TPMCafe
« Sub-Prime Bubble “Not a Small Issue”… | Home | Assault By Overdraft »

What Would Valerie Say?

user-pic

Those who have read the strident handwringing of rightwingers in a snit over Valerie Plame's testimony on Friday before Henry Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are probably asking themselves: are these clowns high on drugs or just profoundly stupid? I refer of course to articles in the Investor's Business Daily and The American Thinker, which offer up rightwiner wish lists of questions members of Congress should ask Valerie Plame tomorrow. If the list of questions proferred by Investor's Business Daily is indicative of their investment advice prospective investors relying on their guidance are probably already bankrupt or facing near financial ruin. And what can we say about The American Thinker? Is this an intentionally ironic oxymoron? One wonders because the piece reflects nothing that approaches genuine thought. But I digress.

In the spirit of public service, I will take a stab at helping answer their questions. While I don't know for sure what Valerie will say nor am I acting on her behalf, I do know what the right answers are. Here's my guess at what we could hear from Mrs. Wilson.

The Investor's Business Daily asks:

• Ms. Plame, didn't you 'out' yourself when you made a $1,000 contribution to the Al Gore presidential campaign and listed your CIA 'cover' company as your employer in your Federal Elections Commission filing? Didn't you say you worked for Brewster-Jenning and Associates, a fictitious Boston-based firm designed to provide cover for some CIA operatives and employees? Are you aware these are public records?

No I did not. My contributions to legitimate political candidates is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether I complied with U.S. law in making those contributions. And I did comply. I had to identify where I worked and, at the time, I was working in an undercover position with the firm Brewster Jennings. I could not list the CIA as my true employer because I was undercover. At no time did I ever identify myself to someone not entitled to know that I worked with the CIA. I lived my cover.

• Isn't it true, Ms. Plame, that you are listed in your husband's 'Who's Who In America' entry? Isn't it true that both you and your husband are Democratic activists with an agenda and that your husband's July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed was a politically motivated concoction?

Yes I was listed in Who's Who but so what? The entry did not identify me as a CIA officer. And no, we are not Democratic activists with an agenda. We are Americans who care deeply about our country. We never imagined that public officials would use their position and power to smear American citizens who were serving their country.

• Didn't your husband, Joe Wilson, also contribute to the Gore campaign and go on to be a foreign policy adviser and speechwriting consultant for the Kerry campaign? And didn't he actively campaign for the Massachusetts Democrat in no fewer than six states?

What's the question? Are you saying that an American citizen who supports a legitimately selected presidential or congressional candidate is committing a crime? Joe and I believe every American should be involved in America's political process. Every American is free to choose whether they want to support Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. Joe and I have provided financial support to both Republicans and Democrats. It is our constitutional right and we will surrender that to no one.

• Would you agree that what you call a smear campaign to discredit your husband and punish him by exposing you was merely a legitimate attempt of an administration under political attack to defend itself against statements that are demonstrably false?

No. I do not agree because it is not the truth. My husband said the his trip was initiated in response to a request from the Vice President's office for more information about an intelligence report that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. That was a true statement. My husband said that he was sure a report of his trip was turned into an intelligence report. That is true. The intelligence report created after he was debriefed carried the title, "Nigerian Denial of Uranium Yellowcake Sales to Rogue States" and was dated March 8, 2002. My husband wrote in July of 2003 that, "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Sadly, we now know that was the truth.

• Isn't it true that you were seated behind a desk in CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., for a period of time that disqualifies you for protection as a covert agent under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

That is a lie. I served as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations from 1985 until I resigned from the CIA in 2006. I was undercover until exposed in Robert Novak's op-ed of July 2003. I had served overseas, as required in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), during the five years that preceded July 2003. At present the CIA does not allow me to acknowledge that I worked for the CIA prior to 2002. If I had been an overt employee, there wouldn't have been a problem. But I wasn't an overt employee. I was a covert officer.

