Intentional ignorance repeated otherwise known as propaganda.

The elections will be great. The Repubs have all but cooked their goose .

Larry, thank you for keeping these points alive in the mainstream media. You and your group have been getting good coverage (e.g., several good articles on the CNN website, as well as in other MSM) for your assertion that Bush and others have dropped the ball and have failed the intelligence community, thus endangering national security.

The coverup is more widespread than I think even we realize. All Republicans seem to realize that if the whole truth about the Bush administration's deceipt leading us into the Iraq War, and perhaps the fact that the decision to go to war had already been made prior to 9/11, comes out in the open, that revelation will move the public to do a total housecleaning in 2006 and 2008, so the Republican leadership is in extreme control mode, and that means more lies and more deceipt.

I hope you and your group can help keep the heat on the Republicans in Congress, so that they will begin to break from the White House as the president's perfidy is revealed in the days to come.

I think the point is that this is not ignoarance, but willful disinformation. I think anytime these disgusting statements are made, the dis-informant (in this case Roberts) should be asked simply, "Are you saying you condone the reckless release of information about people in our intelligence services during time of war? Do you favor protecting our intelligence services, or degrading their ability to do their jobs and be trusted by people they work with abroad?"

I was disappointed that Sen. Diane Feinstein, who was on CNN with Sen. Roberts, didn't provide a factual rebuttal.

While it is one thing for a political bag carrier like Ken Mehlman to be woefully ignorant about CIA practices and procedures, it is downright alarming that Senator Roberts can be so misinformed.

Funny, I thought Mr. Roberts was a political bag carrier. I think it quite likely that he's not as dumb as he makes out to be.

The Rovians believe (and it is a belief that is pretty well supported by their experience) that if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough that it becomes accepted as truth.  At the very least, you muddy the waters so that no one knows who to believe.

I didn't note that Roberts was challenged on his failure to reopen the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to deal with the question of manipulating intelligence.  He promised to do that after the election.

I am sympathetic with Senator Feinstein.  It is near impossible to remember and make all the responses needed in real time.

Thanks again for keeping in the fight, Larry.

I've said this before, but no wonder the Republicans want to post the Ten Commandments everywhere. They have a terrible time remembering them . . . particularly the ninth: "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

There is no way that Roberts does not know this. It is just very important right now for all Republicans to hold to the official talking points. He would get no demerits for not knowing this, but plenty of demerits if he concurred that Mrs. Wilson was indeed covert and therefore a valuable intelligence asset. This is just one more tiny example of the millions and millions of deceptions practised by Republicans every day, a party with no honor, loyal to no principle other than fidelity to the party, that has no convictions other than to prevail at al costs, that does not recognize any right outside of its own political ends.

Even if Plame WASN'T covert, which she was, the front company for which she used to work, Brewster-Jennings, certainly WAS covert...and that company, along with all of the other operatives working there, was outed big-time.

Someone should ask Porter Goss if he agrees with Roberts.  It would be a good test of just how big a hack Goss is. 

In response to The Otter:

I think the difficulty lies with the fact that we all think that being a CIA operative is all "cloak and dagger."  Ms. Plame was a covert CIA agent, but even working at the CIA headquarters does not blow her cover because there are hundreds or thousands of people who work at the CIA headquarters.

Some are janitors.  Some are administrators.  Some are secret agents.  Some are people who are there to fix the leaky window on the 2nd floor. However, not all of them are covert agents.  Some simply work there.  Very few people knew who Valerie Plame was or what she did until Rove, Novak, etc. started blabbing.

Look at it this way:  Let's say you see me walk into Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas several times a week for five years.  What am I doing there?  Am I a gambler?  Am I the Vice President of Operations?  Am I an entertainer?  Am I a snoop for Circus Circus trying to see what the competition is doing?  You simply don't know.  Until you are told what I am doing there, you are speculating.

That doesn't affect me in any way. 

I was disappointed that Sen. Diane Feinstein, who was on CNN with Sen. Roberts, didn't provide a factual rebuttal.

I have been disappointed in Senator Feinstein too many times to remember.  She is a very wealthy woman, married to a man who is also very wealthy, so I strongly suspect that her primary mission in Washington is to protect her wealth, not to serve the country.  Unfortunately the Democratic Party has a lot of that kind too.

You ask ... "Is it partisanship or do they just forget to research the subject they are discussing?"

It probably has more to do with ratings and dollars. The television news and cable news people know they will be unable to get administration and congressional Republican as guests if they beat them up verbally on camera, so they don't risk it, since television news depends on talking heads, and especially on getting talking heads who have power. A good example is Chris Matthews. During the campaign he showed a flicker of independent thought about the Swift Boat smear when it began, and his administration access quickly dried up. It didn't take Chris long to realize that he was being frozen out, and that was the end of  his independent streak. He quickly reverted to being a passivist, like most of the people who do cable news, letting the lies slip by with no followup. It was really sad to see, and I haven't watched Hardball (or any television news) since it became so apparent it was rigged.

And I think we can take it one step farther.

Bush will, of course, pardon anyone indicted in this investigation.  He has to.  The consequences of a trial are too severe.

I believe that this is what the current media spin campaign is about.  If the Bushites can convince enough people that the indictments are on petty technicalities (as the Reaganites did in Iran-Contra), then the pardons might go down a little smoother.

This is why Democrats and everyone else who still holds out a little hope for our democratic institutions must continue to fight this spin war.  One basic step would be to lock Joe Biden in his room and get a real Democrat with a real spine on these shows. 

As someone else on this thread has suggested, the phone call to James Baker has probably already been placed.  We don't have a very good track record against this guy.

Thank you for your service Mr. Johnson. It is appreciated more than you know.

Anyone who took the time to read Senator Roberts "Additional view" addendum to the SSCI Report knows that he is a partisan hack.

Maybe Roberts needs to read the Appellate Court ruling that allowed Miller to be imprisoned.


http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-313
8a.pdf


The federal courts have spoken on the claim about whether Plame was covert or not covert.

In the amicus brief before Judge Hogan and the Apppellate Court review of Judge Hogan’s decision,  a claim was made that she was not covert at the time she was outed.


The Appellate Court, in reference to the claims outlined in the amicus brief, ruled page 1,


“We further conclude that other assignments of error raised by appellants are without merit. We therefore affirm the decision of the District Court."


Those “assignments of errors” included that Plame was not covert.


If the amicus brief claims that Plame was not covert, and the Court concludes that such a claim is without merit, what else is the court saying but that Plame was covert? It rejects the thesis that Plame was not covert. What remains can only be the affirmation of  the antithesis, viz., the conclusion by the Court that she was covert (unless Aristotle was crazy).

Absolutely.  Keep up the good work, Larry Johnson, and keep the pressure on!  At some point even the journalists will have to wake up and start calling them on this -- and maybe then they'll drop it.

Re: repeating a lie until it becomes truth — isn't that how this all began? The Bush administration repeated the WMD lie until it was quoted as fact. And look what happens when someone, such as Wilson, dares to assert that the *fact* is a lie: The powers-that-be tell more, vindictive lies and label the whistleblower a "traitor." And then repeat the original lie ad nauseam. With vigor. And if that doesn't work, repeat. And repeat yet another time. It's like Monty Python's "Argument Clinic":
Professional arguer: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Customer: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't." Arguer: Yes, it is.
Customer: No, it isn't. An argument is an intellectual process ... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Arguer: No, it isn't.
Customer: Yes, it is.
Arguer: No, it isn't.

You are too kind.

Roberts is not an incompetent guardian of national security. He is instead a leader of a party that cares more to savage its critics than to protect the nation.

In this regard, he does not differ from the adviser whom the president most closely heeds, nor from the president himself.

As I understand it, some agents work with a diplomatic passport.  Others, like Valerie Plame, worked without one, and she would be left twisting on her own if she was caught overseas.  So, she wouldn't be on a government payroll, she would be working for her cover company.  I believe the law also states that her identity can not be revealed for at least five years after leaving the field, so that the company and fellow operatives would not be compromised.  She may be an analyst at CIA headquarters now and may not go back out in the field, but her identity should never have been outed.

On FOX it may indeed be partisanship--and I've come to the conclusion that many reporters are ill-informed and often plain lazy, but I think Dan is right that economics are the main factor driving the press into its current state of passivity.

Expanding on what Dan said, I think there are several economic reasons for the increasing weakness of the press:

First and foremost, good reporting is expensive--and it doesn't sell as well as commentary. This has caused the press to de-emphasize reporting and instead rely on "talking heads" to debate issues. Bringing in a few talking heads from the Washington think tanks is much cheaper than maintaining a stable of reporters all around the world--and unlike reporters, the talking heads generate much heat to boost ratings (though little light).

Two, building ratings is key to getting advertisers' dollars (ultimately this is what the news is about for the networks--building ratings to attract advertisers). Being too aggressive with government officials turns off a lot of viewers -- and the last thing the news corporations want to do is scare off audience. While controversy can draw audience, the press is wary about being on the "wrong" side of a controversy because that can have a bad effect on ratings. Hence it's tendency to tread lightly, particularly when the polls show Republican popularity high.

Three, advertisers exert subtle influence on content, since they don't want their products associated with something that might be unpopular. This creates pressure on newsrooms to tone down their aggressiveness if that aggressiveness may be taken negatively by some of the public (i.e., the consumers of the advertisers' products).
 
Four, as news outlets have gotten more corporate, they are less likely to have any high-minded commitment to quality news reporting and are more likely to be driven solely by the desire to maximize profit. In the past, newspapers were often owned by strong-minded individuals who felt they had a mission beyond making money (though making money was always important). Now mission is defined purely by what's profitable.

Five, as Dan said, reporters do need to keep their sources happy. And I suspect many of them also like to feel important by having access to, and friends among, the high and mighty. This administration, in particular, likes to use access as a reward for friendly reporters and as a weapon against those who are too aggressive. This tactic, unfortunately, works.

Many have claimed that the "owners" of the press are increasingly Republican and partisan. This may be true--but given their willingness to broadcast lots of material that offends the family-values crowd, I think they are motivated primarily by what sells well, and not so much by what viewpoints they favor politically.

If there's a silver-lining in the press being so motivated by economics it is that consumers do have an influence on what is presented to them. If good reporting were to attract more of an audience, then it would become more common. Unfortunately, the downside to this economic reality is that good news disappears when the American consumer becomes uninterested in it.

As much as I'd like to anticipate the 2006 elections, I fear that aWol will do another "bring it on" challenge early that fall, almost begging for another attack to cause the electorate to rally around his sorry butt.

the cover company outed by Novak the day after he outed Plame, as an 'environmental consultant. Who made the claim that she drove to CIA headquarters every day?

Abu Et Banal wrote ... "Ms. Plame returned to the US in 1997 and had no foreign assignment subsequent thereto. "

That is purely speculation on your part. You have no personal knowledge of Plame's employment status or work for the CIA, as you yourself indicate when you say "I have no knowledge of CIA practice."

When Senators trusted with oversight of covert operations front a disinformation campaign against the American public, Congressional oversight turns into an operation directed against our national security.

The entire United States intelligence apparatus is undergoing a thorough reorganization because of this administration's failure to heed loud warnings about impending attacks and because of its willful manufacture of false warnings about impending attacks.

If ever there was a case for Congressional oversight, it is this one. Yet today, operations are being secretly vetted by a handful of Senators who never exert independent judgment, even when they know they are hearing lies.

Pat Roberts does not sound like an American Senator. His statement is consistent with someone on a mission sponsored by a foreign power, an American citizen who won't bear losses if the Republic collapses.  

Folks, there is no excuse for this level of incompetence

This level of incompetence and/or dishonesty is endemic to  modern Republicanism.  The only way to rid ourselves of it is to return the Republicans to minority party status, as they are unfit custodians of our nation's national security and economic well-being.

Heck, they shouldn't be trusted with cleaning the government's toilets.

I respectfully disagree.  One thing they are very good at is shoveling s***, so cleaning the outhouses in government facilities such as rarely visited National Monuments, would be a good-for-the-country career move for them.  Scottie is especially well trained for this move.

Otter, et al:
Perhaps the single most important use of cover comes into play when intelligence officers are stationed or TDY overseas.  Cover is essentially a paper trail that convincingly demonstrates that someone works for something other than the CIA, or DIA, etc. That comes in rather handy, obviously, when an intelligence officer is posted outside the country. Equally obviously, the cover and the paper trail must be maintained during Stateside assignments.
Driving into CIA in the morning is no more proof that someone is employed by the Agency than driving into Starbuck's every morning on the way to Langley is proof that you work there.

Hi gang:
Seriously, after Rove and Libby are up the river can liberals have a talk about why the CIA still exists considering all the undeniable negative baggage it hauls around?
Doesn't anyone else see the silliness in our country not being able to name the head of the directorate of operations? Does anyone really think that if a foreign agent wanted to learn the name,he or she would not be able to after a little work?
How many intelligence agencies does this country have? How many intelligence agencies does this country need?
richard 

Or to make it shorter--

 "If Plame wasn't COVERT, why did Ascroft bring in the Special Prosecutor?"

OK, I do occasionally.

Roberts' SSCI postponed phase 2 of its report into Iraq intelligence gathering (how the admin used intelligence) until after the 2004 elections with the promise that it would then proceed.  IT HAS NOT PROCEEDED.  Roberts is into the cover-up of intelligence fixing (of which Plame is just one facet) as deeply as any Fitzgerald target or subject.  His obstruction of the SSCI's work is part of what pulling the Plame thread will unravel.

 I think the point is that this is not ignoarance, but willful disinformation.

Absolutely. This isn't the only instance of willful distortion.

I blogged on the Stein comment today. It's outrageous. He even cited Nixon as making the only mistake as offering up aides to the liberal lions. Unbelievable.

stein/">http://www.markyork.blogspot.com">Stein

People are confusing being undercover with going underground.

CIA operatives are not fugitives from justice (like Harrison Ford in the movie) who are allowed no family, no life, no place to live, but are condemned to wander in disguise from place to place, seeking to keep their very existence secret, lest they get caught.

If no one knew Plame was with the CIA, no one would have REASON to tail her 24/7 to see where she goes.  (These people have to go out of their houses occasionally, right?)

If everyone accepts the idea that undercover cops can sometimes report back to headquarters, why can't they get their imagination around the idea of CIA operatives doing the same thing? 

I agree with some of the other commenters. Larry is being too kind and too polite to chalk up the comments made by Senator Roberts and others of his ilk to incompetence.

Stupidity, carelessness and incompetence are understandable and excusable.  What we are witnessing is crass, amoral politics. Although it is an accepted way of doing things in Washington, for the rest of us, it is inexcusable.

Don't look to Rockefeller for help.. Talk about a hack!  Where has he been?  Something smells here that he nor anyone is raising a finger to all this.  Jay's just a hack, more intent on consolidating his "power" in WV - for goodness sakes - once Dear Senator Byrd (and I do mean DEAR for where would Dems be without his cajones the past few years) leaves office.  Rockelfeeler should be impeached.

The incompetence at TPM Cafe is quite amusing.  Maybe you should spend more time reading the law and less time regurgitating DNC talking points.

Very few of us TPM Cafe posters are involved in making governmental decisions, nor are many of us  working for the government.  I'm sure the difference between those of us, who are just well informed citizens, and those who are employed by the government or voted into power in the government, is not discernible by you.  You probably also are unaware that few, if any of us, are professional news reporters.  So, tell us incompetents what the competency requirements are for having opinions.  Then, I'm sure some of us will be happy to tell you our opinions about  you.

Larry,

So great you've come forward to set the record straight.

Regarding the "not covert if works at Langley" talking point: I believe this talking point has some weight to it because on the face of it there's an element of common sense. Under cover 'secret agent' drives into Langley, somebody snaps photo and voila cover is blown. How can working everyday at CIA HQ be compatible with being a covert operative?

In debunking this talking point I think it would be helpful if you could explain *how* 'under cover' and 'working at Langley' are not mutually exclusive rather than simply stating that they aren't.

Thanks again for your courageous efforts.

You wrote ... "Maybe you should spend more time reading the law and less time regurgitating DNC talking points."

Maybe we'll do that when you Republicans stop thinking that RNC taliking points ARE the law.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the law.  John W. Dean IV is very helpful in some articles at findlaw.com----
  Friday, Oct. 10, 2003
Slowly, and steadily, more information about the unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA identity, and the reasons for it, have become available. As it has, I've been examining, assimilating, and trying to understand it. I've also realized that the apparent criminal activity may be more widespread than it initially appeared. (In an earlier column, I offered a preliminary discussion of this issue.)

And this from July 15, 2005----

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

As deceased Sen. Sam Ervin may have said it, Mr. Dean is a pretty fair country lawyer.  In addition, the earlier article by Dean references how Bulldog Fitzgerald may use the Espionage Act as part of his tool bag to pry open the case of TREASON.

As referenced by other comments, Juge Hogan declared that a crime was committed (& that J. Miller may be part of it) in his OK of Fitzgerald's request for contempt citations.  Then Judge Tatel, in the apellate decision slammed the door shut on any talking points with his declaration about how the events & circumstances are harmful to national security.

Thus, these are not my opinions or TMC commenters opinions.  These are decisions by judges.

So . . . if some of us state things similar to quotes by Mr. Dean, there is a very high probability that we reference actual law as interpreted by a counselor; and, if we quote judges or filed court documents, then we are stating decisions.  It's not too complex . . . except for a person who hasn't followed the actual developments in Traitorsgate.

Finally, I am sufficiently well read & informed to generate some opinions of my own and share them with like-minded folks in order to carry on a conversation.  This is not a Monty Python movie where I say, "It's so."  You say "It isn't so." Etcetera, ad nauseum.  The mainstream media has even realized that there is a crime (mainly because the judges trashed, thrashed & mangled their 36 amicus filings), and they have always known & printed that Plame/Wilson was covert; thus, the special prosecutor & the grand jury.  Sheeeesh.  Buy a paper, read a thread; shut off Limbaugh.

Strike the hammer while the lyin is hot.