She has not been briefed by the CIA about Valerie's status nor has she been given access to classified information on Valerie's career.

One of the things that has driven me nuts about this case is nobody ever seems to talk about compartmentalization and the need to know criterion. It is very difficult to think of circumstances when any of the people involved in this has a need to know the name of any particular covert operative.

Same thing here. There is no way for Toensing to know where and when Plame has been traveling, and whether it was on agency business or not. The bald assertion of the five year criterion is plainly something she cannot swear to.

Toesnot is a lying GOP spin doctor. She gets trotted out to hearings and six or more media appearances a day for whatever the latest legal spin the GOP wants.

The right side of the blogosphere is now peddling the half-baked lunacy that Ambassador Wilson outed Plame.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2007/03/the_plame_truth.html

Look at the big picture, these people are not stumped they are politicians willing to do anything for the administration even sell out the country.

Why say more, if you do it makes them look better as being only dumb and incompetent.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Larry, while watching the hearing yesterday, I was struck by the fact that both Waxman and Valerie stated the fundamental elements that go into IIPA. She was covert, classified and traveled overseas recently. Yet, neither one of them ever mentioned IIPA, nor did any committee member ask her about her status under IIPA, even during Toensing's ridiculous one-act IIPA flop.

Question: Is it possible that Hayden restricted any mention of IIPA to give the White House the cover it needs to protect Karl Rove's security clearance, justify his continuing employment and/or shield him from any further (Plame related) Congressional investigations?

Thanks.

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

I think it's more likely that he was trying to say as little as possible, the way they always do. Rove was not helped by Hayden's letter or the hearing.

I'm starting to think, just btw, that the judiciary committee may become involved soon. The DC dems apparently stomped on the NM impeachment resolution. That could be a leading indicator.

No, he could only ask him not to publish it without identifying why. Novak was a fucking ass. He's not a novice reporter.

No American citizen -- including "non-defense" cabinet officers -- has any need or right to know anything that their government does, either at home or abroad. Sheriff Dick Cheney, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil said, "likes it that way." Shhhhhh! "The enemy might be listening!" The unwarranted excercise of the citizen's sovereignty "only validates Al Qaeda's strategy." Shhhhhh! Quiet! Al Qaeda or Iran may be listening!

What a stupid country to have such stupid people "running" -- i.e., "ruining" -- America.

In any event, Deputy Dubya Bush, the self-acknowledged "propaganda catapulter" wouldn't know one way or another about anything involving the word or concept of "intelligence." He doesn't have to. Many millions of Americans voted for him because they liked the way he talked like a second-grade drop-out from Uncle Jim Bob's Hillbilly Homeschool. His studied inarticulate bumpkin act made them feel "good" about themselves. So I understand. As well, someone sold millions of Americans on the way-cool notion that they would enjoy sharing a beer with this Bible-thumping, holy-rolling dry-drunk who swore he didn't drink anymore. Go figure that one out, because I certainly can't get past the roaring cognitive dissonance. Charles de Gaul said he didn't see how anyone could govern a country like France with 260 different kinds of cheese. That sounds pretty bad until you consider America, a country whose citizens for the most part would have mathematical difficulty with the number 3: as in more than 1 branch of government.

So, not to put too fine a point on it: the currently ridiculous Government of the United States obviously gets no sympathy from me and no wishes for anything but its swift and complete demise as a useless and dangerous anachronism. Warfare Welfare, Makework Militarism, and the National Insecurity State have pretty much wrecked the self-deluded "empire" in historically record time. Nothing "intelligent" about any of this. Quite the contrary.

Having said all that about the current crop of corrupt, clueless crazies bathing contentedly in the sewer of our nation's capital, I still vividly remember President Eisenhower publicly swearing that America had no spy planes flying over the Soviet Union -- until the Soviet Union produced spy pilot Francis Gary Powers whom they had shot down flying unauthorized through their airspace. I also cannot ever forget the stupid, farcial, and humiliating Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba when the CIA talked President John F. Kennedy into letting them do a little "covert action job" on Fidel Castro in Cuba. I also still hear from my Chinese relatives through marriage about the CIA giving President Clinton the address of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia to bomb. I could mention, as well, the foolish President Jimmy Carter who let the "surgical strike" people in our "intelligence" and "military" organizations talk him into letting them run a little "covert" hostage rescue operation in Iran.

The phrase, "et cetera, et cetera," does not even begin to encompass the too-numerous-to-count monumental screw-ups of an "intelligence community" that never learned the first rule of intelligence: namely, that you NEVER let operations people have anything whatsoever to do with gathering intelligence because they will inevitably corrupt the intelligence to cover up for their embarassingly bungled operations. THIS MEANS NO JAMES BONDS! THAT FABULOUS FANBOY FANTASY ONLY EXISTS IN FICTION! AND VALERIE PLAME DOESN'T QUALIFY AS HIS FEMALE COUNTERPART, EITHER! Nonetheless, the Dick Cheney debacle here under discussion illustrates the essential point of non-operational interference with information gathering, but not much more than all-too-many other episodes of classic American bureaucratic stupidity do. So, don't count this Vietnam Veteran of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent as any fan of the CIA, DIA, Corporate Camp Follower Contractors or any other of our government's many futile fiefdom's squandering our money and making us look like colossal fools on a daily basis. I've never understood why our so-called spooks even bother putting their pants on in the morning, since they'll only find them down around their ankles before the day is over. America needs to abolish the CIA, at least, as a needless taxpayer-funded national treasure FOR EVERY OTHER NATION BUT US! Do I even have to mention the names GEORGE TENET, PORTER GOSS, GEORGE H. W. BUSH, or JOHN "Death Squad" NEGROPONTE as "director"? You can't even make fun of these people because they've lowered expectations of "intelligence" to the point where even mockery cannot descend.

America spends forty billion dollars a year (if you can even believe that ridiculously low-ball figure) on its so-called and self-styled "intelligence community" and could really use the money for some other purpose than "finding out stuff" that either doesn't exist or that our own government doesn't want to know about even if it does. EVERY American citizen needs to know the identity and work of Valery Plame and every person like her; and if she or her co-workers ever really did anything worthwhile, then we would still find some way to employ her and them to do it. The same goes for Dick Cheney and any other of our government employees. They only keep secrets from us, the American people. So we always find ourselves the last to know what the rest of the world has already long-since figured out. Like, I still remember when most of the American govermment considered "The Pentagon Papers" -- that widely known history of America's involvement in Vietnam -- as some sort of "secret." Oh, fuck it. I find it hard to continue. This shit just never ends.

But anyway, Sheriff Dick and Deputy Dubya Bush need to jointly occupy Slobodan Milosevich's old jail cell at the Hague for too many crimes against humanity -- Americans included -- than even mathematically literate persons can tabulate. So add Valerie Plame to the list of "innocents" if you like, but since everyone knows who really did all the leaking and why; and since no one really wants to get at the people whom we all know did these things (that bumpkin beer-buddy thing, you know); then we should just apologize and pay off Ms Plame with some "damages," like we did with Linda Tripp, so that she can comfortably retire to pursue some useful hobby that the Iranians also probably know all about, courtesy of their U.S. sponsored fink, Ahmed Chalabi. Really, not even a real comedian could make up any of this crap. America has finally become its own "reality" TV show: pathetic yet simultaneously hilarious in its ludicrous presumptions about itself. And all so very "super duper top secret deep background," "eyes only," "hush hush," and "on the Q. T.," while the entire world cleary sees what monumental boobs we have become as a nation.

Geez, try .25 miligram of xanax and some lisinopril for the bloodpressure.

The intelligence community is the eyes and ears of America's foreign policy. While I would agree that they shouldn't be used as our hands, we need to know what the score is. Raving that

"the currently ridiculous Government of the United States obviously gets no sympathy from me and no wishes for anything but its swift and complete demise as a useless and dangerous anachronism"

Naw ...

They need to find a way out of the box.

Just let 'em rot in their box. It's easier to stack 'em when placed in the warehouse of the useless.

~OGD~

~

I wonder if artappraiser recalls my shot_in-the-dark:

On March 7, 2007 - 3:31pm OldenGoldenDecoy said:

Victoria Toensing. Unless you're going to predict what she will say in her next appearance on TV regarding their civil suit because you have inside info. on the right wing noise machine's plans.

Most leopards don't change their spots...

~OGD~

ps: I get no information on any of this crap from TV ... It's against my basic principles...

Not yet rated.

edit | reply | parent | link |

Oh well ... I must have been just lucky, that's all.

~OGD~

Treason is not a crime if one is a Republican right wing zealot. In fact, the sad reality of that is exactly the opposite of the recent RW blog whining.

THEY like to say it has become a crime to be Republican, thus, it is reasonable to assume that everything you hear from the right wing is likely to be the opposite of the truth. I have found this to be a pretty accurate maxim to keep in mind, when wading through the cacophony of manufactured RW outrage flooding the net lately.

If Bush wants to do anything about his lack of credibilty, this would be an opportunity for him to do so if what these pathetic partisans are saying was right. As there is no indication of an investigation into Ms. Wilson's testimony, it is reasonable to assume that Bush can't go after the Wilson's anymore.

Thank goodness, those good Americans have been through quite enough.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Seriously, I don't understand the Republicans strategy re Plame. They seem to be relying on a technical non-violation of the statute (which you've shown they're wrong about). Whether the statute was broken or not isn't really the point, I think they're only using this as a distraction of their contemptible actions. I think they are desperate not to be seen a "traitorous."

Michael, a good read, can't argue with much of it, thanks.

On March 17, 2007 - 10:41pm ljohnson said:

Novak was a fucking ass. He's not a novice reporter.

Exactly, and as I said in another post, the Plame story was shopped to 5 or 6 reporters, only Novak ran it, and he knew exactly what he was doing, aiding and abetting White House dirty tricks. Bob Novak, Rove's "go to guy."

On March 17, 2007 - 9:52pm CVille Dem said:
TJKING! CALLING TJKING!

Ya gotta love her posts :)

Two things were clear at Friday's hearing:

1) Valerie Plame Wilson is a class individual.

2) Her right wing opponents are disgraces to the human race.

PS Larry - As much as I agree with you about this whole thing I would recommend that you not let your bitterness turn into vindictiveness.

Tom

On March 18, 2007 - 8:43am tlees2 said:

TJ is a "her" (a "she")?

oops, I was referring to Jan's posts.

Toensing testified on what she "thinks" happened in the Plame outing, trying to pass it off as fact.. Plame testified on what "actually" happened.

While I am equally contemptuous of the political leadership of the Bush Administration, I fear that you are conflating covert operations, clandestine intelligence gathering, and some of the functions that support team.

Forget, for a moment, human intelligence gathering, and let me take a well-known historical example. Somewhat before the WWII Battle of Midway, the US had cryptanalyzed most of the current version of the JN25 naval operational code. With some creative disinformation (the "AF" ploy), the US saw through the Japanese diversionary measure, and rushed to put all available resources at Midway. It was a near thing, with heroism and luck playing a part, but many argue it as the turning point of the war in the Pacific.

Does your aversion to secrecy say that the crack of JN25 should have been made public? If not, to take another example, should the identity of Oleg Penkovsky, as the US-UK highest-ranking acknowledged spy in the USSR, have been made public? When the Soviets discovered his action, he was executed soon afterward, and the IRONBARK information stopped. Most of Penkovsky's IRONBARK reports have been declassified and can be retrieved from the ODCI [online] Reading Room. Search on IRONBARK.

If exposing Penkovsky was unacceptable, why would it be acceptable to identify its CIA and SIS/MI6 handlers? Once the case officers are known and under surveillance, it's much easier to find the people who have turned on you.

I have mentioned, so far, only intelligence collection. Covert action is often more arguable and inappropriate. Still, I believe some efforts, such as subsidies to European anticommunist groups, did have results.

Both covert operators and clandestine collectors need certain common services, such as cover documentation and secure communications. These common services, historically, have been in the CIA Directorate of Operations (e.g., Central Cover Staff and Technical Service Division), along with targeting (Collection Guidance) to avoid conflict. There is a need for cover people not to do conflicting things, just as there is a need for field operations not to conflict. For example, in WWII, OSS agents burglarized the Japanese Embassy in Lisbon and photographed the attache code. Unfortunately, the Japanese detected them and changed the code.

This was unfortunate because US cryptanalysts had broken the unchanged code, and the US was getting the information quite well. While the OSS field operations people had no need-to-know about cryptanalysis (part ofcommunications intelligence or COMINT), a central review and planning function could have told them not to try that burglary and thus protected a valued worldwide intelligence source -- Japanese attaches worldwide used this basic code.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Clearly, he meant the currently ridiculous Bush-Cheney gang.

Its obvious that Howard knows too much, I suggest we do him in.

That's the mature approach and good advice. My old boss, a retired Marine Corps Colonel always said, "if it feels really good it is probably wrong".
That felt real good.

One of the odder features of the Republican defense is you would think that Valerie Plame's identity was kept secret, regardless of her legal status, for fun. She was working for the same government as the people in the Bush Administration. Why would the Bush Administration want to out someone working for the CIA whose identity was being kept secret, even if disclosing it won't send you to jail? Isn't Bush as President supposed to protect the Nation and wasn't that what Plame doing too?

A question for Larry. The Republicans made endless allusions to the CIA being sloppy about keeping Plame's identity covert. What do you thin. Should they have, could they have done more?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I like thought experiments. Let's try another one. Let's assume you take leave of your senses and speak loudly in public about having a desire to see our current POTUS lying in a coffin. Now, the experiment is: how much longer do you expect to sleep in your own bed?

Oops, I left out something. First you have to decide whether you are a Democrat or Republican. I did that experiment as a Democrat. I kissed my bed goodbye!

Now, of course the point of this experiment is that it is analogous to revealing the name of a covert CIA agent to a newspaper reporter, and to a known scumbag of a reporter at that.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Daniel Green said:

She was working for the same government as the people in the Bush Administration.

Unless you are making an assumption, you could have fooled me that "the people in the Bush Administration" are working for "the same government" as Valerie Plame.

This is the worst party over country administration I've witnessed in my six decades

~OGD~

Wonderful, now I can ask uncomfortable questions of Larry without him being able to ban me as he did at his own blog. Here are questions that Larry is either unable or unwilling to answer:

1. Please provide the basis of this statement: "Since the CIA will only acknowledge that Valerie worked at the CIA from 2002 on this means the travel General Hayden refers to occurred in 2002 and 2003." The language cleared by Hayden contains no time reference, and it would seem as though Mr. Johnson is inventing the time reference in order to buttress his own claims.

2. Why was Plame’s name and position divulged to INR at the meeting about sending Wilson, while another CIA analyst present was not named?

3. Why would a paragraph containing Plame’s details indicate that it was marked Secret due to her, while you say yourself that all of the information in the paragraph is classified? Aren't you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

4. Why would the OVP contact a specific junior officer at the CIA? Why wouldn’t they, as evidence at the Libby trial showed, go through their CIA briefer for making such inquiries? Does Plame have any evidence that such a phone call took place?

5. You made the following statement in July 2005: “Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.”

Is that not directly opposite of this one from Plame from the hearing: “No. I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved — I didn’t have the authority.”

6. Is it or is it not so that the SSCI report was signed off by both Democrats and Republicans, and that no information was published in the report that the Democrats did not allow? Is so, why do you continue to claim the opposite?

And I will note again for the record that Mr. Johnson has banned me from his personal blog for asking these questions. Is that the actions of an ethical man interested in honest debate or one seeking to cover up every fact that does not align with his claims?

No way to tell with certainty, but there may have been some reason to identify her as associated with Joe Wilson, but there was no relevant reason to mention the other analyst.

That would make sense except for the fact that the other CIA analyst present was named. Plame was named, and so was one of the CIA analysts at the meeting. The other CIA analyst's name was "not available". It would almost seem to me that they were protecting the identity of this analyst, while divulging to INR who Mrs. Wilson was and what her position was at the CIA. 

It's rare that all information in a paragraph truly is classified, although, on a practical basis, one might treat it as such. Unless doing detailed declassification, it's usually simplest to treat a paragraph as the lowest unit.

Exactly, which is why it is disingenuous for Larry to pretend that it was Plame's details that merited the Secret stamp, while it could have been that and everything else in the paragraph. The reader would have no way of knowing what exactly in the paragraph was the sensitive part, yet Larry pretends otherwise. 

Again a guess only, but the briefer doesn't always have the specific information that a junior might. 

Sure, but why would the OVP speak directly to a junior officer at the CIA? Would not the proper procedure be for the CIA briefer to get the information from the CIA, at whatever level was necessary, and then report this to the OVP? How would the OVP know who to call? In fact, in all the evidence presented at the Libby trial, the only person at the CIA the OVP had been in touch with was the DCI Tenet, Robert Grenier, both high-level people who Libby would see on a daily basis at Deputy Committee meetings, and of course their CIA briefer.

It seems quite, quite strange that the OVP would know who to call at the CIA, and that they would call a junior officer directly on an issue. If Plame has no evidence of this, she is in troubled water. 

Sure, but why would the OVP speak directly to a junior officer at the CIA? Would not the proper procedure be for the CIA briefer to get the information from the CIA, at whatever level was necessary, and then report this to the OVP? How would the OVP know who to call?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Not to make lite of your questions, but you start with:

On March 18, 2007 - 4:08pm Seixon said:

Here are questions that Larry is either unable or unwilling to answer:

For clarity's sake, can you number the questions in your post that you think he may be 'unable" to answer, then number the questions he may be "unwilling" to answer?

Only Larry can answer that because in either case he has neglected to answer the question, I cannot know whether it is because he is simply unwilling or unable to answer them.

Are we sure -- and this truly is a question -- that the briefer didn't bring staff along, such as Plame Wilson? I've certainly gone to briefings where there was one primary speaker from an organization, who brough one or more specialists along. Sometimes, the briefer will consult with the staffer and then answer, or may just let the staffer do so.

OK, but this is the OVP and the CIA we're talking about here. There has never been presented any information or evidence, not through the SSCI nor the Libby trial, of the OVP contacting any junior officer at the CIA. It would seem odd that a junior officer would be given such a task in any event. 

In other words, the OVP person calls 999-1234 on the STE phone, ask for Ms. Turtle, and get transferred to Ms. Wilson, who might answer with her extension number, her pseudonym, or "Hello".

Sure, it would make sense if the OVP were to have called Mrs. Wilson, as she was senior management in her division. Though for them to talk with some junior officer seems completely strange. Not to mention the fact that there has never been presented any evidence of this occurring, and we have seen many, many contacts between the OVP and various other entities detailed in the SSCI report and the Libby trial. In fact, if what Plame says is true, why didn't the CIA provide evidence to the SSCI supporting her version of events?

Who from the OVP called a junior officer at the CIA? When? Why? How?

It makes no sense, nor is it sustained by anything other than Plame's testimony, testimony that, I might add, is convenient for her version of events where she has sought to minimize her role in her husband's trip.

On March 18, 2007 - 5:17pm Seixon said:

Only Larry can answer that because in either case he has neglected to answer the question, I cannot know whether it is because he is simply unwilling or unable to answer them.

Good enough.

One other question; Is there some Grand Unified Theory (GUT)concerning the Plame case behind your 6 questions?

Exactly, which is why it is disingenuous for Larry to pretend that it was Plame's details that merited the Secret stamp, while it could have been that and everything else in the paragraph. The reader would have no way of knowing what exactly in the paragraph was the sensitive part, yet Larry pretends otherwise.

Actually, what's disingenuous is you pretending that this actually matters. Larry may have been mistaken that "S" markings on the paragraph meant that Plame's identity was classified; however, the fact that her identity as a CIA undercover agent was classified is beyond dispute at this point (unless you think the head of the CIA is lying, and the Bush Justice Department was OK with that, and if you think that, you'd better have more than typical right-wing tin-foil-hat suspicion to back it up).

It's a distinction without a difference, and you're simply playing games with red herrings.

Not really, the questions are merely meant to demonstrate that Larry Johnson makes things up as he goes along in order to have his previous claims seem credible.

He claims the CIA will only admit to a certain time period, yet there is no basis for that claim, which is why Larry would rather ban me from his blog than answer the question.

The reason is that it becomes problematic for Johnson when the CIA will not confirm what he has been saying all along, that Plame served abroad 5 years previous to the leak, thus qualifying her under the IIPA as covert.

The CIA clears two things through Waxman:

1. Plame did serve abroad.
2. Plame was covert.

Now, neither of these tell us about what the case was in July 2003. We all know that Plame served abroad earlier in her career, and that she was a "covert" agent according to the English dictionary. Yet neither of these stated facts clears up whether or not she qualified under IIPA, precisely because no time frame is given for these facts.

Thus, Larry Johnson invents the time frame out of thin air in order to hold his claim alive.

"... it is disingenuous for Larry to pretend that it was Plame's details that merited the Secret stamp, while it could have been that and everything else in the paragraph. The reader would have no way of knowing what exactly in the paragraph was the sensitive part, yet Larry pretends otherwise. "

What drivel! All information in a paragraph marked (C), (S), or (TS), with or without additional caveats, is treated as being at that level. Unless you are a member of a declassification team, and have the team's documented concurrence that certain information is not classified, for whatever reason, then all the information in that paragraph is to be treated at the level of its portion marking. It is never left to the individual reader to decide what parts of a classified paragraph are or are not classified.

Let's try another thought experiment: Let's say that someone outside of the Mis-Administration had leaked Valerie Plame's name to discredit Bush; what would have happened? Well, first, the reporter would have immediately been summoned before a grand jury and locked up until he/she gave up the leaker. Then the leaker would have immediately been charged with a felony, would have had his case rushed through the courts, and would be spending time in prison right now. There should be no reason why Libby is being charged only with perjury and obstruction. He should have had his clearance immediately revoked, and should have been charged with multiple counts. Anyone outside this cabal of crooks would have been.

I believe we have had evidence of a coup d'etat stretching all the way back to November 2000.

Shouldn't we be talking about the Bush Junta?

I, for one, do not believe any Democrats thought there were any Weapons of Mass Destruction (as I don't believe there were any Republicans who did).  They were ALL pandering.  Only the naive public believed this crap.

On the other hand, I believe you are offering excuses for treasonous Republicans not because you believe they acted honorably, but because you are trying to confound the matter.  Nitpick it to death.

We aren't a court of law and you are not the attorney for the defense.  Valarie WILSON is far more credible than any of your candidate sources.  Please stop dissembling. 

I'm not the one pretending that it matters - Larry Johnson is. Read his post above. Thanks.

It is never left to the individual reader to decide what parts of a classified paragraph are or are not classified.

Eh, hello? They WERE investigated. Where have you guys been the last 3 years? So what, you don't get the charges you want, so you pretend that there was no investigation done?? You guys are nuts.

One of the most astonishingly stupid things in Toensing's testimony was when she said (I don't remember the exact wording) that she was surprised that Valerie had made a donation to the Gore campaign, and had listed her fictitious cover, Brewster Jennings, as her employer.

Well, duh! That's exactly what she was supposed to do, isn't it? Did Toensing expect her to declare on the donation form that she worked for the CIA? Or maybe she thinks that CIA employees aren't allowed to make political contributions.

I find it difficult to believe that Toensing is really that stupid; it's more likely that she thinks the rest of us are that stupid.

That's how classified document markings work. One item in a paragraph can be classified, but markings are on a document-by-document, page-by-page, paragraph-by-paragraph basis.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I did read his post, as I did yours. Again, it's a distinction without a difference. In context of the issue of whether Plame's CIA employment was classified (the real issue here), it is a red herring.

But I suspect you knew that, and wanted to kick up dust.

So why did Larry mention it at all? What's the relevance? There is none, as you've said yourself. Larry provided the herring, not I. I simply noted that it was disingenuous for him to bring it up, so yes, you're damn right I want to kick up dust about Larry slapping red herrings all over the place.

So why did Larry mention it at all?

I don't know...perhaps he was writing too fast?

Once again, it's an error in logic that has absolutely no bearing on the issues at hand. Which is why you making a big deal out of it is a red herring. It's on the level of a spelling flame.

You're playing games, Seixon, and it's really pretty obvious.

Save for the suggestion that we abolish the CIA entirely, this little rant was spot on.

I would submit to you that Valerie Plame has never claimed to be a female James Bond nor can I think of anyone who has painted her as such. She's a self-described covert agent doing a job she loved.

After months of semi-coherent rage and paralyzing fear I've begun to hope that there may be a way out of this mess, thanks to the recent hearings. We're not there yet but the car is gassed up and the keys are in the ignition.

It's a team!

So all of them lied? Gore? Hillary? Rockefeller? Kerry? All of them lied to us? Wow.

"Valarie WILSON is far more credible than any of your candidate sources. Please stop dissembling."

Why is she far more credible than anyone? Can you give an unbiased answer to that question? No, you cannot.

I'm not dissembling here, that's what you and others are doing in order to deflect and bury uncomfortable questions that I am posing.

Mrs. Wilson has made a specific claim that is not supported by any available evidence, a claim that she has used to corroborate a version of events that she also has no evidence for.

Now, are you willing to ask that she proves this claim, or are you going to be a partisan hack and assume she is being truthful? Your choice.

Who? What? I only post under one account here at TPMCafe.

Are you aware that the White House office of security didn't open an investigation into this matter?

The FBI investigated it. You would have been comfortable with the White House investigating itself? Please. 

Had this been any normal federal employee, there would have been an investigation opened immediately by the departmental office of security for administrative action purposes

Oh please, there have been tons of leaks of classified information throughout the years, and they usually don't do anything about them. Not to mention that the FBI also would have handled any such investigation, as was done in the case of Larry Franklin. 

The fact that the office of security of the White House did not even open an investigation is really quite shocking. It's almost prima facie evidence of political favoritism.

You really do just swallow it hook, line, and sinker from these guys don't you. First of all, the CIA had to notify the DoJ that they thought an inappropriate leak of classified information had occurred. The White House had no way of knowing whether or not a member of their staff was involved with the leak to Novak, mostly because no one even knew that she had classified status until David Corn, with help from Wilson, blabbed about it in The Nation two days after Novak's article.

Second of all, would it have been appropriate for the White House to investigate itself? Of course not. That is why the FBI got involved. You wouldn't trust the White House to investigate their own use of intelligence on Iraq, why would you trust them to look into this matter? Well, you wouldn't, so you are just buying into feigned outrage and it's transparently absurd. 

erase duplicate post

On March 18, 2007 - 5:59pm kst said:

One of the most astonishingly stupid things in Toensing's testimony was when she said (I don't remember the exact wording) that she was surprised that Valerie had made a donation to the Gore campaign, and had listed her fictitious cover, Brewster Jennings, as her employer.

Toensing's aim was to get Plame's donation to Democrat Gore on the hearing record and on TV, but like many wingnut dirty tricksters she rushed to get it out there so fast she f**ked up in how she framed it.

OK, Seixon, you can't figure this out logically: 

It seems quite, quite strange that the OVP would know who to call at the CIA, and that they would call a junior officer directly on an issue.

Does it seem any stranger to you that the VP himself would set energy policy in a secret meeting, whose attendees are not divulged, but are those who have everything to gain by the subsequent energy policy -  You know; that same policy that started us on a bogus war?

It seems quite, quite strange to me.  Almost as if he were not on our side.

Does it seem illogical to you that the VP would personally instruct his underlings to blow a CIA agent's cover to get back at her husband for telling the truth?

It seems quite, quite strange to me.  Almost as if his agenda has nothing to do with what is best for our country.

Does it grab you as just plain weird that the VP, while shacking up with his Ambassador sweetie, had a few too many and couldn't tell his friend from a bird (whose wings were clipped so he could be sure and kill it)?  Or that he sat on the story long enough to get the story perfected?

It seems quite, quite strange to me.  It is as though he is above the law.

Logic means nothing when people commit crimes.  You can't say as a valid defense:  "He would never do anything so stupid as to start a war on trumped up intelligence provided by a dope named 'Curveball!.'  That would just be too idiotic!"  Sometimes people are just so greedy and power-mad that they do stupid things as well as the very bad things they were always capable of.

Sometimes, when citizens find out about those things, they should impeach him.

Jan Knaus

Calling a visible person bald is immediately and instantly verifiable. Claiming that a junior officer at the CIA was called by someone at the OVP in order to make your own version of events relating to a specific issue more credible is not. If you were not a political dupe, you would care about Plame providing evidence of this, since as of this time, there exists none.

he could only ask him not to publish it without identifying why.

As I recall the accounts he said a lot more than that -- perhaps even more than he should have.   He spoke about her service overseas and the possibility the she might again.  That should have been enough for an old hand like Novak to known for certain that she might even come under IIPA.

Novak seemed however to chose to simply take this a confirmation that she worked at the CIA and chose to ignore the clear warning that she was a covert agent with significant foreign service.

Fred in Vermont

Ah, so you have corresponded with the OVP and you work at the CIA? What, no? You mean you're trying to talk from authority where you have none by comparing things that are not comparable and talking out of your ass in the process?

I'm trying to "smear" Plame by asking that she provide evidence of a claim she has made? So, I guess that means that you have been smearing the Bush administration every time you ask for them to provide evidence of what they say? Does that sound about right?

Or are you just a shameless political hack like Larry Johnson?

Plame made a claim, an unsupported and, according to all the evidence gathered for the SSCI report and the Libby trial, an unlikely one. Asking her to substantiate that claim is not "smearing" her. Get off your partisan horse and be an honest person.

Are you interested in the truth or not?

On March 18, 2007 - 6:18pm Seixon said:

Perhaps Mrs. Wilson would have been better off just not donating at all?

Was it really necessary to throw around her front company like that?

Was it really so important that she donate that money? I guess so.

1- Are you questioning an American'citizen's right to free speech via campaign donations?

2- Yes, it was her Front Company. The answer was included in your question

3- Your third question is a re wording of your first. tsk, tsk.

You even frame the incessant questions the same way TJKING does.

Commie herrings.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Harpo: master of Marxism

Larry has been trying his best to provide cover for his claim that Plame was covert as governed by the IIPA, but has had to invent things in order to do so. You, of course, accept his inventions at face value.

The word of the head of the CIA isn't enough for you, huh? How about the findings of the Bush justice department? They never claimed Plame wasn't covered by IIPA, after all (and if they had found that, they it stands to reason the investigation never would have been turned over to Patrick Fitzgerald in the first place. In fact, it would have been one of the first things to check).

As for IIPA, the only one who is inventing things about that law is you and your heroes like Vicky Toensing, upon whose plain misstatement of the law you hang your hat that Plame was not covered by IIPA.

You have yet to address this, even though you're more than willing to dish out all kinds of pedantic crap regarding truly irrelevant points in Larry's posts.

As for illegality, no one has been charged under the Espionage Act or the IIPA, most likely because Plame was not covered by IIPA, thus not providing even a remote chance of there being anything to charge.

Patrick Fitzgerald made plain in his statements that he couldn't determine whether the law was broken precisely because of Libby's obstruction of justice and perjury. Not remotely the same thing.

And since you're so into posing questions, Seixon, here's an honest question for you: how the hell do you manage to type and breathe at the same time? I only ask because, judging by the points you make, I truly doubt two of you put together could outsmart a chair.

One of the striking things Plame said was that the junior officer was "upset." If Cheney hadn't gone through normal channels, would that explain things?

You're playing games, Seixon, and it's really pretty obvious.

It is to me too.

Fred in Vermont

Who? What? I only post under one account here at TPMCafe.

"Who?" "Who???" Hey, a simple denial would have done just fine. But claiming you don't even know that poster, when you and he have been all over Johnson's posts (frequently, the same ones) is just plain idiotic.

"Methinks thou dost protest too much".

See, Seixon? That's how you correct a small point like that.

Instead, you had to make a capitol case out of something that was obviously and pretty minor point, and in doing so, you came off as simply desperate.

I know you want to be taken seriously here, but you're not exactly going about it the right way.

Ehm, this is the first time I have posted here in about two weeks. I don't go around keeping track of all the people who comment in Larry's threads. But hey, why get in the way of your crazy and delusional conspiracy games?

Do you think I will remember you as a commenter here two weeks from now? Don't count on it.

Larry, I think Seixon is TJKING who in turn is Victoria Toensing.

I'm sure TJ will point out that the sun glows "RED" when it sets meaning the sun is a "COMMUNIST!!!"

Tom