• Isn't it true that the reason you were brought stateside was because foreign intelligence services and most of Washington knew who you were and where you worked?

I can tell you with certainty that until the day Bob Novak printed his article that identified me as a CIA officer, I was working in a covert job and I was traveling, from time to time, overseas. What other countries knew or did not know is not my concern. I was betrayed by my own government and by officials who had a legal obligation to protect my identity.

What about the addled-brain American Thinker?

Since the CIA maintains an office which is responsible for contacts with the press, on what date did you report your May 2 and 3 contacts with Nicholas Kristof to that office?
I did not speak with Mr. Kristof about this matter in any fashion. I was not a source and therefore under no obligation to report a passing social contact. My husband's conversations with members of the press where his and his alone. I have never divulged classified information to anyone in the media. I lived my cover and protected it in an appropriate manner. I wish Vice President Cheney and his staff had acted with similar professionalism.
When did you first inform Joe Wilson that you worked for the CIA?

Please buy Joe's book, The Politics of Truth. He accurately recounts that story.

When you informed him that you worked for the CIA, was he aware that you wanted to keep your identity protected?

Are you really that fucking stupid? He faithfully protected my identity. It was the officials in President Bush's Administration who betrayed me, not my husband.

Your name, Valerie Plame, was listed in Who's Who in America from 1999 through 2005, under your husband's listing? Did you seek special permission from the CIA to be included in that entry?

I repeat the question about your stupidity. I lived my cover. At no time in any fora did I identity myself as a CIA officer. While undercover I lived my cover. Period.

Did your husband consult with you before including your maiden name in his bio published at that conference? Did you seek and obtain permission from the CIA for that disclosure?

Why do I need to seek permission from the CIA to tell people I'm married to Joe Wilson and work as an energy consultant? You really do not understand even the basics of cover?

Is it common practice for CIA agents to donate to political campaigns? When you contributed to the Gore campaign in 1999 under your own name, did you have any obligation to report that to your superiors?

Yes it is normal and no you are under no obligation to report a legal, political activity. Just because you are undercover does not mean you surrender your rights as an American citizen.

Sorry. I surrender. The remainder of the American Thinker questions are so moronic and so juvenile that they do not merit being treated as serious, legitimate questions. Here is the bottomline. Joe and Valerie Wilson protected each other and believed that serving one's country is a high and noble calling. Valerie, for her part, never compromised her integrity or her legal obligation to protect classified information. Tomorrow the American people will have the chance to meet a serious, intelligent patriot. People who want to challenge those values will do so at their own peril. God speed Valerie.


80 Comments

| Leave a comment

One suggested change to your answers... she should never blame Novak but should instead blame those who leaked to him.

He is, for all his faults, a journalist. It's his job to write what he knows, even if the CIA doesn't want him to. Once he knew it, the genie was out of the bottle.

She should focus on the elements of the government who leaked to him. They're the real villains. Novak might be a jerk but it's the people who told him about her that are really responsible.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Yes, I visited 'The American Thinker' for the first time a couple days ago. What a trip! It's really hard to believe that the people who write for AT are so totally devoid of reason and/or intellectual honesty. The article I read had to do with how the 'Greens' (whatever that means) 'invented' the theory of global warming out of whole cloth. Sheesh.

PS: The Plame hearing is going to be closed, right? Darn.

Now, Ms. Plame; while at the CIA did you have any role in the coverup of President Clinton's sale of Earth's Defense Plans to the Maritans for campaign contributions?

It will be interesting to watch the Republicans on the Committee, if they get too nasty they risk looking like
they're raping her again.

Since anyone who doesn't support Bush is a traitor to America, clearly anyone who supported Gore can't be trusted with sensitive information. Since reality is liberal, punishing those for speaking about it is only a proper redress against biased falsehoods.  And since defending America is the same thing as initiating military invasions, why not call it "defense"? In wingnut reality, it all makes perfect sense. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I just don't get the whole "Who's who" bit. Are these mental giants suggesting that the fact that Valerie Plame was married to Joe Wilson was somehow a state secret? I really think that's what they are going on - look, here is something that you didn't keep secret - therefore you were not undercover!

I also don't get the bit about Brewster Jennings. That was her cover so of course she listed it as her occupation when giving a political donation. Was she supposed to pretend Brewester Jennings didn't exist? Again, do these people understand the idea of cover?

The part that was secret was her employment for the CIA, not
- being married to Joe Wilson
- donating money to the Gore campaign
- working for Brewster Jennings

They all deserve a slap for asking such silly questions, and the people who buy into the silliness also deserve slaps.

People that support a Libby pardon ignore who and what Libby is and what he did. Look, Libby is a well educated lawyer, well versed in the doings of politics and Washington. When Libby leaked Plame's cover he knowingly did it as part of a plot to destroy Plame and her husband. It didn't matter to him what the consequences were to U S security, and he didn't care what he was doing to two U S citizens. Novak is no different than Libby,
he was putting politics above all. This whole case was not much different than a Mafia hit.

I find it curious that Dan Rather* was hounded out of his job for reporting facts on Bush, yet Novak, who was a major player in what can arguably be called an espionage case, seems to have lost nothing.

*Regarding Rather's firing offense: I have a copy of Lee's surrender at Appamattox, the fact that its a copy doesn't mean the Civil War is still raging.

"The fact that its a copy doesn't mean the Civil War is still raging." Hmm, maybe your having only a copy explains why it is still raging. Where would the GOP be without the race card and Nixon's Southern Strategy? Or perhaps it's a diminishing impact of race (and, with failure in Iraq, terrorists) that explains, as much as fundamentalism, the strategic emphasis on gays and immigrants. Always need some internal enemy to blame . . . .

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

THE American Thinker??? The only one?? If so, gevalt.

There goes John again with his Area 51 space aliens again.

And what can we say about The American Thinker? Is this an intentionally ironic oxymoron?

An oxymoron (plural oxymora or, more commonly, oxymorons) (noun) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. Oxymoron is a Greek term derived from oxy ("sharp") and moros ("dull").


So Larry, An American can't be a thinker? I guess you wish the majority of Americans were not stupid and they would just blindly lap up the swill that elitist leftists spew. That's a real thinker.

Your trashing of the American people never seems to surprise me.

Generally, I disagree with you on a couple of minor points. When Libby outed Plame, it was simply to get Joe Wilson. It was not his "intent" to ruin her career and what ever colateral damage. She just didn't matter. He did not give a rat's ass what happened to ANYBODY because this mission was SO important. This relates to the other point: the true "mafia" would not have done it this way. They were gentlemen of a sort, and left families out of it. Libby is not as good enough to compare to the mafia.

This was a man who was highly valued in this administration. Think briefly about this point, and then remember that THESE are the guys who DO have access to WMDs.

dc

Where do the suggested answers blame Novak? What I see is mere statement of fact: Novak's op-ed blew her cover. Maybe that was his job, maybe not. I think not. But either way, that's what he did.

apparently these right-wing idiots think that being a covert CIA agent means pretending you don't actually exist rather than simply covering up who really work for.

It's his job to write what he knows, even if the CIA doesn't want him to.

I'm sure your heart's in the right place, destor23, but suppose Novak comes across a complete directory of all CIA covert agents and their addresses, and a classified list of all planned troop movements in Iraq for the next five days. You are claiming that "it's his job to write" that information?

From my viewpoint the evidence is clear that Novak fully intended to help his party by punishing Joe Wilson by deliberately wrecking his wife's career. He just never thought that anyone would ever point out that he had done so, and wasn't clever enough to realize there were criminal statutes involved. Because of that column he should now be a thoroughly disgraced and unemployed pundit, but he's not because our nation's corporate news media are run by the worst kind of Republicans.

