 9/11? The leftist media has been lying about the BA and the war on terror since the begining because they are against both. Their propaganda war against America as earned them dividends I am afraid to say.

LOL are you talking about extreme left-wing websites like indy-media and the ones that CA pushes that claim planes did NOT fly into the WTC on 9/11? The leftist media has been lying about the BA and the war on terror since the begining because they are against both. Their propaganda war against America as earned them dividends I am afraid to say.

Notice when Contra is beat (all the time) he resorts into outright lying just like the Bush admin to make his case, I guess he learned from the best..

Notice when Contra is beat (all the time) he resorts into outright lying just like the Bush admin to make his case, I guess he learned from the best..

Rofl, yes your argument that the WTC was not hit by airplanes but in fact was blown up by bombs placed by the BA and the Mossad really beat me. :nonono:

Rofl, yes your argument that the WTC was not hit by airplanes but in fact was blown up by bombs placed by the BA and the Mossad really beat me. :nonono:


I've never said anything of the sort liar. Not being able to admit defeat is one thing, but resorting to outright childish lies is another thing entirely. :nonono: :not: :nonono: :not:


Pathetic Contra

I've never said anything of the sort liar. Not being able to admit defeat is one thing, but resorting to outright childish lies is another thing entirely. :nonono: :not: :nonono: :not:


Pathetic Contra

Your attacks and smears against me will not win you the argument, CA. You post about it in a thread and then deny it when we've all seen your claims? How very orwellian. :nonono:

Lets settle this once and for all and ask Joe Wilson;


WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

And the CIA disagrees with Wilsons, and your assessment. Thats gotta hurt.

Your attacks and smears against me will not win you the argument, CA. You post about it in a thread and then deny it when we've all seen your claims? How very orwellian. :nonono:

Orwellian of you since I haven't said anything close to what you're implying, so quit it while you're ahead.

And the CIA disagrees with Wilsons, and your assessment. Thats gotta hurt.


Which is like saying an undercover cop isn't one because it's his day off work...

And the CIA disagrees with Wilsons, and your assessment. Thats gotta hurt.


As shown in previous posts, much of Washington knew of this woman and her position. She was in no way "covert".

Covert operatives do not drive to and from work every day from their homes.

As shown in previous posts, much of Washington knew of this woman and her position. She was in no way "covert".

Not true.



Covert operatives do not drive to and from work every day from their homes.


What do they do? Fly to work from the bat cave?

The rea; questions people should be asking are what did Bush and Cheney know about this outing and when did they know it? And if they were involved they need to be impeached ASAP as they are a grave threat to national security.

Not true.

True. Very true.




What do they do? Fly to work from the bat cave?

No.

The rea; questions people should be asking are what did Bush and Cheney know about this outing and when did they know it? And if they were involved they need to be impeached ASAP as they are a grave threat to national security.

There was no outing. No "outing" crime has been charged. This isn't hard to understand.

True. Very true.


This "everybody in Washington knew who she was" bit is a talking point the RNC put out to minimize the outing of an undercover NOC agent.

Falsehood: Plame's CIA employment was widely known

In an apparent effort to undermine the possibility that the alleged White House leakers committed a crime, both the Washington Times editorial page and right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh have argued that Plame's identity was known by many in Washington, D.C., at the time Novak published his column outing her as "an agency operative." As support for this argument, the Times claimed that "numerous neighbors were aware that she worked for the agency."

In fact, none of the neighbors cited in the Washington Times' own news reports or in other reports said that they knew before reading the Novak column that Plame worked at the CIA. Her acquaintances told reporters that they believed she worked as a private "consultant."


http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/27281/


So then why have republicans been defending this outing when they claim to care so much about national security?


No.

Ok then, they don't fly in like Batman, so they have to drive like everybody else, this is one of the more illogical positions the Republicans have taken since it's not like Valerie Plame had a big sign on her car advertising what she did. For all you know the guy you see on the weay to work tomorrow in the black Toyota could be a deep undercover CIA agent.



