Part-Time Pundit

Doorknobs, this is one of the most fucking nutty comments on this issue I've heard so far.

I can picture the wedding announcment in whatever paper it was posted:

The groom, Joseph Wilson, serves in the U.S Foreign Service and has held ambasadorial positions. The bride, Valerie Plame, is currently a covert CIA operative.

You are so fucking nuts and lame.

RESPONSE:
Read again... you missed the point.

Oh, so you screen comments.

In other words, you live in a BushCo-like insular world.

Let's see if you print that.

RESPONSE:
Yeah, I'll print it. Nothing like a true lefty... don'd address the points, just attack the character. I believe the politics of personal destruction is the phrase.

Plame didn't work for the FBI, it was the CIA... Just a little FYI

RESPONSE:
Never said she did... used FBI as an example.

"If Libby leaked the name of a covered operative why is he not charged as such? The prosecutor during the press conference, Fitzgerald said he was “the first person in the chain of phone calls” that released her name to the public. Why is he not charged for leaking the name? Fitzgerald is saying that’s essentially what he did. The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd."

were you not listening to fitzgerald?

the knowledge of the status of the information is required to prove the crime you mention. fitzgeral cannot get at the relevant facts because, in his view, libby has frustrated his attempts to do so, by lying to f.b.i., perjuring himself, and obstructing justice.

RESPONSE:
So you believe that Fitzgerald was able to prove that Libby had several conversations before then but not able to establish her status? I heard him, I wasn't buying.

"Nothing like a true lefty... don'd address the points, just attack the character"

Is it me or is there something clearly hypocritical about this statement. This is a poorly written article. CIA agents can't get married? Do you truly believe outing a CIA agent is not wrong? The exact thing the VP's office was doing is attacking the character of Joe Wilson, WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE POINTS (you know yellowcake)! The VPs office are lefties?

RESPONSE:
Learn what hypocrisy means. CIA agents can get married, yes. CIA agents, if they expect to keep their cover, need to be careful WHO they marry. If they marry an ambassador, NO ONE would treat that individual as a safe person to give up information to. I'm not saying Libby isn't wrong, or that he shouldn't go to jail if accusations are proven. Some facts though:

1) Wilson's report ended up SUPPORTING the claims that Iraq tried to get yellowcake. The entire Intelligence Committee in the Senate came to that conclusion.
2) Plame sending her husband was unethical, by design and relevant to his criticisms. That shouldn't be read as justifying it.
3) Wilson has already been proven to lie about a great number of things.

Let's get this straight. The purpose of official cover is not to obscure that the person had a relationship with the United States, but to obscure the fact that they are employed by a US Intelligence agency that is attempting to collect information on behalf of the US government. Hence, Plame was provided with a CIA front employer and a front job to obscure her actual function.

Marrying Wilson doesn't out her. Because marrying Wilson doesn't identify her as a covert operative of an intelligence agency.

The logical theory is that Fitzgerald lacks sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby in fact KNEW that she was a covert cia employee at the time he leaked the information. Because Libby did his best to obscure the original source of his information and could not be expected to truthfully testify about this knowledge, it may be impossible for the special prosecutor to convict.

That's the rational explanation. With all due respect your's explanation is patently ridiculous.

Rigel

RESPONSE:
It's to obscure the fact that they are acting as an agent of the US government in any capacity. There is a reason we don't make covert ops, say, local cops. Also, bear in mind where all espionage operations take place out of in foreign countries... namely the embassies. This is known and this is how every nation plays the game. They have spies that work in the embassy (official cover) and spies outside (non-official cover).

As I said to others, I do not buy that there isn't evidence to suggest he knew. He has found detailed converstaions with a variety of people that shows he knew her name and relationship and talked about it. I'm simply not buying his explanation especially when he talked about "vindicating the interests", namely that it doesn't matter because he's being charged with SOMETHING so it's all ok.

Learn how intelligence works, get back to me.

Okay I read the Senate Intelligence Committee report. I read the statement that Wilson's intelligence actually supported the notion that Saddam was attempting to get yellowcake. Unfortunately, I read it in the section entiteld additional views of Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch that were attached to the appendix. Frankly I don't think the additional views of 3 senators constitute the views of the entire committee.

Rigel

Part-Time Pundit
by John C. A. Bambenek
Because my version of the truth requires a moron.


There, I fixed it for you.

RESPONSE:
More intelligent commentary by the Left.

Uh we also have spies who work inside the embassies under non-official cover as well. Marrying an ambassador does not out one as a covert operative. The whole notion is silly. Espcially since, one of the fears is that people may go back and observe the contacts that the agent made pre-marriage as well. Your reasoning just doesn't fly.

Rigel

RESPONSE:
"we also have spied who work inside the embassies under non-official cover..."

You don't know what non-official cover means then.

Okay John here's the language of the statute in question:

Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Okay find me the part where it says that it applies to "anyone" having a relationship with the us government. By the way, there's no doubt that the intelligence agencies were trying to conceal her identity. They gave her a cover employer and a cover position.

Rigel

RESPONSE:
He wasn't charged with violating this... I find this quite telling.

I'm saying that her marriage compromised her relationship and you are throwing an irrelevant law to try to refute it. This law has nothing to do with the fact that people who are married to US ambassadors don't make good spies. It's not a legal argument, it's a practical one. The language of the statute is irrelevant to that point.

Further, the CIA did not act to protect her identity when given the chance. (affirmative measures). Remember, Novak called them. However, that's a different point.

My argument is that her cover was blown when she got married because she became useless for NOC work because of her marriage. This probably had something to do with her moving to work at Langley.

Uh John,

Follow your argument. Your argument was that she was outted when she married Wilson, and the basis of that argument was that she was outted when she married the ambassador. The problem is that if you look at the law, it's pretty clear that being married to an ambassador wouldn't constitute an outting.

By the way there is no requirement that she be a good spy. Moreover, you overlook another point, the fact that she was given a cover employer makes it pretty clear that the CIA at least considered her employment something that they wanted to keep secret.

It's a decided problem with your analysis.

Rigel

RESPONSE:
Being outed is not a crime. Being outed is an event which might be a crime. If she stood up and said I'm in the CIA, it wouldn't violate that law, but her cover would nevertheless be blown. Just because an agents cover gets blown it does not mean that specific statute has been violated.

How can a cover be blown when there was no cover to be blown? That is the issue.

If Libby would have told the Special Prosecutor, "The V.P. told me (perfectly legal by the way as both the V.P. and his chief of staff hold high enough security clearances)and I told the reporters, but I didn't think it was a crime, due to the fact that she had a public marriage to a public figure." then this article and the subsequent arguments might have some bearing.

The reason he wasn't charged with outing a spy is because there wasn't enough evidence to charge him with such. The reason there isn't enough evidence to charge him with that crime is because it is highly possible that he has horribly impeded the investigation into the above charges. Impeding the process through supposed lies and deception is the crime he's being charged with.

As far as the Protection of Identities Statute goes, it protects only covert agents. Because official, non-official cover, or depth of cover are never mentioned in the statute it leaves alot of room for interpretation. I thought that Fitzgerald did an outstanding job of explaining this. It is absolutely possible that it is a crime to identify Plame as an agent, if the intent of the act was to blow her cover, even though it is possible that she would not have been effective because of her public status. It is also possible that identifying Plame was not a crime if the act was done under the assumption that she was already a public figure and background was being provided.

Crime (not actual conversations): Libby, "Hey Novak, got some info for you. You know that lady that you sometimes see in pictures with Wilson and noone knows who it is. It's because that's his wife, an undercover CIA Agent named Valerie Plame."

Not a Crime: Novak, "Is Wilson married?"
Libby, "Yeah, I just found out yesterday while we were doing some background."
Novak, "What's her name?"
Libby, "Valerie Plame."
Novak, "Does she have a job or does she sit around the house?"
Libby, "No, she works with the CIA."

A well thought out article though. At least in my opinion. I just don't think it has any actual bearing on the indictment or the investigation leading up to it. Just that Libby possibly did a lot of lying under oath.

I'm glad that he resigned though, and I'm glad that President Bush said, when this started that if anyone commited a crime they would be fired. As mad as I get sometimes at the lack of conservatism the White House offers sometimes, I always get the feeling that Bush is a strong leader, whether or not we always like his leadership decisions (i.e. the Miers nomination, expansion of federal government, etc..).

RESPONSE:
I'm glad he's out too, becuase it does look like he committed perjury and we on the right take that seriously, but I'm not buying Fitz just doesn't have the goods because we was obstructed.

He has conversations between Libby and reporters, Libby between Ari Fleischer, Libby between others in the White House. I think Fitz knows what Libby knew. It's an opinion, but I think that Fitz doesn't charge for the leak because he won't be able to sell that the CIA really wanted to protect her, that her cover was really legit, and that her cover wasn't already blown.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: