Was She Covert?
Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse, but a reporter from a major news organization told me today that they are still arguing in his/her newsroom about whether Valerie Plame was covert. The journalist who told me this is a talented, smart person but is still confused about the terms "covert", "cover", and "non-official cover". So here's my gift to confused journalists.
Scooter Libby is not on trial for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He faces a jury because he lied about his role in giving out Valerie's name and obstructed the investigation into the leak. Can you leak the name of an overt employee? No because the person's relationship with the CIA is not protected.
The relevant section of the law relevant to the Libby investigation states:
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
So what is a "covert agent"? Here's what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act states:
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
There are two types of people who work at CIA. First are the "overt" employees. These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee. Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged. Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee. At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA. Zippo!
The remaining category of employee is covert. Covert employees include people who work under "official cover" and people who work under "non-official cover". A former CIA officer, Tom Gilligan, discussed both types of cover in his book CIA Life: 10,000 Days With the Agency. Official cover means the employee can say that he or she works for the United States Government, e.g. State Department, but at no time do you admit publicly that you work for the CIA. You get the added benefit of carrying an official or diplomatic passport. If you get caught overseas engaged in intelligence activity it means you have diplomatic immunity and the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.
Non official cover or NOC also is covert but is more sensitive (and dangerous). A NOC does not work for the U.S. Government. A NOC does not have an official or diplomatic passport. A NOC works for a business or organization with no tie to the U.S. Government. If you are caught overseas while conducting espionage activities as a NOC you are screwed. You do not get a jail out of free card. You remain in jail or may be executed.
Now I will write this in big block letters: VALERIE PLAME WAS STILL UNDER NON OFFICIAL COVER WHEN NOVAK PUBLISHED HER NAME. Valerie and I started our career together and both of us were given official cover. But Valerie later took the additional and more dangerous risk of going under Non Official Cover. She became a NOC and, thanks to the Corn/Isikoff book Hubris, we now know she was helping hunt down Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Right wing hacks like Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and Byron York not only deny Valerie was covert but also insist that Valerie was not covered by the IIPA because she had not lived overseas in the five years preceding the July 2003 Robert Novak article. But that is not the law. The law states, "serving outside the United States". Although she was based in Washington, DC, Valerie traveled overseas and conducted espionage activities. She served outside the United States during the period 1998-2002 and was a covered person under the IIPA.
If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee who had been sitting quietly at a desk, never venturing overseas, the CIA would not have sent the Department of Justice a letter on 30 July 2003 stating:
the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
The CIA knew that Valerie was a covert agent. But they did not know if the Novak leak was an intentional disclosure. That was for the FBI to determine.
Here is the irony? If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee not covered by IIPA then Scooter Libby would not have had to lie to FBI agents because there would not have been an investigation. But Valerie was a covert agent. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage, among others, put her name in circulation with members of the press. They harmed a covert agent and in the process did serious damage to our nation's security. This may not be relevant to the charges Scooter faces, but it is relevant to our nation's security. We now know that the Bush White House was as cavalier with the identity of a CIA officer as they have been of late with the medical care for wounded Iraqi war vets at Walter Reed. And in both cases people have probably died because of their carelessness.
But I don't think it's a "dead horse", Larry, and here's why: You've made a good case for the law - it's clear and unambiguous. So folks like Toensing, May and York are engaged in political discourse disguised as legal discourse. Toensing is using her standing as a legal expert to convince us (the polis?) that it was OK to out Plame because no harm was done since she wasn't covert and a bunch of people knew she worked for the CIA. That's not a legal argument. I could argue against a speeding citation that it was OK for me to violate the speed limit, which was enacted for the interest of public safety, because I didn't cause any harm to the public. It wouldn't fly in a court of law, period.
But politically, those who wish to defend the Bush Administration only have obfuscation as a tool to cover the enormous breach of truth that we are witnessing. Valerie Plame was not covert is just one example of this. Another is Lots of people knew she worked for the CIA. Christ, it's like the entire US government is stuck the third grade. So I would say the horse is still alive - as long as so many people can't distinguish between law and politics.
Neoboho
February 21, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"..The CIA knew that Valerie was a covert agent. But they did not know if the Novak leak was an intentional disclosure. That was for the FBI to determine..."
So you are saying it was unclear whether the IIPA had been violated at that point.