There was no outing. No "outing" crime has been charged. This isn't hard to understand.


Excuse me for laughing, but LOL!

If there wasn't an outing, this very thread would not exist!
:corn:

Just curious, whatif any ramifications have come to Novak for publishing her name and info? I havent heard that angle on things yet. if it is shown that her name being leaked was a crime, ( which all our opinions aside wont happen until the trial is over) he who did it deserves the full punishment. However, the person who knowingly published this info in such an irresponsible manner should also be forced to face justice on the issue. The leak was bad, but relatively harmless if the person it was leaked to hadnt decided to blast it around the globe through the wonder of modern media.

Novak does not have a security clearance

Security clearance is a contract between the person (with the clearance) and the Govmt that the person agrees he/she will not disclose classified information.

Legally, the person to be held accountable is the one with clearance that disclosed the secret information to someone without clearance and a need-to-know.

I understand that, I am just curious why there is little to no moral indignation against he who was the final straw in the chain of events leading to the ouster. Why arent people blasting him equally for knowingly publishing said info, instead of turning around and reporting it to the fbi, who could have taken matters into their hands, made an arrest of the offending party and so on.

Why was it that instead of following proper and intelligent procedure and reporting the leak, he instead felt the american public honestly has a need to know about who is or isnt an agent?

Notice when Contra is beat (all the time) he resorts into outright lying just like the Bush admin to make his case, I guess he learned from the best..I notice regardless of whether you are beat or not you also result to ad hominem attacks, deflections, attack the source such as this: This "everybody in Washington knew who she was" bit is a talking point the RNC put out to minimize the outing of an undercover NOC agent.

curiously, how do we know that this isn't a DNC talking point to deflect from the truth?
Which is like saying an undercover cop isn't one because it's his day off work...Question: Can the CIA carry out covert operations inside the US?

If you read the law concerning covert agents they always refer to working outside the US within the past 5 years; did plame operate outside the US?


In fact, none of the neighbors cited in the Washington Times' own news reports or in other reports said that they knew before reading the Novak column that Plame worked at the CIA. Her acquaintances told reporters that they believed she worked as a private "consultant." FOR THE CIA (words in red are mine)
is there a difference? They knew she worked for the CIA they just didn't know in what capacity (it was classified, remember?) If nothing else you just PROVED they knew she worked for the CIA :nice:



If there wasn't an outing, this very thread would not exist!
:corn:hmmm...there's tin-foil proof for you right there. If the theory or question exists then it must be true



*Did Wilson have to sign a confidentiality form when he went to Niger?

*When he wrote his editorial did he need to have it vetted by the CIA?

*Did anyone question the fact (before the editorial) that it would cause a stink and jeopardize the 'classified' status of Plame?

*If she was covert and the CIA actually gave-a-**** about it then Wilson opened that can of worms therefore who is responsible for allowing the editorial?...If she was merely a 'classified' employee then her 'outing' must not have been important to the CIA

Question: Can the CIA carry out covert operations inside the US?

If you read the law concerning covert agents they always refer to working outside the US within the past 5 years; did plame operate outside the US?

is there a difference? They knew she worked for the CIA they just didn't know in what capacity (it was classified, remember?) If nothing else you just PROVED they knew she worked for the CIA :nice:

hmmm...there's tin-foil proof for you right there. If the theory or question exists then it must be true


*Did Wilson have to sign a confidentiality form when he went to Niger?

When he wrote his editorial did he need to have it vetted by the CIA?


*Did anyone question the fact (before the editorial) that it would cause a stink and jeopardize the 'classified' status of Plame?

*If she was covert and the CIA actually gave-a-**** about it then Wilson opened that can of worms therefore who is responsible for allowing the editorial?...If she was merely a 'classified' employee then her 'outing' must not have been important to the CIA


*crickets*


anyone gonna answer the questions?

*crickets*


anyone gonna answer the questions?

Probably not. There's no good answer for the one side of the argument, because if Wilson loses whatever shreds of credibility he has left, they have no hope of getting Rove or Cheney from this, the latest of the manufactured scandals.

Probably because people are bored with de-bunking the same RNC talking points with you guys,and they have better things to do, just maybe...

Probably because people are bored with de-bunking the same RNC talking points with you guys,and they have better things to do, just maybe...

Dismissing questions as talking points no more answers them than calling you a tin foil hat wearer answers your questions about the collapse of the WTC. These are legit questions about Wilson, and they're not going away, no matter who thinks they're talking points.

^^^^

I took a quick glance at some of those questions posed by Caddis and they already were answered, especially the first 2 in previous post/threads.

If you go to mediamatters.org, type in some keywords and have a ball. It's all right there.

I'm tired of going over the same ol same ol.

^^^^

I took a quick glance at some of those questions posed by Caddis and they already were answered, especially the first 2 in previous post/threads.

If you go to mediamatters.org, type in some keywords and have a ball. It's all right there.

I'm tired of going over the same ol same ol.

That doesn't deal with the last 4 questions.

Plame was a covert CIA agent. End of story. Stop spinning it. No, she wasnt rocketing around in secret air tubes, or driving invisble cars, or using pens with guns built into them. News flash: You dont have to be a super spy working abroad to have your position in the CIA classified. Trust me, I know, first hand.

NEWSFLASH!

SwiftSloth Outs Himself As A Covert CIA Agent!

NEWSFLASH: The left fails to address the issue , instead repeats the word "covert" until it becomes fact


Answer the questions or admit defeat


She was not covert...classified is not the same as covert

Explain why Wilson's "important mission" meant he didn't need to write a report and his oral accounting wasn't relayed to the VP

Explain why he was allowed to write his op-ed if his wife was "covert"

Explain the total lack of accountablity by the CIA in all this


Answer my questions if you can

One more:

Explain why he wasn't held to a confidentiality agreement for the Niger mission.

I understand that, I am just curious why there is little to no moral indignation against he who was the final straw in the chain of events leading to the ouster. Why arent people blasting him equally for knowingly publishing said info, instead of turning around and reporting it to the fbi, who could have taken matters into their hands, made an arrest of the offending party and so on.


As far as I'm concerned, Novak's cred is in the toilet. He was allegedly involved in the leaking of information from Bush 41's 1992 re-election campaign. And Rove was right in the middle of that one too.

NEWSFLASH: The left fails to address the issue , instead repeats the word "covert" until it becomes fact


Answer the questions or admit defeat

[QUOTE]
She was not covert...classified is not the same as covert

http://www.donklephant.com/wp-content/libbyindictment.pdf

Have you even read that? The CIA says her employment was classified during the time of the leaked documents. Whoever was in in helping leak her name is liable for breach of confidentiality agreement. I really fail to see what is so damn hard for you guys to swallow about this. Its very clear and cut, and the fact that the spin masters can make you doubt it when the CIA says 'her employment was classified', and libby, rove and cheney all signed agreements saying that they would not divulge classified information, astounds me.


Explain why he was allowed to write his op-ed if his wife was "covert"

Did he reveal his wife as an agent of the CIA while her status was classified? If so, by all means he should be tried as well.

NEWSFLASH: The left fails to address the issue , instead repeats the word "covert" until it becomes fact
She was not covert...classified is not the same as covert

The right fails to address the issue, claims she was not covert without any proof ... and for the sake of argument ... even if she was not ... her employment status was classified and whoever in the BA disclosed that ... knowing full well that her name was on a state departement memo marked secret ... should lose thier clearance and be charged for violation of USC > TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798


Answer the questions or admit defeat

Phfffft ! ... you guys were defeated about 50 posts ago ... I'm just bored at the moment

Explain why Wilson's "important mission" meant he didn't need to write a report and his oral accounting wasn't relayed to the VP

What does this have to do with the illegal outing of Plame ?
Don't bother answering, this is just RNC smoke screen tactics

Explain why he was allowed to write his op-ed if his wife was "covert"

Explain why you ask irrelevant questions?
Wilson broke no laws by writing that piece, unlike the treasonous scumbag in the BA that vindictively outed her identity to con-bigmouth Novak hoping that they would be protected by the reporter-source privilege

Explain the total lack of accountablity by the CIA in all this

Accountable to whom for what ?

Explain why the BA thought they were above the law and chose to 'out' an intelligence agent for revenge, a depth that even Hitler or Stalin never sank to.

Originally Posted by caddis
Question: Can the CIA carry out covert operations inside the US?

If you read the law concerning covert agents they always refer to working outside the US within the past 5 years; did plame operate outside the US?

is there a difference? They knew she worked for the CIA they just didn't know in what capacity (it was classified, remember?) If nothing else you just PROVED they knew she worked for the CIA

hmmm...there's tin-foil proof for you right there. If the theory or question exists then it must be true


*Did Wilson have to sign a confidentiality form when he went to Niger?

When he wrote his editorial did he need to have it vetted by the CIA?


*Did anyone question the fact (before the editorial) that it would cause a stink and jeopardize the 'classified' status of Plame?

*If she was covert and the CIA actually gave-a-**** about it then Wilson opened that can of worms therefore who is responsible for allowing the editorial?...If she was merely a 'classified' employee then her 'outing' must not have been important to the CIA





*crickets*


anyone gonna answer the questions?


Excellent questions to which it's obvious the left cannot answer. Crickets indeed.

Dismissing questions as talking points no more answers them than calling you a tin foil hat wearer answers your questions about the collapse of the WTC. These are legit questions about Wilson, and they're not going away, no matter who thinks they're talking points.


They've already been de-bunked so many times now it makes my head hurt, you guys are just a desperate attempt to save face now that we have traitors in the White house so you are trying to deflect attention onto Jow Wilson instead of the perpetrators of a serious crime against our country.

Just a quick thought this thread made me come up with. Does anyone else here remember numerous threads on Da, where pretty well every far left wing side of the board questioned the intelligence community in general , and the CIA specifically?

It seems i remember numerous posts talking about how the CIA were nothing but liars, cheats, and only interested in waging covert wars arund the globe at the whim of our president, and so on. They were horribly inept, a corrupt organization, never to be trusted, and were quite possibly involved in helping with the attacks on our country on 9/11.

That was then, when attacking Bush and his administration was Was best done by pointing out flaws in the government he runs.

Suddenly this rolls along, and to suport the CIA, claim what they say is gospel, and impossible not to believe, is the thing to do to throw rocks at Bush. All of a sudden the CIA has all kinds of new found democratic and independant support. So at what point were the libs lying? Was it before, and they secretly thought that the CIA was incredible, and mainly blasted them to help keep them on the radicalist of the month newsletter? Or is it more as it seems, and they are fairweather politico's. Latching onto whatever angle can be used to express their intense hate for the subject at hand.

Sorry if this is rambling and makes no sense all. MY drugs are killing me right now, and my brain stopped working an hour ago.

^^^^

I took a quick glance at some of those questions posed by Caddis and they already were answered, especially the first 2 in previous post/threads.

If you go to mediamatters.org, type in some keywords and have a ball. It's all right there.

I'm tired of going over the same ol same ol.

And that's the crux of it, after they are de-bunked on one page they bring up same nonsense on another hoping they are going to get somewhere.

And then they start hooting and hollering when people don't respond to the same talking points within minutes of them posting the pr.

Plame was a covert CIA agent. End of story. Stop spinning it. No, she wasnt rocketing around in secret air tubes, or driving invisble cars, or using pens with guns built into them. News flash: You dont have to be a super spy working abroad to have your position in the CIA classified. Trust me, I know, first hand.

I heard on the radio today that the CIA is giving tours of the building and selling a tell all expose of their darkest secrets and agents names for 9.95+tax. Dark sunglasses are in the kit too...:p

Just a quick thought this thread made me come up with. Does anyone else here remember numerous threads on Da, where pretty well every far left wing side of the board questioned the intelligence community in general , and the CI