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

Again, I don't take claims at face value. Let's see the actual evidence. It seems strange that the Republicans on the panel were able to take the testimony of a witness and twist it while the Democrats on the panel still allowed the following to be written in the SSCI report:

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Now Plame claims this was the result of a phone call from the OVP to a junior CIA officer, where some random officer came by and suggested they send her husband after overhearing their conversation. Now if only the CIA officer that Plame claims supposedly suggested sending her husband would just come forward and testify to this...... Oh, and if only we had any evidence that someone from the OVP called this junior officer such as Plame claims... Then maybe we'd be getting somewhere. 

It's your right as an American citizen to stand in the middle of Harlem and scream the n-word all you want, but I wouldn't exactly suggest doing so. It was fully Plame's right to donate under her front company name, but I ask, was it really, really, really that necessary for her to do so? Wouldn't it have been wiser not to do so? It's not a question of having/using her rights, it's a question of knowing when to use those rights, and when it might be wiser not to.

Batter for whom?  Are you saying that CIA agents whose job are covert should not be allowed to donate to candidates?  Hello? Their job is secret; they don't have to be invisible or in disguise!

I wouldn't do it if I were an undercover CIA agent, no. In the end, is donating $2000 (or whatever) to a political candidate really worth the trouble that might be caused by doing so, when you have a job that is sensitive?

It's called "living your story."  Your usual illogic has grown like Topsy.  If she story is that she worked for McDonald's Hamburgers, that is the name of employer she should put on her donation.  That is not "throwing the name around."

The only problem here is that McDonalds is not a fictional company - Brewster & Jennings was. Drawing attention to a fictional company isn't exactly a good thing. Let's just play it like this, Joe Wilson starts commotion due to his claims, people look up him and his family, see that his wife has donated under B&J, people start to nose around B&J and, hmm, that company seems to be a bit fishy, whaddaya know. 

This is what you call "answering" a question:

Go ask the fucking Vice President why they are calling a junior CIA ops officer. Not my goddamn problem moron

To me, that looks like evasion, but hey, I'm not in my mid-50s still using petulant methods of responding to people I disagree with, so what do I know?

You refuse to engage, and ban me, because you cannot answer the questions I pose to you without giving up the charade you have going, Larry.

You wrote in July 2005 that Plame suggested Joe for the gig, which you denied today, even though it's there for everyone to see. When someone responds so viciously and childishly as you, it's easy to understand why. You become flustered when your carefully constructed narrative takes a hit straight in the balls, and overreact to those poking holes in your story like an out-of-control juggernaut.

Apparently obscene words are supposed to reflect strength with those who cannot defend their own claims, which works very well among the immature crowd being pandered to.

The word of the head of the CIA isn't enough for you, huh?

Contrary to what Larry is fooling you to believe, Hayden has not stated that Plame was covert under the definition in IIPA. Plame was a covert agent according to the simple dictionary definition, but we have seen no evidence that she was covert according to the definition under IIPA. 

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).

The DoJ never claimed Plame wasn't a bunny rabbit either, does that mean she is? A logical fallacy just got its wings. The DoJ referral was in regards to unauthorized disclosure of classified information - nothing to do with revealing the identity of a covert agent under the guidelines of the IIPA. Come on now, even Larry Johnson has had to own up to that. 

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.

What have I invented? 

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.

To the contrary, Fitzgerald has stated that he has no evidence that anyone knew Plame had any kind of protected status, and further, has no evidence that anyone knowingly disclosed Plame's identity in the aims of revealing a protected status. 

Larry Johnson claimed he never said Plame suggested Joe for the gig, even though that's exactly what he did in July 2005 right here at TPMCafe.

Instead of dealing with that, you seize upon me noting that Larry was dealing in a red herring, and trot out the usual "you're a right-wing Nazi Republican baby eater" tripe.

Larry Johnson is not a left-winger. I'm not a right-winger. Hard for your political hack brain to figure out, I know, since it requires you to see things in "us/them" mode to understand anything.

Would you be scared if I told you that there are actually people who are able to debate an issue based on the facts and the merits instead of the position of a particular political party on the issue?

It took the OVP weeks to respond to Wilson's false claims funneled through the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Republic, among others back in the summer of 2003. The Bush administration has shown itself very incompetent in responding to their critics, and I say that without hesitation.

Yet as was the case with George Galloway back in May 2005, they gave the guy just enough rope to hang himself with, and eventually accused him of perjury months after his appearance before the Senate.

I find it hard to believe that someone at the OVP would have called a junior CIA officer, and that if this was the case, evidence needs to be submitted proving that the call took place to further establish Plame's credibility regarding her testimony.

Geez, Seixon, you're worse than Bill O'Reilly.

"All you said" in your original post included the following:

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:

If you can't maintain a little bit of basic honesty when one can check that honesty by simply scrolling up the page, then really, there's not much to talk about.