"...Here is the irony? If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee not covered by IIPA then Scooter Libby would not have had to lie to FBI agents because there would not have been an investigation..."
So Libby knew that it was a violation of the IIPA, but the CIA didn't know. His alleged lying is proof that he committed a crime, which Fitz didn't think he committed.
"...Scooter Libby is not on trial for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act...."
But Libby apparently did not violate the IIPA, or he would have been charged.
"...Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse..."
Maybe if you say it with feeling this time.
This horse has been dead and buried for years, get over it.
February 21, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
While it is good that you're killing this dead, you still haven't addressed the really salient point:
When you were in the agency training with Ms. Plame, was she as much a stone fox as she now appears to be?
February 21, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was seven years her senior and happily married. I decided to avoid that problem. However, she is a dangerous combination--beautiful and smart.
February 21, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJ, hopefully you are not as obtuse as you post suggests. In a legal proceeding like this the CIA believed the law had been violated but they are not a law enforcement agency. Therefore they had to refer the matter to be investigated. That is what the FBI was doing. If Scooter had not done anything wrong he would not have lied to the FBI. But he lied and he obstructed justice. Have you let those woodpeckers perch on your wooden head too long? Too many holes?
February 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The case against Libby was prosecuted as one somewhat on the level of fibbing about junior high school girls' backstabbing gossip. Any mention or implication of danger to national security was not allowed. That's how the case was prosecuted. Even on that level there were disclosures indicating the cavalier disregard the Bush group had for our nation's fundamental security. I include Bush in the "group" though again, because of the very limited nature of the prosecution Bush and his direct flunkies were not dealt with.
With this in mind - the dodging of any mention of "covert" status or the malfeasance directed towards the CIA - it isn't surprising that people might be wondering what the big deal was about. It's even less surprising that political operatives would be working that approach. It's in the nature of how this case has been prosecuted.
Considering that Cheney was put out as a possible witness and on that basis jurors were selected with regard to their attitude towards Cheney, my sense is that the jury was by definition biased towards the defense. Heavily biased. Cheney is even more reviled than Bush and has been for much longer. Who doesn't have a negative opinion of Cheney? The truly clueless and the Cheney groupies. Nice jury pool.
When I read about Novak stating that he had found Ms. Plame's maiden name in "Who's Who," which had been an excuse Novak used in the past (though without any firm claim of its being the actual source) I couldn't help but be reminded of the inconsistency of the claimed smear tactic directed at Wilson. Supposedly Joe Wilson got the Niger gig through his wife. It was something that only an effeminate man would allow. That was the line put out. Nepotism for a wuss. But if that were the case, and Joe Wilson was the sole target, than using "Mrs. Wilson" would have made much more sense. "Mrs. Wilson" got some work for her out of work husband. But it was the "Plame" name that was specifically used. That wasn't solely to get Wilson or even the Wilson family. That was the give the CIA a message that any that dared counter the Bush line of propaganda, no matter how damaging that line might be to the nation, would be subject to the most extreme responses, including responses that endangered lives and the nation.
Those implications were never allowed in this trial. And now we're left hoping that a Cheney favoring jury might convict on a middle school fib and that conviction will be effected before appeal and pardon. Should that hope arise, we the face the fact that we're in an era of Antonin Scalia rather than John Sirica.
February 21, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice concise post.
When you reduce the wingnut arguments to their bare essence, they amount to an assertion the CIA didn't know Plame was covert.
That's how dumb the GOP thinks we are.
February 21, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I just wanted to thank you for your service then, and now. I also wanted to pass on something I did a few years ago which made me feel much better at the time, and again today after reading Mr. Fitzgerald's closing statements.
(cross-posted on Kos)
[snip]
I called the CIA a couple years ago about this issue with the Libby case.
My uncle had some type of "affiliation" with them according to family rumors, so I have been following this case closely.
I looked up the number for the Office of Public Affairs and called them and talked to a very nice lady and told her how I felt it was a damn shame that they appeared to be letting themselves be hung up to dry by Cheney, et al., and that I felt that they all deserved a lot better than the scum we had for leadership in this country. She was quiet for a couple minutes, and then said, "just wait, and don't worry about us." So I am very hopeful that they are going to take the VP down and down hard.
[snip]
February 21, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Yes, sadly, ljohnson, TJKING IS, indeed, as obtuse as his comment indicates...'tis the only conclusion one can come to when you consider his above with ALL the other clap-trap I've seen him offer.
Sorry for this 'ad hominem' moment...I just couldn't help myself.
February 21, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course she was covert. That's why the CIA pursued the matter in the first place. Duh!
Tom
February 21, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm starting to wonder if you really do believe this stuff. So you obviously know what goes on inside the CIA, huh? Who at the CIA started the ball rolling and contacted Justice to investigate? Any names? If CIA is not capable of carrying out law enforcement operations, someone obviously made a decision that an investigation was warranted based on a law being broken. But you claim, according to your quote, they did not know if a crime had been committed. As it turns out no one has been charged yet, have they? Why?
It is more likely that the partisan hacks at the CIA knew that the law had not been broken, but launched the missile over to FBI passing through the window at State to initiate the Fishing trip. Again the fact that you have admitted no crime was committed referring to the IIPA, but as you say some moral law was broken, you prove that this has worked as planned. Still no IIPA indictment.
I am thankful you are not in law enforcement because this circular logic about,... Libby must be lying because he had to hide his involvement in a crime, and we know there was a crime because why else would he be lying, never mind that no one was charged with the crime and he has not been proven to have lied yet. Talk about peckerwood holes.
I think you know that a person that goes to a conference overseas that is not serving in an official capacity and the term, "serving overseas" requires that she be posted. Where was she posted overseas in that 5 year period and what official covert espionage did she do? Oh how convenient...you can't tell us. Its not neccesary, you know there are mechanisms in place in the CIA that can verify this without divulging "classified" information, because if she had, there would be indictments, but there aren't. And speaking of classified status and non-classified status, What if she hadn't been overseas for 5 years and a day, does that mean as Rove is alleged to have said, she is fair game? That is what you are implying. But isn't there the fact that she could be not covert, but classified. If you are going to tell the story Larry, tell the whole story. Isn't it also true that the agent must attempt to conceal their identity. Talking with Pincus and the gang over breakfast, at parties and at conferences about how she and her husband are going to take down the President so he can publish it to the world, oh thats cloak and dagger secrecy isn't it?
Isn't also true her cover had been blown twice before in the 90s. Isn't it also true that she was reckless with her use of the Brewster company name against company policy?
Andrea Mitchell and Judy Miller knew about Plame long before this. Miller had a security clearance and practically lived at CIA in WINPAC in 2001. Mitchell called Wilson at home the day before his OPED, nice timing, pretty chummy. How many times have others claimed she received the leak from Armitage and even she admitted it. If Wilson admitted to Mitchell the whole blabbering mess, then Wilson is guilty of outting a covert agent in your world. Here comes the FrogMarch.
You can't win this Larry, because a not guilty verdict means he walks and you are uncovered as the company girl for the left, even better if its guilty, on appeal the story lives on and the ability to hold it all together gets harder. Walton won't be around anymore to keep Mitchell off the stand, Armitage will spill the beans, Russert will fold, Miller already folded, it will only get better. I'm dreaming of seeing the serial liar Wilson under oath, oh I should be so lucky to live to see the day. You and NBC and Foley and the other hacks just want this to go away.
Your articles are so bad that the lies start before you even get done with the headline. Remember the Cheney got briefed on Wilson headline, ..aahh, good memories. One last time, if she was covert, then why not one single indictment on anybody?
Because it was CIAs Grenade to start the witch hunt. They knew it was a lie. You do too.
Stop drinking your own bath water, LJ. Heads you lose, tails Libby wins.
Larry must have committed a crime because he is lying and he must be lying because a crime has been committed. The crime is secret and the lying hasn't been proven, but if you say you are not a witch then you must be a witch and that means you are made out of wood, and wood floats.
February 21, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJK raises good points sometimes, but this is not one.
The "knowingly" provision, while seemingly reasonable, makes the law very problematic for trial. But regardless whether the act of exposing Plame was criminal, it sure was stupid. And regardless whether Libby or anybody else in the WH knew she was covert, they should have. And regardless whether they broke a law, security clearances should be revoked. A clearance implies you know how to handle classifed info--they did not.
While I might be clueless and not think about whether a CIA emplyee was covert, for WH staff to act that way is indefensible. If they had any class they would have resigned immediately in 2003.
Watch the emphasis shift to whether Wilson lied. But he is not the one that blew cover. Also expect further defense of the 16 words, etc. Once again, it's irrelevant--the WH staff blew cover, not Wilson, not the reporters. The people with responsibility (love that conservative point) did not exercise it or accept it.
On this I find no common ground with TJK.
February 21, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJK, I AM TYPING IN CAPS IN HOPES THAT YOU WILL READ REAL SLOW. THIS IS NOT SHOUTING. THIS IS GARRETT MORRIS NEWS FOR THE MENTALLY DEAF. I KNOW THAT SOMEONE WITH YOUR LIMITED INTELLECTUAL REACH IS EASILY OVERWHELMED. READ REAL SLOW. SINCE YOU ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE ZERO EXPERIENCE WITH THE CIA, YOU KNOW NOTHING OF HOLDING A CLEARANCE OR TAKING A POLYGRAPH OR WORKING IN AN INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION. I THINK LIBBY AND CHENEY COMMITTED A CRIME UNDER IIPA. GOT IT. I THINK THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME.
When Valerie’s name appeared in Novak's column the directorate of operations began taking actions to counter some of the damage. Linking her name to the CIA exposed other human intelligence assets. In addition, the office of the general counsel at CIA examined the facts and determined that a covert person, as spelled out in the IIPA, had been exposed. But the CIA does not have legal standing to bring a case to a grand jury. The CIA does not have the power to subpoena witnesses. The CIA does not have arrest authority. That's why they passed their information to the FBI to find out who leaked the name of a covert CIA officer.
Now, why is Scooter Libby in court? He was charged by a Grand Jury for perjury and obstruction of justice. Regardless of the jury verdict it does not alter one basic fact--Valerie was a covert officer and the printing of her name by Robert Novak has hurt our nation's security. And I know some of the details of the damage but those details should not ever be divulged in public. I would hope that Senator Rockefeller get a full briefing soon.
February 21, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The arguement of "covert", "overt", "cover", or whatever, is immaterial. It was not Wilson/Plame who created this investigation nor was it initiated at their request. It was a decision of the CIA to the Justice Department.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
February 21, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems most people don't stop to think about it. The CIA ask for the investigation by the DOJ because under advice from their CIA counsel that laws protecting CIA agents was violated.
If the CIA did not feel that laws were broken it would not have asked for the investigation into the leaking of Plames identity. It is not about her name. It is about outing her relationship with the CIA which had been classified.
Bush and Cheney want to out her in March and planned the operation against Wilson then. It was just convent that Wilson wrote an Op-ed. That gave them their chance to expose Plame and shot down the CIA operations that she works.
The crap in June that Scooper and Shoot engaged in was a sudden fit of craziness. It was their opportunity set their operation in motion.
Nothing in the Bush administration is unscripted. All appearance and public events are staged and choreographed even to last detail of Bush’s long exhales. Cheney and Scooper knew they were outing an agent and the CIA operations connect to her. They were and continue to sure that Bush’s Executive Orders will provide cover.
As Bush has said he would fire anyone in his administration who leaks CLASSIFIED information. If what Cheney and Scooper leaked was declared “De-classified” as Bush said he did then Bush is has commented Treason.
It is that simple. Bush, Cheney, and Bush’s entire administration has commented Treason against the Unites States of America. If there was no crime committed then the CIA would not ask for the investigation.
Bush's defense is that LBJ declassified the SR-71 when I talked about it in a public speech.
That is entirely different from using the Executive Branch powers as a weapon against a critic and outing the CIA agent and CIA operations.
There is no defense of what Bush did. There is no get of jail free card. This is not a game.
U.S. Constitution
Demand the Truth for America
February 21, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point? This was a turf war between no less than 5 government entities, two political campaigns and also involving several non govt. entities. The Wilson's were in the latter group.
February 21, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can base that on fact or even a half decent argument, step up.
February 21, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you here:
"The "knowingly" provision, while seemingly reasonable, makes the law very problematic for trial."
There is nothing reasonable about it, seemingly or otherwise. People who work in the White House and get top secret clearance have the burden of knowing that what ever they say, leak, blab, or spill to 9 reporters, or anyone else, is NOT classified information!
Giving them the excuse that they didn't know is as absurd as saying that Libby, who was trusted with all kinds of duties and information was such a dolt that he couldn't remember whether HE called a pile of people to give out Plame's name (when his boss was on the warpath against her husband) or whether that pile of people called HIM.