You don't understand, Rick. Ya see, being a CIA covert agent is like  being a comic book superhero. When you're hanging around the house or going to a party with your spouse your name is, say, "Clark Kent." But when you're doing spook stuff, your name magically changes to, say, "Superman." NEVER MIND that everyone can see that Clark Kent looks just like Superman, and therefore they must be the same person, and therefore something fishy must be going on; you still have two names and pretend to be two different people. Valerie's CRIME is that she used THE SAME NAME for both of her identities. Or at least that must be what the liars at these right-wing dishrags are thinking....

She wasn't covert. heh heh heh

According to Plame herself, a CIA official called Novak and pleaded with him not to reveal the information. Yes, the people who told him are the ones ultimately responsible, but Novak deserves plenty of blame too. This is proof that he puts his own column's interests above those of his country.

On March 16, 2007 - 11:42am davcbr said:

When Libby outed Plame, it was simply to get Joe Wilson. It was not his "intent" to ruin her career and what ever colateral damage. She just didn't matter. He did not give a rat's ass what happened to ANYBODY because this mission was SO important. I understand how you framed it and I agree.
On March 16, 2007 - 11:26am TJKING said:


There goes John again with his Area 51 space aliens again.

Its obvious Valerie Plame is a "Communist." heh heh heh

Won't fly, TJ.  We all know Larry was taking his jab at a magazine, regardless of your gross distortion.

Neoboho

I know, but remember the White House called the NY Times and asked them not to print their bank records story... we're lucky the Times refused.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I only caught the tail end of Valerie's testimony, Larry - but what I heard was pretty obvious.  I did like her non-verbal responses to Republican questions about her and Joe's political affiliations. 

But the real show is going on right now - the two White House security officials testifying that in spite of his words, Bush did not conduct an internal investigation into the leak, which further erodes our national security.  Rove still has his security clearance, for example. 

Neoboho

it continues to occur to me (and i can't recall ever actually seeing this said anywhere) that the whole notion that 'his wife sent him' (regardless of that being untrue) was/is supposed to be relevant in that it would somehow discredit joe wilson, is tellingly based on the same sort of sexism that is behind the arguments (if you can even charitably call them that) that valerie was not a covert agent. has anyone else had that same impression?

Aye. It's the typical neo-con emasculation tactic they use on just about everyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.


Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

TJ's partisan hack posts often remind me of the following;

A friend's son told us the following:

'When I was in basic we heard about a chickenshit Lt. Colonel who was going to inspect the barracks. This guy was supposed to be all Army, strictly by the book. So we prepared for his arrival by working our asses off; bunks, foot lockers, floors, ceilings, windows, doors, showers, johns.

So this Col gets here and he's wearing white gloves, of course, and he checked every window, every bunk, every foot locker. He scaned the floors and ceilings, then went into the showers and checked them out, making sure they were clean and the fittings were polished.

He then went to the toilets and looked closely at the first 5 and all seemed well. Then when the 6th and last seemed ok, he took his hat off, knelt down, and stuck his head in the bowl to look under the rim. Well, he found something and the inspection didn't pass.'

Here's the moral of the story: "If you go around searching for shit, you're going to find it."

"The committee's ranking Republican, Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, questioned whether the CIA had adequately protected Plame's covert status."

Journalists and members of Congress should call every raising of the issue above and the issue of whether Plame was or wasn't covert as a RED HERRING aimed at ignorant people.


The CIA does not reveal the status of their employees. Notice that the White House did not comment on Plames status after the scandal broke. That would only have compounded their atrocious judgement in revealing her CIA affiliation. Everything they've done since Novak's revelation has been damage control. According to Plame, Novak ignored CIA requests not to reveal affiliation. Official requests before the fact are a pretty good attempt co conceal her status. Did someone tell Novak his source would protect him?

Connski

This garbage only gets better every day. Now, Plame is claiming that a mysterious man, with no name, that happened to be walking past her office, told her he thought Lyin' Joe should go to Niger, and he walked her (apparently by force, sheesh) to the supervisor and recommended Joe, as she looked on.

I think its time for a subpeona and another Perjury charge.

You are cherry-picking his quote to serve your own purposes. [Where'd you GET that idea?]

He said "intentionally IRONIC oxymoron". Putting these words all together plays on the notion that these guys [and if you ever listened to them during the war's run-up] think that they are the only true Americans. Maybe you can figure out the self contadiction from there.

Actually, I am embarassed by the thought of some Asian or Europian person stumbling onto this site and getting the idea that this is an "American thinker"

dc

Perhaps she sees no purpose to revealing the name of a CIA employee for everybody to banter about. Man. You are the original American Thinker!

"...she has no purpose...", yes, you pegged it. It serves no purpose for her other than revealing that she is lying just like her husband, and furthermore it torpedoes her phony lawsuit and media rights. Her purpose is to lie.

She even claims she doesn't even know if she is covert. What?

I guess that describes you perfectly, John. Always hoping that nobody will notice your shit, instead of cleaning it up.

I figured the moral to the story was, John will never attain the rank of latrine specialist.

Its obvious John is a demoted latrine specialist.

This garbage only gets better every day. Now, Plame is claiming that a mysterious man, with no name, that happened to be walking past her office,...


Hey Einstein, he was INSIDE the CIA Bldg passing Plame's desk, um, just maybe he was a CIA agent? You know, a kinda COVERT GUY?

I figured the moral to the story was, John will never attain the rank of latrine specialist.

Well at least I can become a "Communist." :)

Yes, people that are demoted latrine specialists would definitely prefer to be a "Communist".

By the way, didn't David Broder write a column recently predicting Bush was staged for a comeback in the polls?

Oh, Gee, thanks for filling me in, Sherlock. I didn't realize every person in the building at Langley is assumed to be "a kinda COVERT GUY". That must make it difficult on foreign agents to figure out who is covert, since everybody at Langley is covert.

I understand we just heard testimony today that people that are covert rarely hang out at Langley. But they may have just changed that for your benefit. Duh!

Now I can see why you flunked out of Latrine duty 101.

heh heh heh. Ya think TJ is actually Victoria Toensing?

One thing we know for sure, he isn't that woman in the back of the hearing room wearing the "IMPEACH BUSH NOW" shirt

I didn't get that impression - but what do I know?  You could be spot on.  However, I imagined the motive to be to discredit Ambassador Wilson by implying that his trip was some sort of a nepotistic junket and/or a democratic plot to undermine the president.  You know, the covert democratic operative/mole in the CIA, Ms. Wilson, jumps at the opportunity to get Bush by engineering her fellow operative/husband's trip to Niger in order to poo poo on the administration.

There are really people who think like this.   Weird, ain't it?

Neoboho

"The committee's ranking Republican, Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, questioned whether the CIA had adequately protected Plame's covert status."

I think you saw the Repubs new spin point, 'the CIA did it'.
Later in the hearing, Victoria Toensing, a Repub spinmeister blamed the CIA the same way.

Why not take a trip on the real wild-side then?

Conservapedia

I guess that's about the only kind of comment you can make about Plame since it proves everything else yu've said is wrong. I'm sure you'll come up with some other nonsense. Wait until Toensing tells her tale. She'll give you some ideas. But wait; she'll be under oath...well, maybe she won't give you anything after all.

Jan Knaus

Yeah, TJ. I see you're just baiting people with language here because you can't stand to be away; you can't stand to just be quiet; and your previous myriad posts can't stand the light of day!

PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT ---

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself!

Jan Knaus

PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT --- PLAME WAS COVERT ---

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself!


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. The lady is succinct :)

On March 16, 2007 - 5:08pm TJKING said: "I understand we just heard testimony today that people that are covert rarely hang out at Langley."

Hey Stephen Hawking, ya gotta stop hangin' out in FreeRepublic.com and listening to their "testimony".

Ya see Mister Newton, no one who said coverts rarely "hang out" at Langley said they never go there :)

Do they 'appear' at Langley? Sure they do. Plame was there, she was covert. :)

Ya see Socrates, after a mission is accomplished they can go home, go to the local bar, or go to Langley to be debriefed, or all three.

See how easy that was?

Trust TJ to jump on the one vagueness in Plame's testimony, that she would not specify the person that suggested Joe. Given that this matters not a damn, it's a thin reed. She could certainly have suggested her husband in good faith, given his expertise and no cover or ops to protect.

The real bombshell is the staffer that innocently exposed that the WH broke its own executive order that required formal notification of a security breach, and an investigation. Forgetting the criminal implications, which keep expanding, it surely impeaches any assertions that the WH intended to get to the bottom of anything.

Who was Knodell's predecessor? Anyone remember Butterfield?

More of your garbage that is unsourced, no links, and nothing to back it up. You clearly implied in your goofball post that a person walking down the hall should be assumed to be covert, now you are trying to back pedal, because you look like an imbecile. And now here again you just pull crap out of your butt and make it up, such as the assumption that a covert agent is supposed to come to Langley to be debriefed after a mission.

Next time you are at the latrine, "de-brief" yourself.

TJ, your posts on the PLAME case have you in a hole deeper than the Marianna Trench; if I were you, I'd stop excavating.

I wanted to post this way earlier but it got by me;

I give Larry's answers while acting in place of Valerie Plame a 5

On March 16, 2007 - 6:21pm Tom Wright said:


Trust TJ to jump on the one vagueness in Plame's testimony, that she would not specify the person that suggested Joe.

Maybe Plame HAD to be vague about this person, after all, she was on C-SPAN television and not in a secure setting :)

Or maybe the guy was a janitor, and maybe he was going around emptying waste baskets when he overheard the conversation that led to his suggesting Plame's husband.

Cheney thought the trip to NIGER was a "junket". I wonder if Cheney every vacationed there. :-)

That's likely the case; she did not identify her subordinate that took the OVP phone call, either. Note that no one on the committee pressured her on either identity. This implies both were on the "Don't Ask" list.

I just watched some of the Plame testimony on Olbermann, Plame referred to the guy as "another officer". So I guess that eliminates the janitor. :)

Larry was on with Olbermann.

Unlike the rest of the liberal posters on this site...TJ has kept his mind and bodily fluids pure enough to smell the communist plots behind Valerie, Joe and Larry, summed up in the link below by a famous USAF officer, Colonel Ripper:

audio link quicktime

Do you have a point here, Jan.

Are you trying to stutter and stammer out a logical argument here?

Are you trying to say you have some kind of proof that the IIPA was breached?

Just wondering.

Let's see... T... and then J in Spanish and a couple of other lingos is pronounced as an "H"...and then King. Often the s is given a hard sound in Pacific rim languages. So, Thhhking...Toensing. TJKING=Toensing!!

JohnW, my man, you figured it out!

Hey, TJ. Since Plame testifies that she was covert and the CIA stipulates that she was covert and no one in the administration is denying that she was covert, isn't there a little egg on your face?

Of course, when you wrote "she is not covert" I guess you could quibble over the meaning of what is is.

That IS funny!


War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

The column was probably secondary. Novak and Rove have previous experience in leaking together, for Rove's benefit.

In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.
Since then, Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove was the source, even as Mr. Mosbacher, who no longer talks on the record about the incident, has never changed his original assertion that Mr. Rove was the culprit.


But the episode, part of the bad-boy lore of Mr. Rove, is a telling chapter in the 20-year friendship between the presidential adviser and the columnist.

Practice makes perfect. Or not.



War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

Did they conserve on bandwidth or the server? This wild side times out before first gear.



War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

On March 17, 2007 - 1:32am Clay Allison said:

Let's see... T... and then J in Spanish and a couple of other lingos is pronounced as an "H"...and then King. Often the s is given a hard sound in Pacific rim languages. So, Thhhking...Toensing. TJKING=Toensing!!

Excellent analysis, you must be a CIA code breaker, posting under a pseudonym, of course. :)

Don't forget, the Plame leak was shopped around to 5 or 6 reporters, only Novak ran with it. To me it showed what a lacky he is for the Bush gang and the Repub party.

That's exactly right. And according to TJ, it's OK if I tell you that I work for the CIA, as long as I don't tell you my name (rather than the other way around).

--Clay Allison (oops!)

Erase double post

Link above de-linked due to bandwidth problems, but available under 'conspiracy' third down on

this page

Come on, Tom. Do you realize what kinds of lengths you are going to with this pretzel logic. You mention the one vague response? Is there anything she said that was not vague and cryptic? Janitors? come on!

"...Note that no one on the committee pressured her on either identity. This implies both were on the "Don't Ask" list...."

Here we go again. You guys keep operating on the lack of evidence being proof of a deeper reality that backs up your imaginary images of real events.

I don't know why so many of you guys are so opposed to full blown top to bottom congressional investigation. Subpeona Wilson, Armitage, Andrea Mitchell, Rove, Plame, CIA counsel, Woodward, and especially the mysterious guy that walks by Valerie's office and takes her at gunpoint to her Supervisor demanding Joe go to Africa.

This imaginary "don't ask" list is a cover for you guys to avoid getting to the truth.

~

I won't waste my precious time on reasoning with bullshitting trolling punks like the apologist above...

The TPM "Apologists for the Scumbags" ... the MSM and Valerie Plame

“In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified...” Valerie Plame Wilson

“While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.” Valerie Plame Wilson

“It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked.” Valerie Plame Wilson

Before the House Oversight Committee March 16, 2007

Keep it up folks ... you can all have fun playing tit-for-tat with the apologists for the scumbags till your eyes glaze over.

~OGD~

Well, since the CIA referred the case because they say their covert agent's name was blown, and since Ashcroft, realizing according to him that the leak warranted a Special Prosecutor, and since Valerie hersef claims under oath to have been covert; yeah.  I guess I'm making a point.  OK, TJ, what would have to happen for you to admit that she was under cover?  Would it have to be that bastion of truth-telling himself, our Decider-In-Chief?  'Cause that aint gonna happen.  So what realistically would have to take place for you to come to believe John Ashcroft, the CIA and Valerie Plame (you know her -- she's the one who testified under oath and so far the powers that be have not accused her of perjury or obstruction of justice now, have they?

Never mind, the lie is too important to you to ever admit the truth.

 Jan Knaus

This meme that because someone works in Langley that they aren't covert continues to amaze me.

Larry, as a former CIA employee, can you tell me what the response would be if a reporter from a major newspaper were to contact the CIA and request a list of all "non-covert" employees at Langley? Would there be anyone on such a list who isn't already identified on their website or who works in Public Relations?

-Dave Adams-

I like this from TJ--

This imaginary "don't ask" list is a cover for you guys to avoid getting to the truth.

I think he's referring to the "Don't Ask" list that the GOP rep was holding up for the cameras during the hearing. Much was made of the fact that certain questions were out-of-bounds, so the rep asked if Plame was a Democrat. Talk about cutting to the meat of the matter.

OK, TJ, what would have to happen for you to admit that she was under cover?

Excellent question, but of course, there will be no answer.

Now, this is years old, but when I visited, the phone book of all employees, which did not include much of the Operations side, was classified SECRET. Part of that was that it gave a detailed organizational structure of most, but not all, of the Agency.

The reporter would get zip, probably not even the number of people that work there. When the Langley facility opened, one reporter, after being laughed at, called the Soviet Embassy, who, with great delight, gave him an estimate -- size of the parking lot and all that.

This got very silly at times. During the construction of the Old Headquarters Building in Langley, the heating and air conditioning contractor asked to know the number of people that would be in the building, since their body heat defines the load for the air conditioner. No one would tell the contractor, so they guessed, and the AC just didn't work right when the building opened. The government wouldn't pay the contractor, claiming bad performance.

So, the contractor zoned the AC system and put thermostats in offices, but found that people twiddling them made the system even more chaotic. The contractor decided to have technicians set the thermostats, and then put locked plastic boxes over them.

Unfortunately, the contractor forgot where this was, and that in any given office, if someone had not taken the Locks and Picks course, someone just down the hall would have. The locked boxes lasted a couple of days.

Eventually, the contractor sued, and the contracting attorneys gasped and said "Pay them. We'll be laughed out of court -- and clear somebody there to know how many employees."


--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The predecessor question was asked at the hearing.  Knodell responded, Jeffrey Thompson.  When asked where that person is now, he indicated that, last he knew, Thompson had moved to Georgia.


Atlanta or Tblisi?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

That's fair Tom. I chose the word poorly. I wasn't implying that there was no secret items that had been previously agreed would be off limits, only that the fact that Waxman is running the show, he could put anything on that list and then steer the questioning to his favor. Instead of Imaginary, I should have said phony or illegitimate list.

As I have said here before, if the Democrats really wanted the truth to come out they would ask for full and in depth hearings, not a show trial meant to trot out Plame for a softball slow pitch game.

When the Republican asked what her party affiliation was, Democrat viewers think the giggles are for her, but Republicans were laughing because it was his frustration to have to play the straightman in a show trial where he could only ask her name, rank and serial number, while she told her phony sob story.

I still find it interesting hearing the gang here reading tea leaves and smoke signals about mysterious what ifs, but nobody here really wants full hearings that would bring out the truth.

Waxman's hearing was a total joke.

What would you consider full hearings? Are you willing to trust hearings in executive session, with heavily redacted testimony? For such sessions, there may be a staff report that really gives more meat than the transcript.

I still wince at some of the Church Committee hearings, as some James Bondish, and some usable technical devices were waved around.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Humor or Snark?

Irresistible impulse.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I was a kid, :D but I looked it up: Alexander Butterfield -- The former White House aide who disclosed the existence of the president's secret taping system.

 

Thanks Howard; those anecdotes aren't merely amusing, but I think highly illustrative of the unusual and secretive nature of the CIA.

-Dave Adams-

CIA, incidentally, is much more relaxed than NSA. I've never been to an NRO facility. Years back, I was doing a policy study on security and security classification for the Ripon Society, and I remember interviewing the director of physical security at CIA. He said that he differed with his counterparts at NSA, in that they appeared to be most worried that a Soviet Guards Airborne Division was going to drop on the roof and capture everything, while he was worried about the inside employee that left, daily, with a briefcase -- or brain -- full of secrets.

Some of the secrecy, such as the number of employees, really isn't too valuable. Things like the classification of the phone book really are justifiable, since that will give you not just the total employees but their distribution into organizations, or at least most of the employees who aren't clandestine.

Incidentally, CIA just improved their webpage access to their in-house journal, Studies in Intelligence. It looks like they split it recently into unclassified, unclassified extracts from the classified version, and classified editions.

I'm trying to remember if I found the information in Studies in Intelligence, but I found a fairly detailed discussion of how, in their computer systems, they isolate agent identity (and general descriptions at different levels of sensitivity) in their computer system. This proved useful in setting up electronic health records that could be used as a research database without compromising individual privacy.

At least in technical areas, there's more and more exchange between the intelligence community and the public. As opposed to NSA's secretiveness about the design of the original Data Encryption Standard (DES), its successor, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) was selected, by NSA and NIST, from public proposals. The encryption algorithm eventually selected, Rijndael, was developed by two Belgian researchers.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It's way off-thread, so I blogged a bit on Conservimpediment...

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address