So you don't think it's odd that we've never heard of this supposed phone call to a junior officer before? Plame testified to the SSCI, why didn't she bring this up then? Why hasn't this junior officer come forward and said this? Where's the guy who supposedly suggested sending Joe?

You seriously don't think these are good faith questions? I suppose you'd rather just take everything Plame and Wilson claim at face value, even though Wilson is a proven liar?

Hey, it's better than incessant Kool-Aid guzzling.

Ladies and gentleman, I present to you the honorable Larry Johnson:

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.

Responding to Mr. Johnson is Mr. Johnson:

I have never said Val recommended her husband for the trip. I have always said that Val's bosses raised the issue of her husband and asked her to write the memo. Always.

Who you gonna believe, Larry Johnson, Larry Johnson, or your lying eyes?

Question-Seixon, do you drink only pure rain water, or given your apparent Norwegian origin, melted ice water?

....is your alcohol made from pure unadulterated water?

(too stupid to stay out of this)
I'm not a gamblin' woman but I tell ya' what I'll do. I'll bet you ten to one that if anyone perjured herself on Friday it wasn't Valerie Plame.

Give it a rest, Seixon. Rethugs hold all the cards info here. One phone call would be all they'd need to find out when she served overseas. If they could prove Plame committed perjury they'd do it in a heartbeat.

And don't give me any crap about "they can't do that under the rules." They've been doing stuff they "can't do" for six years. Rules mean squat to these crooks.

I don't read the comments here very often, so I'm a stranger to the disagreement between you and Larry. Reading through this thread I was willing to believe in the beginning that you actually wanted a real discussion. I even bought your whine about being banned from his blog at first. After a while it became pretty obvious that what you wanted to do was trash Larry. I'm an old broad and not very smart. If I can figure this out, I imagine the rest of the posters can, too.

To put this on a level you might understand, Seixon,

"You oughtta know."

I would observe that the troll is the mascot of Oslo. Somewhere, I have an international traffic sign for "no trolls", along with "reindeer crossing."

Yes. I ate Rudolf.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I don't read the comments here very often, so I'm a stranger to the disagreement between you and Larry.

It's not really so much a "disagreement" as simple, common trolling -- the same as can be found from right wingers at any progressive/Democratic blog. I have yet to see right-wing participation on this blog that has any semblance of intellectual honesty.

Which probably means the best way to deal with it is to either post recipies (the dKos method) or to simply ignore it. There's a lesson in that, I think.

Perhaps you would be willing to answer a few questions? To start with, what is the basis for your disbelief that Toensing is really that stupid?

Nothing more than speculation, really. My assumption is that she's reasonably intelligent, and is trying her best to fool others into thinking that there was no underlying crime in the outing of VPW, using whatever arguments she can come up with (and she doesn't have much to go on. Perhaps it's not so much that she thinks her audience is stupid, as that she's giving them a story line that they'll be willing to accept. In other words, perhaps her intended audience isn't so much stupid as stubbornly self-deluded.

Or maybe she really is that stupid. I don't know.

TJKING isn't a new poster; in fact, he has many comments here (probably over 100), many of them focused on Larry Johnson's posts, and going back over many, many months. In fact, he's one of the most reliable posters on Johnson's pieces.

It is ridiculous for you to try to claim not to at least have seen him many times here.

Sorry, Seixon. I'm not buying your brand of baloney.

Do you enjoy sucking up to a man in his mid-50s that calls people that question his numerous claims all sorts of lovely names, or alleges that they would like to engage in homosexual intercourse with members of the Bush administration?

Is that really the type of person you want to defend?

I ask Larry a few questions, and point out discrepancies in things he's said, and I get banned immediately. Either you don't know the meaning of what a troll is, or you are defending the unethical and petulant actions of a pathetic man who cannot stand for what he claims.

Not to mention his numerous attempts to silence me by threatening me with legal action and snooping on me and my family in order to shut me up.

That's the kind of guy you hang your hat on? Good for you.

Well, for starters, Larry Johnson researched information about me and my family because he doesn't like the fact that I debunk him and his lies all the time. He disclosed to me, to a personal email address, that he knew various details about me as a person and my family, and threatened to "ratched this up a few levels" if I did not stop disclosing his unethical actions.

He then threatened to sue me and said he knew where I lived and that he has friends in the EU and Interpol. So you might imagine that Mr. Johnson is not viewed all too favorably from my side.

He will not answer my questions because for him to do so would have him admitting to lying or stating things incorrectly. He stated in July 2005 that Plame recommended Joe for the trip to Niger. Plame claimed on Friday that she did not recommend him. Larry has now claimed today that he never said Plame recommended him - even though that's exactly what he did right here at TPMCafe in July 2005.

Another example of Mr. Johnson being outright wrong, or worse, perhaps even lying to cover for his friends the Wilsons:

Larry Johnson, July 14, 2005:

The other point to make here that is, again, the other lie being put out by the republicans is that Valerie hired her husband to do it. She didn't because she was not in a position to do so. She was a mid-level person. She was not an office director. She didn't control budgets. She didn't control personnel. She was a GS-13. And she was not in a position to make that decision, nor did she: her boss made that decision.

Representative Henry Waxman, March 16, 2007:

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 -- Step Six under the federal pay scale.

Instead of deal with his consistent incorrect statements and lies, he bans me from his blog and attacks me personally. Meanwhile, residents here at TPMCafe kiss his feet and smear me for daring to question whether their Emperor has clothes.

There was a call to the White House to say someone in Cheney's party had been shot. It was not said that Cheney was the shooter. Must ‘a seemed irrelevant to tell his second in command.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Larry, I was wondering as I read your piece, if you could make it through a stream of consciousness piece of writing without your having images of your favorite subject, Anal sex, pop into your head. In the last paragraph, your jokes about rape showed up just in time.

"...Oh, and one more thing. Although Valerie only told a handful of people about her cover status the IIPA also states:

(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

You see? It was okay for Valerie to tell her husband where she worked. And Joe, who had been in charge of CIA officers when he was Ambassador, understood that you had to protect the identity of people undercover...."

She told a handful of unauthorized individuals? Can you give a number how many times she broke the law in this regard? Is this the part where she says her identity was not "widely known" on the Georgetown cocktail circuit. So then it was known on the georgetown cocktail circuit, but not widely known. Thanks for clearing that up, Larry.

You quoted section 422, (d). by the way that link is bogus.

If you read section 422, (a) it says if the intelligence relationship has already been made public then a person charged with breaking the IIPA has a valid defense. So, if you want to argue that Valerie did not break the IIPA, don't think that it also gives her a pass to "out" herself and then claim protection under IIPA.

"...UNDERCOVER = COVERT = CLASSIFIED..."

This contradicts what you have told us before and it is just untrue. The nature of a persons employment at CIA can be classified but not covert according to IIPA. That does not mean they are interchangeable and equal statements. You are playing the same wordgames that Waxman was and games that would not hold up in court.

"...If there is any lingering doubt among the mentally challenged Republicans simply subpoena her retirement record. The CIA recorded every date she traveled overseas...."

Finally, someone with the balls to ask for a full congressional investigation into Wilson Plame's activities. Then they can come out and say with regard to the "legal" definition of "covert" as is stated in the IIPA, CIA counsel contends that the IIPA was broken and then criminal charges can be made. While their at it, they can find out through subpeona who the people on the georgetown cocktail circuit are that you are talking about Larry, so we can punish Valerie for not keeping her own identity secret.

Let the investigations begin, Larry. You lead the way. And try to make it through the day without sharing your buggering fantasies with everybody.

Several Senate inquiries have found exactly zero evidence of this. The White House has no authority to fire people at the intelligence agencies other than the top brass that they appoint themselves.

That's funny, I was under the impression that phase II of the Senate report on the Iraq War had not yet been issued (the part dealing with White House handling of pre-war intelligence). You have a copy?

Was it also necessary for her to donate to George Soros' "America coming together" and list her self as retired. When you file information about donations, they ask your employment, if you supply information, it is against the law to provide false information. She was still working at CIA and listed herself as retired.

The fact that I am accused of being Seixon so often, is one flattering and two, a pathetic demonstartion of what an isolated echo chamber you guys live in.

Are you arguments so weak they can't withstand a debate? [Sorry for rattling you with an incessant question]

The troll is the mascot of Oslo? Eh... Do you have a tendency to make things up in order to tell jokes? :P

You see, I always disagree with the idea that calling someone to the line about their false statements is "giving them air-time" If you allow a person with the public ear to lie and not be called on it, the public will believe them.

When a lying fool is proven to be just that, it needs to be shouted over and over again for months until the initial impact of their lies is out weighed in the public ear. The GOP pundit/operative types, live off the hope that by the time they are found out, the damage is done.

This sort of forum and the folks who read it and push it to other forumns are the ones who are starting to end that trend.

I hope to see this exact article published at least 300 times in the next week.

I post inflammatory crap? You have just defined Larry Johnson as a troll. Congratulations. I ask him questions, he calls me names and tells me to go fuck off, yet you kneel at his feet. Why?

I don't shy away from a fight when someone wants to start one, but I don't tend to start them. I asked Larry questions, he flamed me and banned me, and I came here because he can't ban me here.

It's important for people to know the kind of bullshit antics that Johnson uses because they go to his character. A person who bans everyone who questions their claims cannot be seen as an honest person.

I had a blog up for almost two years - I never banned anyone. Even when people dropped by to tell me how much I loved performing fellatio on George W. Bush, I did not ban them, nor did I delete their comments.

Yet Johnson, when I ask him to prove a claim he has made of material importance to his overall case, slanders me and bans me.

I am interested in honest discussion, but when you're dealing with Johnson, it becomes a bit tough. He isn't. He will flame and ban you before you've even said hello.

He lied. He made unsubstantiated claims. He has said things in the past that now have been proven incorrect by the hearing on Friday, such as what Plame's rank at the CIA was (he said GS-13, now it was revealed she was GS-14).

None of you care about all of this because you are too busy defining me as a troll and attacking me personally.

None of you have said anything about Larry's inconsistent statements, incorrect statements, and outright lies. Not a single word. You simply ignore it. Why? Does the truth really pain you that much?

If you want the proof of Larry's intimidation tactics, provide me an email address and I will forward you all the relevant emails he sent me.

Larry Johnson is a small, small man, and the sooner you people realize that, the better.

You're the ones dissembling here. The administration received the same intelligence as the Democrats received, it was the basis upon which they made their statements about Iraq's alleged WMD programs. George Tenet was a hold-over from the Clinton administration, so it's a bit odd for anyone to claim that he supposedly was Bush's man that cooked up some kind of report for him.

The CIA got the intelligence wrong, it's as simple as that. So did many other intelligence agencies across the world, because ironically, Saddam Hussein had managed to fool everyone.

You can pretend all you want that the Bush administration made stuff up, but there's one common denominator between the Clinton administration, who also made claims regarding WMDs, and the Bush administration: the CIA under George Tenet.

Why, take Valerie Plame for instance. She worked at the CIA in Langley from 1997 until 2004, spanning the Clinton and Bush administrations. The conclusions of her agency stayed consistent and were not altered by the change in leadership.

The NIE was a fraud - it was almost entirely incorrect. However, was this result of incompetence at the intelligence agencies, the misinformation that Saddam spread throughout his regime, or the malicious actions of high-level administrators?

Perhaps it was a product of all of the above, but in any case, you cannot claim that the Bush administration manufactured this evidence - they simply repeated the evidence given to them by the intelligence agencies.

Some cases of cherry-picking can be made, but as I have argued with Johnson and others time and time again - was the administration supposed to give more credence to minority reports in the NIE, or go with what the majority of intelligence agencies assessed?

There can be no doubt - there was a consensus within the intelligence community that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, and that they had an active nuclear program.

Dissembling from this fact is pure partisan politics.

It took the OVP weeks to respond to Wilson's false claims funneled through the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Republic, among others back in the summer of 2003.

There is not one iota of evidence that Wilson made any false claims.  What took them time was to convince Novak to become a traitor along with them. 

You will never know this.  The CIA will never release enough information to satisfy your curiosity, and it shouldn't.  You are raising this irrelevant issue to pretend doubt where no reasonable doubt exists.

As to what your elected officials do, you know Bush, Cheney, Hastert, and all the rest of your scum, you should read this.  Ours are not a lot different, they are just ours.

I prefer the ones that play to our crowd, but I am not confused about what kind of people they are.

For all you know, they already have.  You are just an apologist for the scumbags.

Why go with your beliefs when we have facts. You want one Democrat that believed there were WMDs in Iraq?

How about Joseph Wilson.

His argument against going to war that he spouted on every TV show he could get booked on, was that we should not go to war because so many Americans would die when Saddam launched his WMDs. If that doesn't ring a bell, read Wilson's OP-ED. In the last paragraph he talks about Saddam's WMD program and he even speculates about his Nuclear program.

Joe Wilson actualy belived Saddam's WMD threat was more of a threat than George Bush apparently.

But he wasn't the only one on the left that felt this way.

Larry Johnson's group VIPS tried to persuade Bush to not go to war based on the same argument,....too many WMDs.

You said,..

"...Only the naive public believed this crap...."

Well, if only the naive believe Larry, count me amongst those that need verification first.

No, but Wilson did say that he was not sent on behalf of the CIA, which he was. He said this on June 14, 2003 at EPIC. I've quoted it somewhere on this thread to someone else.

That is only one of the lies. The others are the lies he funneled to various journalists, about debunking the forged documents, about the State Department and OVP knowing about his mission, about them knowing that he had debunked the forgeries (which he hadn't, as he admitted to the SSCI)... Hell, even Marc Grossman, Wilson's friend, testified in the Libby trial that Wilson supposedly told him that he thought it was Cheney that asked to send him to Niger.

Only one problem with that: Wilson's wife knew perfectly well that that wasn't the case. Ooops.

That's an interesting point, but......oh, hang on....I have to get my mail from the mailman.

I just had an executive meeting at my front door with a representative of the President, and a member of the executive branch of the government.

There is endless documentation that Karl Rove is pressuring my postal carrier to misplace my copy of the Weekly Standard before its delivered.

Phase II deals with what the administration did with intelligence once they had received it. Obviously then it does not deal with any allegations of pressure on the intelligence community to provide them with specific assessments, which is what Phase I was about. Nice attempt at a bait and switch though. Golf clap.

Hello Phil:

I have no problem with you disagreeing.

But the folks in the choir that are tuned in, all have a clue.

The ones that don't have a clue by now, won't ever get a clue.

And the kool-aid drinking 18%ers think she's hot, cuz she got red hair.

And with this bunch in power you'd have a list of 300+ lying fools to be shouting out about ...

Pick and choose the battles that really, really count.

Other than that, maybe we can start a Google Bomb. Something along the lines of, "Bush's Sticky Icky Toejam"

~OGD~

As far as I read, B&J did not have a real office location, only had a PO box, and didn't really give off a real vibe as a real company. That's what the problem with it was. I just don't think it was all that wise to donate, as an undercover agent, in that kind of situation.

You say that her identity was blown by the White House - it was Armitage at State that blew her cover to Novak.

What false accusations you ask? Let me just go to what you said:

"At that time, Joe Wilson had not yet made his (perfectly valid) accusations."

Would you like to list those "perfectly valid" accusations for me? Thanks. They will be a great help in showing you the false accusations Wilson made. One of which was him claiming that he was not sent on behalf of the CIA.

The apologist for the scumbags said:

I'm the one looking to find out the truth here...

Are you insane? I'm asking you quite seriously, are you certifiably insane?

You'd be the expert on that subject... No doubt about it!

~OGD~

Waxman's letter to the White House makes mincemeat of your notion that Knodell was merely describing what COULD have been done. I will quote two paragraphs that touch upon the matter of criminal investigations:

Mr. Knodell also testified that it would be inappropriate to allow an individual who was a security risk to retain his or her security clearance while a criminal investigation is pending. As members of the Committee pointed out, a criminal investigation can last years, and it would jeopardize national security not to investigate the officials implicated in the leak and suspend their security clearances if there were reason to suspect their involvement. Mr. Knodell did not dispute this point.

The testimony of Mr. Knodell appears to describe White House decisions that were inconsistent with the directives of Executive Order 12958, which you signed in March 2003. Under this executive order, the White House is required to "take appropiate and prompt corrective action" whenever there is a release of classified information. Yet Mr. Knodell could describe no such action after the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity.

Waxman's letter clearly shows that what is being suggested by having the White House "investigate itself" is not the media circus show you condemn but an internal process that common sense and written law would lead a reasonable person to assume had already been carried out.

Why do we never see Seixon and TJKING at the same time :)

It took me half an hour to get to the end of this thread, and all I learned was that Sexion's arguments are weak at best and dishonest at worst, which I knew after the first couple of posts. I'd write this off as another of those pissing contests that are too common in the blogosphere, but I was interested by Sexion's comment at one point how we wouldn't be hearing about perjury until Monday. I also noticed how easily repeatable his points were, even though they they were irrelevent or meaningless.
I think we're seeing the GOP counteroffensive against Plame: she's simply a liar. I wouldn't be surprised if Sexion's points (though not the responses to them) are already showing up on right-wing blogs. Variations of the same apparently already are showing up on Fox, and I bet the Washington Times and a whole stable of right-wing columnists are right behind them.
I also believe at least many of them don't actually think Plame lied; or that their attacks on her are a geniune effort to force overt judicial action against her, or even convince a majority of the public that she is a liar. This is just another storyline to feed the base; more red meat to keep their core supporters bloodthirsty and unthinkingly angry.
There's no point in debating Sexion or TJKing (by the way, I think they're two different people; they hate Larry and Larry hates them back - with reason).
Anyway, Sexion or TJKing aren't posting here to convince anyone or even just to be a troll. It's part of the radical right's campaign to keep their base rabid.

As I posted earlier, s/he is a sophist. In textbook troll fashion, s/he throws out a few questions (typically obtuse and complex questions involving minor technical points out of which exaggerated claims are offered). The goal is to get others to start bashing back with ad hominem attack so s/he can play the victim who only asked honest questions and got chased away.

Debate textbooks would define this as a classic case of baiting the opposition.

Larry is not the only person that Seixon has gone after. S/he went after me, and I've seen it happen to others as well. As I said earlier, I will not respond to the creature directly. I do wish that TPM would do something about it because it makes it very difficult to engage in reasonable discussion.

Truth is, I would very much like for more thinking conservatives to post comments on this site. But sophistry--dishonest argument which only sounds plausible at a superficial level and which is never self-reflective, we can do without.

OK, now I will steel myself for the creature's ten paragraph flood of backlash.......

On March 18, 2007 - 8:35pm Seixon said:

You've got it all wrong. I'm a Nazi Jew sent from Mars to conquer Earth for the Neo-Con Alliance that is trying to start nuclear war on Earth so that we can take over the planet.

No you aren't, you're TJKING.... who might be Victoria Toensing :)

This is just another storyline to feed the base; more red meat to keep their core supporters bloodthirsty and unthinkingly angry.

They do seem to be that. Their anger and hatefulness is further complicated by the fact that they accuse the "left" of "being angry," which is actually beginning to be true. I am getting angry.

I'm quite sure I'm not the only one, which is WHY it's fine for them to continue to do what they are doing. "The base" is significantly outnumbered, and I think the majority are tired of the addle-pated nonsense and overall incompetence of Republican governance.

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

You are brain impaired.

There is a difference between "recommending her husband to go to Niger to find out about the yellowcake" (executive decision) and "recommending her husband for the job of going to Niger" (Worker suggestion following an executive decision)

The fact that you are conflating the two is a shameless partisan attempt to smear Mr. Johnson and speaks of either your rabid partisanship, or difficulty in discerning one fact from another.

So which is it?

Cluephone: It is true that Valerie Plame HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MISSION TO NIGER. That is what Joe Wilson said, and the slimey attempts to put words in his mouth is merely a weak attempt to smear him to cover for the unforgivable blunder of injecting politics into critical National Security matters. It is, indeed, low-class, intellectually lazy, Rovian twaddle.

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

[[[crickets chirping]]]

Lots of legitimate companies give their address as a P.O. Box, it's hardly suspicious.

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

Wrong again, Einstein.

Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpostalservice.htm 

 The President and the White House have nothing to do with the Postal Service. If this is an example of your knowledge base, it's a pretty poor one

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

Others have testified that the OVP, as well as the state department AND the defense department asked the CIA to look into the matter. Joe Wilsons claim is factual.

Government Questions to Grenier (Testimony on January 24, 2007 Morning Session, p. 92-93):
Q:  And what did this person [in the CPD] explain to you?
A:  Well, the person explained to me that, in fact, we the CIA, had sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger to get information to determine whether or not Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from that country.
Q:  Did they give you any more information other than that bare fact?
A:  Yes, well, in fact, explained in a fair amount of detail how we did it, when he went, where he went, who was supposed to meet with him, and a number of those details.  He was also able to tell me that, in fact, while the office of Vice President had been very interested in getting more information on this topic, in fact, interest had been expressed also by the Department of State and the Department of Defense.
Q:  And this information was significant to you in terms of the question that Mr. Libby had asked you?
A:  Yes.  I felt that I had all the information and more, in fact, that had been requested by Mr. Libby.
Q:  And did the individual that you spoke to at C.P.D. [Counterproliferation Division], did they also bring up the subject of Ambassador Wilson's wife?
A:  Yes.  The person mentioned to me that, in fact, Ambassador Wilson's wife was working in the unit within C.P.D. that had sent Ambassador Wilson the re, and clearly indicated that that's where the idea had came from.  That's why they knew about Ambassador Joseph Wilson and the fact that he had contacts in Africa.
Q:  Did the individual name, to the best of your recollection, the Ambassador's wife's name?
A:  No.  I am certain that the person did not tell me the name, only that it was Ambassador Wilson's wife. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/the_waxman_circus.html 

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

"Larry Johnson is not a left-winger. I'm not a right-winger." In simple response to this, I suggest that anybody curious enough do a google on "Seixon".
To quote an old song, "...into your life it will creep"

Please do. Last I checked, supporting a specific war does not define your political being. In fact, I am quite sure I am much more liberal than Mr. Johnson in various areas, especially since he has given ample evidence that he isn't exactly fond of gay people.

OK, look.

There are leaks of classified info coming from all parts of the government every single damn day. Quit being a naive moron and deal with the reality of that. Now, none of these folks knew that Plame's occupation was classified information. Thus, why would they suspect anything worth investigating had occurred? Armitage was spilling classified information to Bob Woodward in his interview, lots more than just Plame's details. Were they supposed to investigate Armitage for this?

Before you answer that question, answer this one: have you read any of Bob Woodward's books?

If so, you may want to be careful in how you answer the other question.

It's also why there is so much effort to portray the Wilson trip as a rogue operation, not in response to OVP.

What? Wilson portrayed his mission as sanctioned by the State Department and the OVP, that they had full knowledge of it. A mission undertaken by the CPD at the CIA could under no circumstances be portrayed as a "rogue operation". This is projection because the Wilsons did precisely the opposite.

OVP probably hoped CIA would come to him with a report on who were believers and who weren't. 

Which is equally as substantiated and likely as saying that the OVP hoped the CIA would bring back double quarter pounders from McDonalds. 

The last thing they wanted was more facts, thus the trip was in no way responsive to the unspoken but heavily implied desire of OVP.

Ah yes, the las thing they wanted was more facts, which is exactly why Cheney asked his CIA briefer to go get him more information. He was doing that whole reverse psychology thing, I bet. 

Yet another reason for Plame's staffer to be upset--OVP wants info, but what kind? Truth about Niger, or personnel info about who's with and who's against?

So not only do we take an unsubstantiated claim of a phone call at face value, we use it to wildly speculate crazy shit that not even Plame has dared concoct. You are simply amazing. 

It also doesn't matter if LJ was inconsistent--he's not on trial, or testifying to Congress.

Yeah, who cares if Larry Johnson is lying his ass off? It's not like you're relying on him, or his friends the Wilsons, for anything. Lying only matters under oath, duh.

The moral rationalizing of the Left faced with the "truth" being lies. I should go make some popcorn, this is entertainment bar none.

This is what you call "answering" a question:

Go ask the fucking Vice President why they are calling a junior CIA ops officer. Not my goddamn problem moron

To me, that looks like evasion, but hey, I'm not in my mid-50s still using petulant methods of responding to people I disagree with, so what do I know?

(It looks like nested blockquotes don't work all that well, so I rendered the inner quote in italics.)

I haven't seen the original context, but it looks like somebody asked Larry Johnson why the Vice President's office called a junior CIA ops officer, and he responded with some words you can't say on TV.

I suppose you can argue that any use of the F word invalidates any points one might make. If you believe that, I don't suppose I can change your mind.

Ignoring the strong language, the response seems perfectly sensible. How would Larry Johnson know why the VP's office made a phone call? He has no inside information in that area. I'm a bit curious about it myself, but asking Larry Johnson to answer something he has no way of knowing seems less than productive.

seixon, you twit. If you didn't spend so much time begging Larry for his attention, you could find this shit out for yourself. Do the research and quit whining. Unless, of course, your job (covert?) with the Rules and Ethics office at the CIA keeps you too busy: "A mission undertaken by the CPD at the CIA could under no circumstances be portrayed as a "rogue operation".

Er, thanks for sharing, but the joke is that in your grand struggle to be right (all the time), you missed the point . Hint: Listen to Libby's grand jury testimony. The rogue operation idea was just one of several not so smart ideas to come out of the Vice-President's office. It's called disassociating from the crime, diluting the message or spreading the blame.

What I want to know, however, is when did the CIA go to strictly legitimate "missions", and rogue operations fall into such disrepute? Is the CIA aware of your "intelligence" on this? How old are you?

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. You have rattled on and on about this like the energizer bunny.

Hints: Book deals. CIA clearances. Holdups on book deals.

Which is equally as substantiated and likely as saying that the OVP hoped the CIA would bring back double quarter pounders from McDonalds. Does this mean that you moonlight in "customer service" at the CIA, too? If you already know that the senior part of CIA Customer Cervice has said that they are all out of quarter pounders, but you need one for your urgent advertising campaign, you might call the person that normally only does milkshakes, and give that person an important assignment to be on the lookout for any connection between uranium and hamburgers.

Hint: Court documents.

Has it ever crossed your giant sized ego that if you were at all on the right track, your pardners in Congress would not let you fight this fight alone? They are not known as the silent types. (Especially when faced with jail time, but that's another story).

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

Who even cares? This is like reading the story of the king's new clothes... you know the one that ends with the 9 year old girl saying "The king is naked" and having some defender of the "weavers" debating it by arguing the girl was 9 and a month. Who cares? It is irrelevant.

That is obvious and easy. The CIA only acknowledges that Plame worked for them as of 2002, they also acknowledged that she went on overseas trips. That is within 5 years.

You need to learn to read for comprehension. Your talking points are manufacturered to fool people too lazy to read the source documents. As they've been linked and reproduced on this thread, you are either a troll or an idiot.

Who are you trying to fool? Try Freeperville, that's the only place I can think of where people are really that stupid.

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

Wilson was sent BY the CIA on BEHALF of the US government, because they were responding to a request by Cheney. Why are you trying to make that into a lie? Are you saying that when the CIA sends someone on a mission it is for the CIA only -- (like they are their own entity or a private company), and not for our government -- our country? What is the matter with you?

If you are so diligent at rooting out lies, why not root out some that really matter? What if Wilson was sent by the Boy Scouts of America and still found out that the Bush/Cheney regime had lied to get us in to a bogus war that would benefit their cronies in mutlimillions of dollars?

Why are you continuing to flog the dead horse about who sent him, when the facts about his findings are true, and every single "fact" that Bush, Condosleeza, and their merry crew have provent to be false?

Why do you claim to be a truth seeker and yet you ignore the most important truth of all --> young men and women from our country are being sacrificed for NOTHING except greed. Iraqis hate us for occupying their country and ushering in Al Qaida (which was NOT there previously) and all kinds of chaos that they never had to deal with before.

You are NOT a truth seeker; you are a troll. Truth is your enemy, the same as it is the enemy of this administration's.

You pick apart phrases to show that Wilson or his wife meant something that MUST have been a lie. But you blindly accept the uncountable lies that got us all into this mess. You have no credibility, and you have no honor.

Jan Knaus

Superfluous use of swear words indicate anger, frustration, or lack of control. Maybe Larry is one of those guys who has a really, really short fuse ( I surely wouldn't doubt it), but that's just it: why is he getting so worked up over simple questions unless he is frustrated by having to answer them?

How could Larry Johnson know? How did Larry Johnson know that Valerie Plame was supposedly a GS-13 at the CIA? He was the only person to ever claim such a thing, but was off the mark a bit since Waxman said she was GS-14. Larry Johnson is a personal friend of the Wilsons. A simple, "Hey Val, why did the OVP call your junior officer," would suffice, no?

The point I was getting at was that it seems almost completely unlikely that anyone at the OVP called a junior officer at the CIA, about anything. Larry knows this, so instead of admitting that the story Plame told sounded odd, or ask her about it, he swears and cusses and bans me from his blog.

The rogue operation idea was just one of several not so smart ideas to come out of the Vice-President's office. It's called disassociating from the crime, diluting the message or spreading the blame.

Actually, that isn't true. They were told that Wilson's wife was involved in the trip, and that is what they related to others. Specifically Armitage called the trip a "boondoggle" I do believe. Did he work in the OVP? And does boondoggle = rogue operation? 

What I want to know, however, is when did the CIA go to strictly legitimate "missions", and rogue operations fall into such disrepute?

Around the same time the USG outlawed carrying out assassinations. I also get the feeling that you are conflating "rogue operations" with "covert operations", hardly the same thing. 

You have rattled on and on about this like the energizer bunny.

Yes, I have, and that is because Larry Johnson made it up and won't answer any questions about it, nor will he provide any evidence to support his fabrication. You seemingly don't care too much about that. 

If you already know that the senior part of CIA Customer Cervice has said that they are all out of quarter pounders, but you need one for your urgent advertising campaign, you might call the person that normally only does milkshakes, and give that person an important assignment to be on the lookout for any connection between uranium and hamburgers.

So they went straight from George Tenet to a junior officer of Plame's unit? One would have thought they might have called Plame before they called her junior officer. Or Plame's superior. Alas, we'll never know since Plame won't even prove that the phone call actually took place. Something you also don't seem to care anything about. 

Has it ever crossed your giant sized ego that if you were at all on the right track, your pardners in Congress would not let you fight this fight alone? They are not known as the silent types.

It took senators months to accuse George Galloway of perjury, perjury I pointed out to everyone within 24 hours after Galloway dropped it, which even the counsel to the PSI thanked me for. So let's just say that I'm not holding my breath, especially since there seems to be a higher threshold for perjury to the Senate than to a court of law.

The source document does not state when Cheney read the report. It says:

After reading the DIA report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA's analysis of the issue.

From the Libby trial, we got access to the briefing report, which states:

“Tasking: The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq’s nuclear program. A memo for tomorrow’s book would be great.”

Briefing date: February 13, 2002. So, it is actually you who are misinformed, dear sir (or madam). I suggest you get at least SOME of your information from source documents. It might prevent you from looking like a sheep's behind. Or like Larry Johnson's robot:

On a chilly Tuesday morning almost five years ago, February 12, 2002, Dick Cheney’s CIA briefer arrived with a piece of finished intelligence that set in motion a series of events that exposed the identity of a CIA undercover officer, destroyed a CIA front company and compromised its various assets, and sent Scooter Libby to trial for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Larry Johnson, February 3, 2007. Egad, Larry Johnson wrong again? What ever will you do? How about you read the source documents that you claim to be reading, eh?

Wait, wait, wait. You don't want to list his "perfectly valid" accusations? Why not? It is because, oh I don't know, all of them were false?

No, I just don't have the time. As I said, you're the one accusing him of lying; you prove it.

Haha! June 14, 2003. EPIC. Joe Wilson, claiming he was not sent on behalf of the CIA.

I don't know what "EPIC" is. You're paraphrasing something Joe Wilson might have said, not quoting what he actually said. I can't possibly comment on the accuracy of his statement without more information. Do you have a URL?

It is obvious, sexion, that you do not care about what led the country to war, like the shenanigans performed in the OVP, the cherry-picking of facts performed in the Executive Office and the really bad memories that affect almost everyone in this administration, to name just a few problems.

Your whole being is devoted to discrediting Larry Johnson. I don't why, and I don't care why, he has affected you like this, but your problem has nothing to do with why this country is in "the biggest foreign policy blunder" in history.

You can devote your life to such a trivial effort if you want to do so. I just wish you would do it somewhere else.

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