Which of our country's secrets are safe if those who have been vetted so that they are trusted with them don't have the obligation to make themselves aware of which is secret and which isn't?
There is nothing reasonable about giving people awesome power but then not holding them responsible when they abuse it.
Why should people who are so busy running the country be "leaking" to the press anyway?
In the words of the great orator, George Bush: "It is time for a regime change."
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
When quoting the Constitution, also consider the Article III, Section 3 definition of treason, which is deliberately hard to prove.
Much as I dislike what the Administration has done, I have to presume them innocent until proven guilty. LBJ had already decided to declassify what we generally call the SR-71; he garbled the main designation up to that time, which was RS-71 (with due nods to YF-12A, A-11, OXCART, etc.).
More significant was the conscious declassification of imagery and voice intercept sensor data to support various UN presentation data. RF-101 shots of Cuba and RIVET JOINT voice intercepts were not as touchy as satellite imagery of Soviet territory, for reasons that had as much to do with Soviet sensitivity and domestic policy as protection of the systems. It is not an accident that arms control agreements use the euphemism "national means of technical verification."
I don't have a problem with Congressional hearings or a special prosecutor, but (1) I don't think you can get a conviction for treason and (2) there's room to challenge Presidential authority--and defend it.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
February 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it not John "let the eagle soar" Ashcroft who, realizing that there was no way to deny the fact that a CIA covert agent had indeed been outed by SOMEONE, appointed Fitz?
What influence did the Wilsons have over him? Or is he just a closet liberal?
Answer: Ashcroft had no choice because of the facts. Unlike Cheney he decided not to shoot the law in the face.
Jan Knaus
February 21, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
You should know that no amount of factual material ever "settles" anything once the nuttier right-wing elements decide to latch onto it
February 21, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apples and oranges. Yes, the CIA is capable of carrying out law enforcement operations, but NOT within the Unitd States, that's why the FBI got the referral. Making a decision that a law was broken is a separate issue from carrying out law enforcement operations.
Your posts remind me of a tactic used by ex Senator Alfonse D'Amato during the Clinton years.....incessant questions.
Nothing permitted to be resolved.
February 21, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and Ashcroft did what his critics demanded. He said he would fire anyone that broke th law and he promised to have the entire issue fully investigated. As tradition would have it and as his critics demanded, he offered for an independent investigation. Your implying that Ashcroft believed that Libby broke the law, because he followed the rules is laughable on its face. I must give you credit though, the Cheney shooter joke was pretty good.
February 21, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did say "seemingly reasonable". The law requires demonstrable knowledge of covert status, but in a trial that could depend on circumstantial evidence.
I agree with you on whether the responsibility to manage classified info was exercised properly. (It was not.)
February 21, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson,
Here's what I don't understand: I was a military intelligence analyst. One of the FIRST things we were taught was that no classified information was to be released to anyone unless two conditions were met:
1. They had the appropriate level of security clearance, AND
2. They had a "need-to-know" the information.
I'm only speculating here but it seems that the identities of coverts and NOCs would, at a minimum, be TS/SCI.
Why would anyone in the executive branch have a "need-to-know" names of coverts or NOCs?
Next: Upon rereading Novak's article one thing stuck out like a sore thumb: He specifically labelled Ms. Plame as a "covert operative on WMD" so, whoever told him had to know that information.
Are we really expected to believe that those in the White House didn't have any kind of a clue that a "covert operative working on WMD" would NOT be highly classified intelligence? Not only that, they KNEW Novak did not have a "need-to-know."
I look forward to your thoughts on these comments -- as they have puzzled me for a long time now. Needless to say, I think what the administration did was treasonous and traitorous.
February 21, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep the "very nice lady"'s name covert otherwise Deadeye Dick will be out to get her:) (Sort of :) and sort of serious)
Tom
February 21, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they had any class they would have refused to be on the staff of this White House.
Tom
February 21, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson,
A couple more questions regarding the "president" declassifying portions of the NIE. I've looked at lists of NIEs that have been declassified and it's only recently that NIEs from WW II were declassified. That indicates NIE declassification schedule is rather long.
Not only that, but I was also under the impression that only the agency that classifies a document can declassify it ahead of its declassification schedule.
How could the President then declassify portions of an NIE when CIA is the proponent agency?
Thank you for your thoughts on this question too.
February 21, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
... because he's THE DECIDER ("faster than a speeding bullet, etc."), our superhero.
)Tom
February 21, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
ljohnson's picture
By Larry Johnson | bio
July 12, 2005
"...The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.
The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I DON'T KNOW IF A MAN MADE LAW WAS BROKEN BUT AN ETHICAL AND MORAL CODE WAS BREACHED. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate..."
Meanwhile....
Larry Johnson
Wednesday Feb. 21, 2007
"...I THINK LIBBY AND CHENEY COMMITTED A CRIME UNDER IIPA. GOT IT. I THINK THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME. REPEAT. THERE WAS A CRIME..."
Somebody nudge the record player, I think he is stuck.
Apparently I know enough about Intelligence agencies, Polygraphs, and security clearances to know when someone is lying.
In July of 2005, you claimed Republicans were claiming that no crime was committed and your response was agnostic on that. So at the time you did not think a man made law was broken, nor were you willing to state that a law had not been broken. You claimed ignorance.
You play that role rather convincingly.
Now you emphatically repeat, but not screaming, over and over so that people that think words matter, slow readers, mentally deaf, and others that need help sifting through the shifting sands of Larry Johnson's words,...".. I THINK LIBBY AND CHENEY COMMITTED A CRIME UNDER IIPA. GOT IT..."
Somebody must have taken your advice the first time and dropped the non case. Either you can share with us what caused you to change your story, or just admit that as the story has unraveled even more, you are grasping at straws and hoping nobody can remember your rantings from day to day. Read your own stuff. Telling the truth is less demanding on your faulty memory. Let me know when they indict Libby for violating the IIPA. Maybe we can discuss the mountains of evidence you are going to produce to back up your assertion. As of now, you have zip, nada, bubkiss.
February 21, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I have found interesting and perplexing about this situation is how Joe Wilson was allowed to use classified information to write his op-ed. From the declassfied INR Memo, it appears that when he made his oral report to the CIA, the information was treated as classified, right?
Wasn't the CIA under some obligation to keep him from diseminating what they had classified? His wife was preent at the debrief, worked in that group, and must have known that his report was classified. Was she under some obligation to try to keep her husband from giving out publically information that was classified?
February 21, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was not implying that the CIA should arrest anyone. I was implying that when the CIA sent the referal it was a political act by CIA, not a belief that a crime was committed. They were firing a shot across the bow, because state had kicked them in the nuts. Armitage fucked up. He was probably doing what these two agencies have been doing for years, back biting, finger pointing, and trying to make the other side look bad.
Armitage blew his mouth off, When Powell found out he covered it up from not only the embarrassment of other agencies, he left the White house swinging in the breeze. He never told the White House.
The questions I asked I think show how many holes are in his argument. If you think nothing is resolved, then there must be some reason an incident so thoroughly investigated has not brought with it an indictment on the IIPA. Fitz tossed it, there must be a reason. Rather than having me ask again, I will just posit the obvious. Regarding Libby and the IIPA, No crime was commited. I think that resolves it.
If you think Armitage breached it, then it is even more suspicious on Fitz why he would bypass an indictment on him, to nail someone in the white house that he admits did not breach the IIPA. Believe me, if this case is appealed we will see Armitage again, and he will sing like a bird and it will not look good for NBC news.
February 21, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It raises the question why Plame's boss would not require Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement which would be standard operating procedure. It appears from the beginning they wanted Wilson to be free to prance around and say what they could not.
It should also be noted that Plame sent her memo initiating the Niger trip before Cheney was briefed and before the so-called "behest" of the VP. Plame was already planning this trip before Cheney knew anything about Niger.
February 21, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President can declassify it if he wants, he is the President.
February 21, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
One 'half-decent' argument, TJKING is the FACT that the entire Bush White-House apparatus hastened to promise, "To leave no stone un-turned until the culprit...WHO COMMITTED THIS FELONY...was apprehended"...
Do you remember that Bush promised to fire anybody 'immediately' who was found to have been involved?
And you resort to a bizarre claim that no 'crime was committed'?
You, along with many of those jokers in the White House whom you now try to protect by minimizing the whole affair, are badly in need of some serious couch time with a good shrink, obviously.
Are the above facts 'half-decent' arguments enough for you, TJK?
February 21, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bring up some facts and lets see what happens
February 21, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink