"..Much more professional and high-minded, which is typical of Brent...."

Considering your penchant for gutter mouth rants, unsourced allegations and repeated references to sodomy, you are setting the bar excruciatingly low.

If this is all true, why doesn't the committee start by prosecuting the columnist who wrote the column and revealed the spy? Freedom of the press surely does not extend to breaking the law. Why has Novak waltzed out of this scot free? Then keep moving up the food chain.

Dave, I find it fascinating that my criticism of Larry's annoying foul mouthed and "unsubstantive" vulgarities are considered ad hominem attacks by you. I am assuming that this means any author on this site that appears to be on your side has free rein to slander, lie, cuss, use insensitive stereotypes condoning violent rape for retribution based on uncontrollable hatred.

An ad hominem attack would be an attack on the messenger unrelated to his credibility, the means of his communication or the point he is trying to make.

I think his form of communication is unproductive and offensive,

"...Toensing Doesn't Know Dick About Val..."

The fact that MOST of his articles are laced with more hatred and vulgarities, than what you call "substantive" criticism, is worthy of mention in a forum that claims to promote reasoned debate.

I hope that Larry responds to my remark in his typical "cuckoo's nest" fashion to prove my point.

Dave, Am I correct in assuming that you would like to see others emulate Larry's Drunk tank style of scream and curse discourse?

P.S. I think my use of the phrase "cuckoo's nest" is not ad hominem, it is an appropriate description of the obscenity laced responses that he is typical of.

TJ,
The only obscenity is your continued lame failure to offer any coherent and cogent critiques of the substance of my various posts. Offending you brings me great joy in life. I guess whining is all that is left to you because you have nothing relevant to add to Mr. Budowsky's first hand account of having actually crafted the IIPA, unlike the shrill Miss Vicky.

Once again, you miss the point, TJ. Which is worse, Larry's language that offends only you (and others like you) or the acts by senior officials that first betrayed the nation and then lied to it to cover them up?

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

why doesn't the committee start by prosecuting the columnist who wrote the column

Novak committed no crime. He had no clearance to receive classified information and was not bound to keep it secret.

It wasn't exactly an act of patriotism to reveal the identity of a spy, but those who revealed the identity to the press are the ones guilty of a treasonous act.

Best, Terry

On March 31, 2007 - 3:17pm ljohnson said: TJ, The only obscenity is your continued lame failure to offer any coherent and cogent critiques of the substance of my various posts. Offending you brings me great joy in life. I guess whining is all that is left to you because you have nothing relevant to add to Mr. Budowsky's first hand account of having actually crafted the IIPA, unlike the shrill Miss Vicky.

Larry, right wingnuts; Bush, the Repug Congress and their supporters, who have had control for 6 years can't escape what the results of their control has brought the country. The more they babble excuses the more ridiculous they seem; they're like McCain telling how safe it is in Baghdad.

They're being dragged kicking and screaming into the reality based world and its making them angrier and angrier.

Then you turn around and falsely claim that George Bush or some other Republican has called a democrat unpatriotic or unamerican.

Bush and Cheney are too smart to actually say the words "treason" or "unAmerican." But they will say things like this:

Bush:

We just have a different mind-set, a different view of the world. If they feel safer without this program, the Democrats in the Senate need to explain to the American people which of the attacks that the CIA program stopped would they have been willing to let go forward. (Applause.)

Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism that means America will wait until we're attack again to respond.

Bush:

However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.

Stating you believe the Democrats' plan is to allow our country to be attacked by terrorists is essentially accusing them of treason. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

This is my last comment re anything you write. You really are thick as mule shit. You ask:

"How hard is it to have the Intelligence committee, formally request that the CIA release a statement that says, "..Regarding the legal term covert as it is used in the IIPA, Plame was covert, and furthermore CIA counsel believes the IIPA was violated...", so we can charge the person who broke this crime."

Well TJ that is why the CIA's General Counsel sent the referral to the Department of Justice way back in 2003. I know obstructing justic and perjury make no sense to you unless they involve a Democrat and a blow jow and a blue dress, but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible.

Unlike you, I not only complained about the outing of Valerie but thought the exposure of Welch and the blabbing of others like Agee was wrong. I've been consistent on this point. Another woman who trained with Valerie and me, another friend, worked with Buckley and subsequently spent time hunting for him. But once again you don't know what you are talking about, having never held a clearance and never served.

I don't agree with everything he said...and no this does not resolve this.

You still accuse me of the crime of treason and you run and hide from your own words like a coward.

The fact that MOST of his articles are laced with more hatred and vulgarities

Who gives a fuck if LJ uses obscenities? Is it really all that offensive to your sensibilities? What's the big deal?

Larry is Larry. Not every[one] here does it -- he does. That's his style. If you don't like it, don't click on the little fucking link that says "Read More."

It's really a very, very simple solution to your problem.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Brent Budowsky says:

It never occurred to even one of us, working on those laws at that time, that the identity of a covert officer would ever be revealed by the highest officials in American government in leading newspapers and syndicated columns of high level Washington insiders. In those days the revealers of identities
ended up taking refuge in Castro's Cuba, not Washington dinner parties or high level corridors of insider power.

It also never occurred to anyone that Bush would attack Iraq,

that they would lie with impunity for 6 years,

that they would turn the regulatory agencies over to those regulated,

that they would bankrupt the country,

that they would blur the line between church and state

that their obsession with secrecy was only surpassed by their obsession with lying

that they would alienate most of the rest of the world,

that they would show disdain for the Constitution, the "Rule of Law" and tradition,

that they would institute the Imperial Presidency

that they would turn the United States into the infamous "rougue nation"

that Bush would nominate Michael Baroody, executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, to head the commission charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products.

that Bush would appoint Edwin G Folke Jr. to head OSHA, who is a South Carolina Lawyer who specialized in defending Corporations facing OSHA Citations for safety violations.

that Bush would nominate former coal company executive Richard Stickler, (who's mines, according ot the Charleston Gazette, had accident rates twice that of national average), as head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) but who would not be confirmed by the Senate yet receive a Bush recess appointment to the post.

that Bush and his gang of right wing Christians would fight the marketing of a vaccine that is almost 100% effective in preventing cervical cancer in women, because according to them, it would encourage promiscuity.

No...."it never occured to even one of us"

TJ,

Simple solution -- if you think the language of Larry's commentaries is offensive, don't frickin' read them.

If you choose to read them, knowing he uses "obscenities" then don't complain about it.

Take some responsibility for your own actions.

Sheesh!

On March 31, 2007 - 5:37pm TJKING said:

If it makes you feel "treasonous", when Bush points out the consequences of your policies, then that is your problem.

What "proof" does Bush have for the consequences he's predicting?

"...Critical thinking and judgment is "hard work," I know."

Don't strain yourself.

"...don't frickin' read them...."

I guess I got your dander up, Helen. Well, I guess if you don't like what I write you can not read my posts too. And I guess if we go down that path, I could tell you to not read them and tell you to keep your ideas to yourself,...and I guess everybody here that disagreed could just not interact at all.

I guess its too much to ask that when He posts an accusation and I ask him to provide a link or some kind of proof and he comes back and does nothing but cuss and call names, that is your idea of a reasoned debate. None of us here is perfect but you seem to be of the mind of many in the echo chamber that is not interested in an exchange of factual information and logical debate, you only want censorship and a reaffirmation of the misinformation that you arrived here with.

If you don't like my pointing out Larry's inaccuracies and his poor credibility regarding his ability to defend his statements then I guess I am accomplishing something.

If you read this far Helen, I will assume that you are taking responsibility for your actions as well.

Actually, it occured to me because of all the sleazy stuff G.H.W. Bush was involved in - Iran Contra being the tip of the iceberg. See Kevin Phillips' book about the Bush and Walker families.

Tom

Your bumper sticker statements about treason, etc. must be providing you with some form of titillation, but without providing any specifics, It makes you appear to be hiding behind a smoke screen of vagueness. If you are referring to the "lies" as the 16 words, I think we have covered that quite thoroughly. One, Bush told the truth. Two, Joe Wilson with the support of his wife lied about the 16 words. Three, You and your friends supported him and his lying. Four, Wilson was exposed as a perennial liar. Five, You continue to pretend like he wasn't a liar.

Although your bumper sticker musings might get you excited, I hope I have been specific enough to bring you back to earth.

For the record, Larry's statements are always worse than anything this administration has ever done.

"...Well TJ that is why the CIA's General Counsel sent the referral to the Department of Justice way back in 2003...."

I know obstructing justic and perjury make no sense to you unless they involve a Democrat and a blow jow and a blue dress, but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible...."

So are you finally agreeing to release the text of the Referral?

Those that have seen it have alleged that it discusses "unauthorized release of classified information", not the IIPA. Not everybody here knows, but you know Larry, that is really quite different than a referral that clearly states there was a violation of IIPA. In fact that is such a catch all referral they could even round up Joe and Valerie in that investigation and run them through the ringer to see if they made any "unauthorized release" of classified information. What you call "technicalities", the Justice system calls the law.

"...I know obstructing justic and perjury make no sense to you unless they involve a Democrat and a blow jow and a blue dress, but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible...."

How can you not tell the difference between a staffer in the OVP being accused of those two crimes and the most powerful man on the face of the earth (whose power is constitutionally protected) being charged and later confessing to the court of what he was accused of and paying the fines.

In one case there is doubt, but in the case of the Blow jow[sic] with witness intimidation and influence peddling and subourning perjury and character assasintaion, there is "no doubt" he admitted it.

"... but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible...."

Prevented access to what? Everyone agrees that Armitage was the leaker! There is an audio tape, a smoking gun, he confessed. Fitz, Ashcroft, and Comey have all said they knew about Armitage before handing the case to Fitz and when it was handed to him on day one he knew who the culprit was. How did any of his remarks get in the way of finding Armitage? You are just making this up. Your remark referring to the thickness of the product of a Mule's grazing is a perfect description of your attempts to mislead your loyal followers here. I will continue to point out your discrepancies.

How's that workin' out for you , Tom?

Gettin' a lot accomplished over there? Any new strategies that really change the course of the government anytime soon?

OK, when you find somethin' let me know.

=== Everyone agrees that Armitage was the leaker! ===

Most, if not all, observers agree that Armitage was ONE leaker. There is no information indicating that Armitage was the ONLY leaker, and quite a bit of indirect evidence that he was not the only one. Which would indicate that there was a higher-level leaker coordinating the entire process. Either Libby was that person, or he obstructed the investigation into who it was.

Should Gonzales resign, meaning his successor will undergo Senate confirmation hearings, it will be interesting to consider what Libby's lawyer and his wife will advise him before he goes into that hearing.

sPh

SeeDee

Thanks for a summary of the Bush/Right-wingnut agenda.

Even TJK should keep silent in the face of the FACTS you have presented, JohnW1141.

Wanna bet?

The Pied Piper played his flute and the rats all came out of hiding to trail after him. Larry posts one of his extremely effective "rants" about the perversity that is the Bush administration and the trolls come out of hiding to follow him around. I'm not sure just what happened to the rats, but I have some good ideas about what should happen to the trolls.

Hoppy in Sacramento

let me mention some real patriots....

frank snepp. john stockwell. phil agee. frank church. bill colby.

enemies of the gangsters that have seized the usa.

On March 31, 2007 - 7:42pm JohnW1141 said:

On March 31, 2007 - 7:28pm TJKING said:

You contend that since I do not agree with his non-factual representation regardless of the significance of the statement, makes me treasonous?

I made no such contention.

Are you implying that your blind submission to "agree with everything" he wrote makes you a Patriot?

I implied no such thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On March 31, 2007 - 8:34pm TJKING said:

No, you clearly did. You asked if I agreed with everything and then based on that said I was guilty of treason. You are a buffoon.

Please supply evidence of my asking you if you agreed with everything (in Budowsky's column) and then "based on that" said you were gulity of treason.

Unless the Congress impeaches the entire adminstration and all those involved with it, then they win and America losses. In the near future there will be another GOP like-Bush bastard that will make the shit Bush has done look like a joke.

Demand the Truth for America

TJK,

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Forrest Gump is smarter and wiser than you.

You are a fucking joke.

Demand the Truth for America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAOfJUwEJo

Victoria Toensing, Tom Davis, and TJK are GOP assholes first and never Americans.

Demand the Truth for America

The thread speaks for itself. You are a chronic liar.

US Constitution
Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Demand the Truth for America

LMAO.

Your first paragraph demonstrates to what bizarre lengths your mental gymnastics and pretzel logic will allow you to go to find a reason to explain why the left doesn't want the truth to come out. Nice try, ..lol,...I'm sure there is a good reason to live the lie. Sheesh!

"...
The anti-Communist hysteria for the 50 years after WWII led to many stupid and utterly paranoid policies. But most leftists would fully support covert intelligence that provides information concerning security threats that present a real 'physical' threat to the American people...."

Stupid policies, ...ahem, OK. Have you ever heard of the cold war or an evil empire called the Soviet Union. I guess "stupid" policies that caused their destruction so you could live free were all make believe. And the Soviet never presented "a real physical threat to the american people".

Anti-Communist hysteria? Are you aware that Richard Welch of the CIA was killed by leftist marxists in Greece when he was outed by Norman Mailer and Timothy Butz and a bunch of leftists in New York which lead to the IIPA?

Witless? Oh, man, A comedy team couldn't come up with this stuff, right over the plate,...NEXT!

Because, PeeWee, Armitage did not know she was covert, and no one can prove, or even suggests AFAIK, otherwise.

Here is the reading you are too goddamn lazy to do for yourself.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said yesterday that he believes he was the initial source for a 2003 newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that disclosed the CIA's previously secret employment of Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent critic of the U.S. war in Iraq.

Armitage said that he learned about Plame's employment from a State Department memo that did not mention her covert status, and that he had no knowledge of it at the time. In 40 years of reading classified materials, Armitage said in a telephone interview, "I have never seen in a memo . . . a covert agent's name."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701781.html

It is obvious that as the Bush curdles and his WH tumbles to the ground, your worshipful investment there has you decompensating as well.

You have completely lost any claim to my respect, my attention, my time, or even my notice.

Go read The Naked Lunch. There's a character in there whose tour-de-force of skilled and inventive teaching you seem to have equalled.

I think the metaphor of Larry being a mercernary pied piper with a bunch of rats following him off the cliff is apt one. Way to go, hoppy.

I'm still laughing too hard from you two claiming I committed a crime. Your idea of FACTS, is a knee slapper.

Easy Rider, your arguments are so well thought out. I am paralyzed with awe at your remarkable intellectual agility. The pop culture reference is startlingly brilliant as well. With your witty debating skills this board will never be the same.

Your signature is so fitting. "Demand the Truth for America". They deserve no less, right? You Rock!

Easy man, You are a Maverick.

I am not sure why it is okay for you to personally attack people as imbeciles, dunces, and liars while you think it is horrible that Larry Johnson uses profanity.

Agreed, TJ. The logic I used is a bit pretzelish. Just a supposition as to why the CIA will neither confirm nor deny that Plame was covert. And your supposition?
I can easily return to the fact that the CIA did ask Justice to investigate a leak of classified info in outing Plame. Maybe that simply speaks for itself. And what truth doesn't the left want to 'come out?'
The big truth that Plame was not covert?
That would hardly cause the sky to fall.
The big truth that interests me quite a bit more is who ordered the Niger forgeries in the first place. They didn't just appear for no reason obviously. Who had reason to forge evidence to implicate Iraq in nuclear weapons production? That's the big truth that really needs to come out. Hint: think neocons.

The evil empire? Do you think the USSR wanted to destroy the US? Do you think its government was inherently evil rather than just self-interested in exerting its power and maintaining a co-dominance with the US, similar, btw, in many respects to US behavior? Did you find a nuclear arms race to be a logical means to 'win' the cold war and drive the former USSR into the ground economically? Was the nuclear proliferation we see today worth the price?

Leftists can be murderers. Do you think I suppose all leftists are saints? The military junta that came to power through a coup d'etat in 1967 and ruled until 1974, was hardly benign but rather a fascist group, which exiled, imprisoned and tortured many Greek leftists. The US supported the coup leaders (once again choosing rigid authoritarianism as its Cold War strategy to fight communism). A student group arose during the coup years, called N17, which eventually turned to terrorism in its effort to rescue Greece from the 'colonels.' Hence Welch's murder, N17's first. It's not an easy call to make on moral grounds whether the exposure of Welch as CIA was justified. I guess you'd have to ask the tortured and dead Greeks who suffered from the fascist regime how they felt about US support for the regime. Btw, CIA and the Greek intelligence service, LOC, were cooperating closely during the coup years.

~

The apologist for the scumbags continues to exhibit, as Brent Budowsky stated, nothing but an "...extraordinary combination of delusion and dishonesty..."

~OGD~

Good point, Jerry. How would you prefer I respond to someone who describes me as thick as Mule Shit or worthy of being anally probed by an Elephant. I admit I could do better. Any ideas?

"I will go further. The IIPA which is the crime that we have been talking about here for 5 years was created in reaction to the activities of Phil Agee who made it his hobby of outting anyone he could. When CIA operative Richard Welch was outed, he was murdered in Greece by Marxists.

He's your hero, Albert?

Wait, your hero is much more multidimensional than that.

Phil Agee is a communist spy who upon leaving the CIA went straight to the KGB. Declassified KGB documents show that he approached the KGB offered them everything and then went to Castro in Cuba and became a spy for Fidel." -- end TJ quote.

Sara writes...
You are all totally wrong on this -- reason why??? well you haven't paid attention to certain news and investigations since the Wall came down in 1989.

I'll lay it out for you...

Welch was not murdered as a result of anything Agee ever said or published. His murder was the result of a small STASI operation that got out of their control. The Stasi case files on this were acquired by Der Speigel about 1993, and they published most of the story as they then knew it, complete with reproductions of Stasi records and all the rest. The DS investigative report was published across Europe including in London. It was not picked up by the US Press. (one wonders why??)

So what happened. Prior to being sent to Athens, Welch was posted in Peru, he became friendly with a Stasi officer, and was green-lighted from Langley to pitch the E. German. The target reported the pitch back to Berlin, and he was ordered to string Welch along a bit, and when it was clear what was proposed, the Stasi officer was reassigned seemingly in normal rotation. In the meantime Marcus Wolf back in Stasi Central has a file on Welch.

Then Welch shows up under light cover in Athens, and Wolf decides to play back the game on Welch by blowing his cover. He accomplishes this by using various W European assets to drop the name on Counterspy, and get the follow-up in the Athens publication. Shortly thereafter Welch is murdered.

The assumption was made in the US that Phillip Agee did it, though for years he claimed no involvement. But from 1976 till the early 90's it was very much a cold case. Then, along with a host of other Cold War Cold Cases, Der Speigel and others begin to do investigative reporting on these cases, with lots of help from former Stasi types willing to talk, and eventually the Stasi archives. This did not say who exactly did the murder, but makes clear Agee was not the source.

Fast Forward about five or six years -- Barbara Bush publishes her memoir and eventually another version celebrating the election of her son -- and these include the story that claims Agee gave up Welch's name and identity. Agee who lived in Cuba, hires a New York Lawyer and sues Barbara Bush. The case settled before trial, but apparently Barbara had to be deposed, and in Kitty Kelley's book on the Bush family, Barbara is quoted as saying it was a very expensive nuisance suit. Court file is sealed, but around the edges we know Barbara Bush agreed under oath never to ascribe this to Phillip Agee ever again, she paid some damages, and paid his legal bills. The NYTimes carried a brief article on the settlement.

Then in the run up to the 2004 Athens Olympics, the Greeks finally arrested members of the November 17th group -- a quite dangerous Greek Anarchist Cell -- and within the group were those responsible for the 1976 murder of Welch. They were tried and convicted. And no, the Anarchists were not under the control of the Stasi -- in fact Stasi records indicate the whole thing ran out of their control. That's a problem when you play a proxy -- you can't control them at all times.

Usually during the Cold War when something like this happened, someone from one side would pass word over the wall that such and such was not a sponsored operation, so that services would not start doing one for one's when they lost an officer. (There were, afterall, rules to the games they played.) One wonders if CIA ever got that kind of message from the Stasi, and if so, why didn't they cool the rhetoric? And then a nice polite warning -- don't use the Agee false story to prove anything about Welch's murder, The Stasi knew about Welch because he pitched one of theirs. The Bush Family has fine lawyers, and they usually don't lose lawsuits, but they did when Agee sued them.

And this is all opensource -- Der Spiegel, NYTimes, Kitty Kelley's book, and back to review articles in the US Press in 2004 when the real killers were caught, tried and convicted in Athens.

On March 31, 2007 - 11:31pm TJKING said:

The thread speaks for itself. You are a chronic liar.

If I'm a chronic liar, prove it. Address my post; "Please supply evidence of my asking you if you agreed with everything (in Budowsky's column) and then "based on that" said you were gulity of treason."

Your habit of hiding beneath your desk to avoid answering everytime you're caught making unfounded charges is well known.

Oh wait, perhaps you'll accuse me of deleting a post, or a word, as you did the last time you were caught fibbing about what another contributor posted. Remember the word "millions."?

Crabby,
The good news is that the CIA has now confirmed that Val not only was a covert officer, but that her position was classified, that she was serving in an undercover position, and that she has served overseas on classified missions. These facts were approved by CIA Director Micahel Hayden in a statement read by Congressman Henry Waxman when Valerie testified under oath. It is also worth noting that the CIA will only admit that Val worked at the CIA since Feb. 2002. The will not acknowledge that she has been a CIA employee since September 1985 because of the sensitivities of what she was doing before.

Apologists for treason like TJKing, who are nothing more than partisan enablers, deserve our contempt and nothing more. If that ass clown had a shred of experience working with classified material, much less working with the CIA, we would have heard about it. TJ is the person that Cartman is modeled on. An obese, hateful, cheetoh stained mouth breather incapable of reason. There was a time when I thought clowns like TJ were amenable to reason, but such is not the case. Someone who inists that the Sun rises in the west and refuses to accept the fact that it always appears over the eastern horizon is worthy only of isolation and scorn.

Thanks for the response, Larry. I watched the hearing from about the midpoint on but missed Plame's testimony and Waxman's leading statement. Judging from Toensing's testimony, I assumed that the 'issue' was still under debate. Toensing (and her husband Joe Genova) have been on my radar screen ever since Clinton impeachment days and I have no respect for either of them.

As for my response to TJ, what can I say?
I had time to kill.

~

Thanks for taking the time to attempt to walk the mindless through history.

Be rest assured, if the apologist for the scumbags comes back into this thread and reads your detailed explanation, the 'tin-foil hat flag' will be raised high on the apologist's poo-poo pole... It's either that or you'll get the sound of crickets.

~OGD~

Jan, Waxman tried to get Toensing to tell how she was privvy to certain information that is supposedly secret, like a covert CIA agent's overseas travel history. Toensing stumbled a non answer.

Toensing, like so many other wingnuts go into babble mode, like avoiding the question asked, when you start digging into their bullsh**. The record for "Least number of questions asked before a wingnut starts babbling" is two.

You get it entriely wrong Mr. King.

I haven't accused you of anything. I am pointing out that you are disrespectful of someone I know has served his country and who has the credentials to back up what he says as though you know better, as though your credentials are as sound as his. All I'm saying is that if you have the chutzpah to criticize Mr. Johnson who I consider a man of integrity and a patriot then I want to know what gives you the credentials to do so. Who are you Mr. King that you can write as though you have some authority, experience, sources or general knowledge that exceeds Mr. Johnson. Tell us please. I am eager to know if you are something more than just another wingnut blowhard. What's your national security background Mr. King? How long have you served the country in the intelligence services? What are your credentials for criticising Mr. Johnson so rudely and with such contempt? I will eagerly await your answer Mr. King as I would like to know just who you are and/or who you think you are. You and I are not the same sir. I'm just another person posting. I'm not trying to besmirch anyone--as you are. So do tell us all Mr. King of your vast experience in national security affairs and your sterling credentials so we can fully evaluate your credibility.

Why not compel CIA counsel to state unequivocally?

Compel? By whose authority?

When a powerful body like the Committee On Oversight And Government Reform wants information from the CIA, they ask for it politely.

If the CIA had wished to discredit Plame's testimony, they could have done so without having to prove it. They could have easily contradicted Waxman's introduction to Plame's testimony.

Tom Davis' response to Waxman dismisses the criminal investigation as trivial and only sees further inquiry into the matter as one that reveals the shortcomings of the CIA but Davis raised no objection against the Hayden approval of the testimony as presented by Waxman.

So again, Mr. King, who will do this compelling that you speak of?

OK, don't compel. Have congress ask politely and with a box of chocolates.

"...Either Libby was that person, or he obstructed the investigation into who it was...."

Please elaborate.

If I am "totally wrong" then it should be easy for you to point out one item that is wrong in my post. Whether the Stasi knew of Welch or a nun in Lima or Who's who, I'm not sure what you are trying to convey here.

That Agee was not a bad guy? That counterspy did not publish Welch's name? That Agee was not an agent for Fidel and KGB?

W. Colby who is famous for blowing a number of CIA secrets, even stated that the publication of Welch's name at the very least ignited the murderers to strike people on the list.

Barbara Bush was not sued because Agee was innocent. She was sued because she said the outting was in a published book, when in actuality it was in a magazine.

I have enjoyed your previous posts on this stuff, Sara, but it is a rehash of David Corn and material by Clinton administration official Morton Halperin who was an associate and defender of Agee and his ties to the Marxists spy networks.

I would love to discuss this some more, because I find the topic fascinating, but I would like to hear where yu think I'm wrong.

Thanks for a very nice post.

I just want to be sure here, TJ; when you say that I don't want anymore (sic) factual information muddying waters...Your point is that you think that the CIA should publish the travels of their covert agents? Just to daub a little ointment on ass-pimples like you and Toensing? Why? Because you are making so much sense that they have to defend themselves from you? Hah! You are really a joker!

Why? To prove to brain-dead people that she was covert when the Director already said she was? Why should the CIA join the Whitehouse in giving out protected, classified information? It wouldn't satisfy you anyway, because you are incapable of objectivity; incapable of admitting that you are wrong. Truth is your enemy, and the only muddy stuff around here is the pathetic nature of your brain.

Jan Knaus

TJKing - Your language stinks at least as much if not more than Larry's. Except I see some reason in his writing and none in yours. You ask skewed questions, your reasoning doesnt make sense and does not flow logically - all you do is to respond with ad hominem attacks and attempt to defend yourself with more venom. take any hearing in the senate or the house and you can see the naked partisanship - whereas everyone seems to be pointing fingers at democrats, I dont see the republicans behaving in any conciliatory fashion. So it is not surprising for me to see mudslinging in this forum as well!!! But to begin with any debate, you cant attack your opponent by emulating his tactics - you cant possibly win your argument by being vulgar and dispectful of people's "holes".

Your eloquence would flourish in iambic pentameter . When your immaculate intellect shines through your finely crafted prose, I am astonished at the heights of enlightenment you transport us to.

Demand more [Mr. Rider] for America

Well if you catch one of Waxman's responses toward the conclusion of the hearing, it appears that Toensing was "invited" by the Republicans - to provide the other side of hte story

"...Plame has plainly stated she was a covert agent..."

Actually Terry, Are you using the legal definition or the generic terminolgy. When asked if using the real definition of the term "covert" as it pertains to the IIPA, there was a great deal of ambiguity. Her pre-planned phrase was "I am not a lawyer" and she used it any chance she could. Remember she has law suits and book deals riding on this.

MS. PLAME WILSON: I was a covert officer, correct.

REP. YARMUTH: Without destroying - or disclosing classified information, what does covert mean?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to ensure that there is no links between the operations officer and the Central Intelligence Agency -- I mean, that's simple.

Sounds pretty generic to me. Agent - not connected - Agency. Seems civilian. What Langley? whats that? Who? not me. As she says, "that's simple".

So let's see how she responds to a question that addresses the fact that IIPA requires that someone know that she is legally covert.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Plame.

It's clear that the administration officials knew you worked for the CIA, but did they know that your status was that of a covert agent?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I have no way of knowing, but I can say I worked for the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations. And while not all, many of the employees of that division are, in fact, in covert status.

REP. DAVIS: But you don't -- I mean, I think one of the issues here was not that you worked for the CIA, because that was obviously why they'd know you in the administration, but for the crime to have been committed, I understand they had to have known that you were covert. And you don't have any direct linkage that they knew that you were covert at that point.

MS. PLAME WILSON: Again, Congressman, I'm not a lawyer, but as I said at my --

REP. DAVIS: You don't have any direct knowledge that --

MS. PLAME WILSON: No.

REP. DAVIS: Okay.

What she is admitting here is that she knows of no crime committed that pertains to the IIPA.

You don't have any direct knowledge that --

... NO!

Yet her husband claims that a crime was committed and people should be frog marched out of the White house in hand cuffs and put away for life. His wife knows of no evidence that IIPA was committed. Yet on her behalf, 5 years after the fact, the nation investigates a crime that she has no evidence of. The millions of dollars spent on it, have yet to yield an indictment about specific criminal actions that her and her husband have referred to as her so called "outting". Was it a violation of the IIPA or the espionage act? How long should we wait for the indictments? If I remember right the concept of a speedy trial and due process is so the state investigates and if there is a crime they attempt to prove guilt, if they do not have a case, innocence is presumed. So how long do we wait for an indictement on a crime that the victim claims to have no knowledge of having been committed.

So Terry, when referring to the generic term, she and others might refer to her as covert, but with regard to how it applied to if she was "outted" as they say, under the terms of the IIPA, even she will not say that.

Rep. Davis asked her, about the IIPA and reiterated that it was a crime "which has a specific definition under the act." He went on to ask her "Did anyone ever tell you that you were so designated?"

Even then, Plame said no. You would think in all that time, continuing to work there and having the CIA counsel swirling around this story, that maybe one person with authority in all those years would pass by her office and say "Hey, for the record, you are currently covert, according to IIPA, and were the day Armitage outted you".

Nobody.

So she doesn't know, the Special Prosecutor may or may not know, but her husband knows. People here seem to know and furthermore are convinced without evidence that people at the white house knew.

Terry, there are people here that blow a gasket that there are those that will not make a leap of faith based on vague statements, when not even the alleged victim will not. So, isn't the best solution to have a real investigation that states unequivocally that she was "covert" as is defined by the IIPA and that the IIPA was broken? Or did Fitzgerald already do that? Having the truth come out sounds like the best solution, doesn't it?

You said:
"...I dearly hope that Fitzgerald will be given free rein to express his thoughts on his unwillingness or inability to pursue matters...."

I agree, Terry. Let the truth out. Truth to power.

Take a look upstream and notice how much attention TJ has gotten. That is his whole point! How many people have posted their ideas, many of which were thoughtful and reasonable, but TJ has taken all the attention. WE have wasted so much real estate here stating the obvious over and over, and he has essentially corrected our grammar! That's all he's got! He is a fool!

May I humbly suggest that we not play into his games? He just takes something that is true and says it isn't, and then the game is afoot. He is a troll, and a clod, and not worthy of the effort. This is my last response relating to him.

Jan Knaus

There goes Jan, showing that perception again.

"...But the point she is trying to make is that legal formalism is truth..."

Are you saying that she is being overly technical in this regard. I believe that point is key to whether a crime was committed or not. If you believe something immoral was done, but not illegal, which Larry once said, then that is worth noting.

I think the point of that line of questioning you are referring to is that it establishes the lack of evidence for a crime having been committed and if that is agreed upon, then we can move on to Plame's other suggestion and that is that congress should look at the law and see what can be done better.

On April 1, 2007 - 11:45am CVille Dem said:

John, considering the Bush administration's standard of proof, are you sure you really want to see it?

Jan, TJ referred to Bush pointing out the consequences of your/my/our policies. Now TJ is one who constantly demands proof of other's accusations or characterizations, so I'm just asking TJ what proof Bush has of the consequences he points out.

People like TJ survive in these Internet conversational forums because they attract enough people to take their bait to spoil the whole legitimate debate that might otherwise ensue. Why do people insist on responding to people like TJ? I think at least in part because he makes himself such an easy target. People can't resist expressing righteous indignation even when it is repetitive and tedious.
It certainly spoils it for those of us who are looking for some traction in these discussions.

I simply did not bother to get into this thread; reading all the drivel back and forth, so TJ has achieved his goal yet another day.

People like TJ survive in these Internet conversational forums because they attract enough people to take their bait to spoil the whole legitimate debate that might otherwise ensue. Why do people insist on responding to people like TJ? I think at least in part because he makes himself such an easy target. People can't resist expressing righteous indignation even when it is repetitive and tedious.
It certainly spoils it for those of us who are looking for some traction in these discussions.

I simply did not bother to get into this thread; reading all the drivel back and forth, so TJ has achieved his goal yet another day.

I've sure been having fun going though the flame wars and giving old TJ some well deserved zeroes. What this has accomplished, other than some transitory amusement, I am not quite certain. But it has been enjoyable, seeing as TJ is such a transparant lackey, whose estimation of his own intelligence and knowledge is so overrated as to be a source of merriment.

Keep it up, TJ. If I get bored or need some cheering up in the future I am sure I can count on you.

Glad we could have some fun together, Mr. Shep. And I appreciate the words of encouragement. I hope to see you around too. Best regards.

Where I think you are wrong -- well lets begin with not recognizing that post 1989 and the fall of the wall, it became possible to fully research Cold War Cold Cases by reading the archives of the other side, finding and interviewing their operatives, and work out the problems with conflicting narratives. Over a number of years this is precisely what Der Spiegel did in this instance and many others. If you use these cases to argue -- I think you have a profound responsibility to get them right, and that means doing the hard work of reading the German materials, evaluating the evidence, and getting the narrative close to right.

I don't have any lost love for Phillip Agee -- but he had absolutely nothing to do with leaking Welch's name and calling that to the attention of Greek Anarchists who killed Welch. Since the same November 17 group killed and harmed many other people over the years, don't you think it excellent that the Greek Authorities finally hauled them in and convicted them of Welch's Murder? What about the victims in between the murder of Welch (blamed on Agee) and the Anarchists conviction in 2004? I am wondering if we were so tied to the false narrative that we overlooked the small matter that the killers were still on the loose doing their thing for so many years. I can excuse up till the early 90's when Stasi files could be fully reviewed, and operatives debriefed -- but not afterwards. Stasi knew the Anarchists had slipped their control, and they knew it in 1976.

In your critique of my post, you fail to note that I began the narrative with sloppy tradecraft on the part of CIA. They authorized Welch to pitch the Stasi Officer in Peru, which revealed Welch's identity to Stasi in Berlin, and did not recognize the implications of that for a supposedly covert CIA Officer, whom they then moved to Athens under light cover. My own suspicion is that they began flogging Agee's name, with no proof, as a means of covering their own sloppy tradecraft at a time when CIA was looking at all the criticism from the Church and Pike Committee. They didn't want another set of nasty questions from Congress, even though their tradecraft fully deserved strong criticism. The real mistake was using a covert agent )Welch) whom they apparently planned to retain as a covert operative, to break cover and try to recruit a Stasi Officer, and assume no word of it would go back into the Berlin Files, and into the clever mind of Marcus Wolf. Thus the usefulness of the "Blame it on Agee" narrative. And by the way, the Blame it on Agee narrative first surfaced from the voice of George Herbert Walker Bush during his Senate Confirmation Hearing to head CIA. Yes, Colby later confirmed the general line of the narrative.

Barbara Bush was sued by Agee because even after the Berlin Wall had fallen, and the European press had widely reported the Der Spiegel investigative work which laid out the origin of the articles in Counterpunch and the Greek papers -- it was a Stasi operation gone wrong -- she published the claim about Agee yet again as truth for which she vouched. Her publisher was also sued. The lawyers and publishers did vast world-wide research in many languages trying to either sustain the Agee claim by Bush -- or find an instance that could be tied to Agee that would back up that claim. When they could not produce such evidence, Barbara Bush and the Publisher settled out of court and paid up. It was expensive. One reason I make this point here is that hopefully folk will understand Agee could easily sue someone else making that claim in a publication. (I don't know that a blog counts but it might.) So fair warning -- don't ignore sources with contradictory information.

By the way, I don't know David Corn -- I sometimes read him, but not uncritically. I am not aware he did any work over the years on the saga of the Welch Murder Case. I don't think he has been involved in exploring Stasi Archives, and trying to sort out truth from fiction. I do know he was the first reporter to raise the issue of whether outing Plame was a violation of the Identities Protection Act -- and I think that an important contribution to raising the temperature in DC over all this -- hey, a crime might have been committed!!! And yes, one was, and now we have a conviction and most probably, a Waxman investigation beyond the scope of the indictment. Bad acts have consequences. No quality CIA Officer, or anyone who appreciates the value of high quality intelligence products being available for policy development requirements, likes seeing these national assets treated as political chump change by high level elected officials and their appointees.

"The coverup is all there is?"

huh??

"The US Attorneys purge has been an attempt to pervert the courts into an arm of the Republican campaign for dominance, notably through suppression of opposition vote."

uhh... pretty much my point: using partisan and political pressure to distort and pervert the search for truth.

in the case of the CIA leak, the 'search for truth' is covert intelligence gathering (regarding 'weapons of mass destruction' in particular).

in the case of the US attorneys purge, the 'search for truth' is criminal investigation and prosecution (regarding political corruption and election rigging in particular).

in both cases the administration was 'using partisan and political pressure to distort and prevent the search for truth'.

Indianleftie:

Welcome to TPMCafe, seeing that you've been a member for a little over one day, I thought I'd help you get up to speed.

. . . lets see if we can respond to his criticisms rationally.

"It's either that or you'll get the sound of crickets."

Oh dear, the crickets! -- well I am an old lady who doesn't walk so well, but lives with about 8000 books, and I've trained my resident loving Siberian Husky to eat things like that, put remains on the floor in front of the cookie jar, and then come ask for the appropriate reward. Putting research up that anyone can replicate does not bother me at all. From open source information anyone could figure this out.

But my point is Toensing's point has no connection to the point under contention - Congress wasnt questioning whether Plame was covert under IIPA - Congress was questioning how did a CIA officer's covert status, whether it was under IIPA or any other statute, leaked out. The idea of a covert officer can be likened to a police informant - perhaps a police informant is not covert under IIPA, but he should be protected nevertheless! Now, even if Toensing were to have the travel details of Plame to counter whether Plame "resided" abroad or not, it has no bearing on why several political aide's would leak her name to the press!!!

Olden, I dub you The Smithsonian of TPM. :-)

On April 1, 2007 - 10:38pm lenski said:

I find rep. Davis' line of questioning fairly interesting, if a bit partisan. It seems he is trying to give cover to the administration by asking whether the CIA failed to make her status clear in every paragraph, every sentence of communication with the administration. It seemed to be an effort to try to lay the blame at the hands of the CIA by failing to make her status (covert) and employment status (classified) clear enough to convince the administration to keep quiet about her status rather than releasing all of it to the press.

Is this not the pattern with this Administration; get caught with your hand in the cookie jar then point the finger at someone else, or at least cloud the issue in some way as Davis tried to do?

Look at what Davis tried to set up:

1- Agent outed

2- CIA sends referral to Justice

3- CIA at fault for outing of CIA

4- Bush gang just innocent bystanders.

Everytime they try to blame someone else for their dishonesty, complicity, and/or incompetence, it backfires, as in the newest case, the firing of the U S Attorneys.

Fortunately for the country, but unfortunately for the Bush gang, they're learing what 'oversight' means. Sad to say it took so long and the price we have to pay for the malfeasance of the Republican Congress is steep.

Right!!! So all Toensing did was to muddy the waters and encourage partisanship during the hearing and shed no light on the issues being debated!

Many people have referred to my responses to others that are cursing me as disrespectful or the fact that I told Larry that his foul language and personal attacks are offensive and unproductive. Some have denied he uses offensive language and others have encouraged him to use more profanity. His article about Toensing knowing "Dick" and the title of his last article about Senator McCain being a "bastard" shows that he relies on profanity more often than not. I think noting his unproductive obsecenities is a worthy topic of discussion and if you disagree fine, but that does not make me disrespectful or engaging in ad hominem attacks.

If you want to ignore, cscs, knock yourself out.

The following is the first comment on the thread. Scroll to the top and read it yourself.

On April 2, 2007 - 12:28am mjshep said:

I've sure been having fun going though the flame wars and giving old TJ some well deserved zeroes. What this has accomplished, other than some transitory amusement, I am not quite certain. But it has been enjoyable, seeing as TJ is such a transparant lackey, whose estimation of his own intelligence and knowledge is so overrated as to be a source of merriment.

Keep it up, TJ. If I get bored or need some cheering up in the future I am sure I can count on you.

Rated 5 by 3 users. see individual ratings
reply | write to author | link |

On April 2, 2007 - 1:45am TJKING said:

Glad we could have some fun together, Mr. Shep. And I appreciate the words of encouragement. I hope to see you around too. Best regards.

Rated 0 by one user. see individual ratings

Thanks for your clarification. I enjoyed your response.

Well, don't hold your breath. TJ never provides proof; he just blathers on and picks out words to argue about.

My point was that what the prez and TJ consider proof, such as the infamous 16 words, (which simply stated that ENGLAND thought something - even though our own CIA disagreed) - normal people disregard as a way to tell a lie the way an adolescent tells lies.

Jan Knaus

And for those rating police hereabout thinking that I'm wasting bandwidth, read all that crap above.

Aww come on, fellow. Some of us have weak stomachs not to mention a cataract that would surely worsen. You ask a hell of a lot.

May I suggest something?

Though it's a pain to have to sift through the rubbish, it's also nice to know that censors aren't trying to turn Democrats into goose-steppers as happens elsewhere.

Sometimes even responses to the like of TJ are valuable.

Thank you to all those who dig through the muck that some of us are unwilling to do.

Say doesn't somebody else around here do some muckraking? :-)

Best, Terry

I usually find myself in agreement with Brent, however, as compelling a list as he compiles of threats to our intelligence and security communities, it still rankles me that nothing is being done about what can only be described as the traitorous act of outing a covert US agent.

I'm certainly no expert, but I wonder why Robert Novak hasn't been charged. He certainly knew exactly what he was doing and what the intelligence consequences were. Why this quisling should retain a job in the press completely escapes me.

TJKing

I must apologize for my comments. With so many vulgarities being tossed around, I just assumed the hole was a vulgarity. My mistake and once again my apologies.

I also appreaciate your sticking to the debate and giving another perspective on the debate than just jumping on to the leftist wagon! (Although, I dont know whether you are a liberal or conservative and as far as I am concerned doesnt really matter as long as we stick to the issues)

Thanks for your nice replies to my earlier comments.

This is not debate; it is denial.

Repeating ad nauseum that Wilson lied is beyond tiresome--more like a reason to demand satisfaction in the old way. Deniers have yet to explain why the WH staff so thoroughly failed their security clearance reponsilbilities. The best they can do is hope to muddy the water re:Plame's status.

There should be no debate on this---the lies, or putting it charitably, the delusions of those obssessed with invading Iraq have led to thousands of dead people, millions of refugees, and a ruined foriegn policy. Anyone still defending this idiocy, even at the margins, is beyond reasonable conversation.

"...Where I think you are wrong -- well lets begin with not recognizing that post 1989 and the fall of the wall..."

OK, I am guilty of not knowing everything in the Stasi archives. I'm not sure that makes me "totally" wrong, but I will say I really enjoy the attention to detail you have regarding the Stasi and would really enjoy some more links and sources.

There is a long history of people defending Phillip Agee. Some defend him because they think he is a hero of the left, some defend him because they want to point out misstatements by those on the right that they want to discredit and others don't really care for him much, but just want to clarify the record based on facts. I would imagine that you fall into that latter category. If I criticize Agee or his colleagues, please know that I am not associating them with you. A more recent bizarre category of Agee defenders is the "Bush family mafia" conspiracy theorists, that claim Bush 41 actually killed Welch and/or used it to bolster his new position at CIA.

Just so we can get some clarification here, let me review and you can pick out the specifics of my timeline that you don't think are true. When you say, "I don't have any lost love for Phillip Agee -- but he had absolutely nothing to do with leaking Welch's name and calling that to the attention of Greek Anarchists who killed Welch.", I would be interested to hear more about why you think this. I think there is ample proof that Agee, who's raison d'etre was to release names of covert CIA agents, did actually release Welch's name.

Agee was founder and editor of "Counterspy" magazine. According to many sources, Counterspy listed Welch twice in the year before Welch was killed. If some have argued that Agee didn't personally place the name in the list, then I think that is a weak defense. He placed between 400 and 1000 names of CIA covert agents in his lists depending what source you use. His magazine and book were for that sole reason. It has been noted that Welch's name came up in a who's who list in the 60s. His name was listed in the Greek paper the month before. It has also been noted that he moved into the former CIA station chiefs home, which I'm not sure is that reckless assuming that he should be covert too. Here is some background on the amount of published information about Welch before his death, this is from an Agee friend, Daniel Brandt, so I do not give him much credence but, considering that in Agee's defense he includes information about published information, I include it here.

"...Since the same November 17 group killed and harmed many other people over the years, don't you think it excellent that the Greek Authorities finally hauled them in and convicted them of Welch's Murder? ..."

Yes, I agree it is very satisfying to see murderers being brought to justice, especially in this case. Unfortunately Welch's and 4 others murders were not included in the hundreds of counts, because of the statute of limitations.

For starters, I will agree in part with Colby and others that The CIA could have done better in protecting Welch's identity. When High profile Democrats that felt like Republicans were using Agee to sabotage Church/Pike, claimed this point, the response from Republicans was to ask if the Democrats were claiming that it was the CIAs fault. Ironically, the same dialogue occurs today but with the sides switched. Let's agree, allowing covert assets to make contact with others, especially when conveying messages to others after revealing their relationship with the company, always draws a risk. There are times when CIA operatives need to approach others on behalf of the agency. If Welch did that and assumed he could remain covert, that would not be completely unheard of. If you are assuming that Markus Wolf and the Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (HVA) set up a contract to kill Welch, I'd like to know their motive. Do you have any links on that? The KGB and Stasi didn't just go around killing station chiefs if it did not have a specified benefit to them. We know now N17 was not really a movement as much as a mafia-like family. They were basically two families and some close family friends many of which were the sons of Orthodox clergy. Are you saying the HVA passed on the name directly to N17 in anticipation of his murder or just passed it to them and N17 acted completely on their own?

Clinton Officials Les Aspin and Morton Halperin (father of Mark Halperin of ABC) had made the claim that Welch was already outted. Halperin has been an ardent defender and close ally of Agee in the years after the Murder. Halperin is a close aide to George Soros and his organizations shared resources with CAIB which is Agee's organization that he used to funnel his influence to and from the KGB and the Cuban spy network. Agee also had relationships with Marxist groups in Europe, Pakastani drug dealers, the PLO, and the Venceremos brigade which was a group of American communists that also worked for Castro and the KGB. Leslie Cagan, leader of UFPJ, the largest American Anti-war group today, was a member of Venceremos Brigade. He also was active in the Dutch organization Transnational Institute that also protected fellow Cuban agent Orlando">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Letelier">Orlando Letelier, who later would be assasinated in Washington, D.C. Robert Novak received a leak that he had been carrying a briefcase with documents showing he was paid by the Cubans and was linked to deposed Sal. Allende's daughter who was married to the Cuban DGI. Their covert operation was meant to funnel money from Cuba for disinformation and was targeted at the new Pinochet government and paid money from Cuba to insert misinformation in American Newpapers with the help of Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) (Noam Chomsky's organization). The Cuban operation Novak reported on did not get much press coverage. As I mentioned earlier, after signing on with Cuban intelligence, Agee later operated in Grenada and Nicaraugua. He still lives in Cuba. I mentioned David Corn's remarks about Agee and it was basically in the context of his book on Ted Schackley.

When Shackley was recalled to Langley, in February of 1972, he was put in charge of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division. One of Shackley's most important projects was to stop Philip Agee, an ex-CIA officer who was writing a book on the CIA. Ironically, to get close to Agee, who was living in Paris and was broke, a CIA agent gave Agee money. Although this allowed the CIA to see parts of the manuscript before it was printed, Agee later said that without the money he might not have been able to finish Inside the Company, his expose on the CIA. In addition to the covert operation against Agee, Shackley also inherited an operation that was funneling money to right wing opponents of Salvador Allende, in Chile. Eventually Allende was overthrown.

It should be made clear, Agee made the magazine, formed CAIB and wrote several books for the primary purpose of uncovering CIA covert agents. The Welch incident was not an isolated incident. It was quite funny that when I went to look at the copy of Barbara Bush's 1994 "a Memoir", mine is a paperback. I read some of the chapter (p. 143) and she says, "George always felt that this gentle Greek scholar's death resulted from the publication of his CIA affiliation in Counter-Spy, a notorious anti-CIA publication." This didn't fit with what I had read she had said in many sources. Then I read on Amazon and I remembered, it said that after the Lawsuit where she claimed Agee mentioned Welch in his book, she changed it in the paperback version. This was part of the settlement. I would assume that this sentance showing that Counterspy published it was accepted by Agee since it was part of the settlement. For what its worth his list of covert agents in his book covers 30 pages. I would like to see more information on the Barbara Bush case, but It appears as though if her editors had not included the part about Welch appearing in his book and had only stated that Agee had publicized Welch's name, she would have won her case.

Again, if Agee argues that no one saw him put the name in the magazine, when he is founder and editor and has outted 1000 other names and claims that this is his number one goal, that is a pretty poor defense. If Barbara Bush claimed his name was in the book and it wasn't then I could see why she would have a difficult case.

My point is, I think its clear, Phil Agee was a traitor to his country. If someone does not think so, then the meaning of the word has no meaning. He proclaimed his desire to publish the names of agents knowing they would be in danger. Welch was murdered in front of his wife in Athens by three marxist members of N17. If as Brandt argued that a priest in Peru knew his identity, or The Stasi knew or even the KGB knew, that doesn't mean that Phil Agee through his efforts and his magazines efforts did not result in or contribute to the murder. The group that stabbed Caesar shared blame, they didn't defer blame. Agee outted Welch and he was murdered. You mention that I should be careful or I might be sued. I would consider it one of the highlights of my life to have a Marxist traitor like Phil Agee try to sue me.

"...And by the way, the Blame it on Agee narrative first surfaced from the voice of George Herbert Walker Bush during his Senate Confirmation Hearing to head CIA. Yes, Colby later confirmed the general line of the narrative...."

I know that claiming that a member of the CIA used deception is not necessarily an accusation of a character flaw since that is their business and sometimes their duty, but are you claiming that Colby is lying here?

Colby admitted to Les Aspin that within days, he as director, was aware of calls from the Agency blaming Agee. Bush was not the director yet. If you have a quote, I would be interested, but from what I know the murder happened on December 24 and the confirmation hearings had recessed for the New Year by the time it hit the papers, Bush went to Maine, but if I am wrong, please share.

I loved this line that Joe Biden always uses. "...In further debate on the day of the vote, January 27, Senator Biden joined other Democrats in assailing Bush as "the wrong appointment for the wrong job at the wrong time...."

Agee's co-author Louis Wolf (any relation to Markus??) is a marxist author that also has experience with outting CIA agents that were subsequently attacked
.

In 1980, Louis Wolf, co-editor of the Covert Action Information Bulletin, publicly claimed 15 U.S. officials in
Jamaica were CIA. He provided addresses and telephone numbers, information not
considered “classified.” Within a week two of those named were attacked

Phillip Agee and Wolf are still putting out propaganda in favor of Marxist regimes, especially Cuba and Hugo Chavez. Agee still quotes in his byline his goal to destabilize the CIA. Here is a sample of his recent work

I have heard many people over the years portray the Welch funeral as a propaganda campaign waged by sneaky Republicans trying to undercut the Churh Pike hearings and take back the Intelligence community. First of all, let's note that when this argument is made by the left, it is an accusation that Republicans are "obstructing a valiant campaign of the left that was destined for noble results." I think thats wrong on a number of different counts. First of all here was a letter from GHWB to his siblings upon the news that he would lead the CIA.

Dear Pres, Buck, Nancy, John,

Pardon my joint message.It occurs to me that my controversial new job may cause concern-if not for you, to some of your kids. No, I can't see (5 year old) Billy bitching about the CIA to his peers, but for the older ones, it might not be easy.

I did not seek this controversial job. It came to me-one week ago-short fuse reply.

It's a graveyard for politics, and it is perhaps the toughest job in government right now due to abuses of the past on the one hand, and an effort to weaken our capability on the other. Besides, it's not always a clean and lovely business.

I am convinced it is important.
I know we will be thrust into ugly controversy-my intentions and character will be questioned.
But overriding all this is what I perceive to be a fundamental need for intelligence capability second to none. It's a tough, mean world and we must stay strong. My year here(China) has given me a chance to think and to observe. We have got to stay strong.
When the cable came in I thought of "Big Dad" - what would he do, what would he tell his kids- I think he would have said, "Its your duty."

It's my duty and I 'll do it.
I love you all.

[From Barbara Bush, a memoir 1994, (p. 141). ]

That doesn't sound like a man planning to kill a CIA agent in Greece, to initiate a covert plan to expand the CIA and take over the world. His mention of the younger generation of Bush's reminds me of how negative the attacks on the Intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the US government had become, and had no one stepped forward to aid in the reform an Agency like CIA could have suffered a free fall which would satisfy Marxist spies like Phil Agee just fine. Ironically, Bush's acknowledgement of the kiss of death politically the job was, came up in his hearings:

"...[Senator]Stennis responded with a joke that sounds eerie in retrospect: "If I thought that you were seeking the Vice Presidential nomination or Presidential nomination by way of the route of being Director of the CIA, I would question you judgment most severely." There was laughter in the committee room...."

Bush didn't want the job, but his family legacy of public service and duty compelled him to accept the job. Barbara Bush tells the story of the last day of confirmations, the last witness to appear to trash her husband and the CIA in general was a spokesperson for the World Socialist's party. It was late, the room was empty except for a lone senator, George Bush, his wife in the audience, a camera man and his aide and the witness. And as the man droned on with accusations and false claims against her husband, She realized that after a year in Mao Tze Tung's communist China, She sat in wonderment at the sight and counted her blessing that her government encouraged this kind of dissent and the philosophy of the witness created a country like China that did not.

I think the conspiracy theories about GWHB are laughable.

I know you have researched this topic extensively and I find your ideas fascinating, so I hope I haven't tossed too much stuff into the mix, but please share with me some links about the specific nature of Stasi actions and if you think Agee and his magazine did not "out" Welch and why? I included enough stuff so you can tell me which points are wrong.

I think Phil Agee is a wicked person that has hurt a lot of people. To this day, from his safe house in Cuba, he still wants to undercut our country and he says so clearly and boldly. I do not think it is far fetched to say he is responsible for the death of Richard Welch. I think it is hard to deny that he at least contributed to his death. Criticizing his government went from dissent to an exaggerated mission of treason, and I never use that word lightly.

I appreciate your response and look forward to your ideas.

Actually I did try pretty hard to figure out Anthrax. I googled "anthrax republican", "Anthrax rush" "Anthrax treason". Nothing. I get it now. It's actually kind of clever.

"... (I'm remembering yesterday when I heard Pat Leahy thank Orrin Hatch on Orrin's happy birthday wishes.)..."

It's hard to believe that Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy are best friends. After Kennedy's nephew was charged with rape, Kennedy sat down in Hatches office and asked him to help him quit drinking. Talk about an odd couple.

"...However, I would like to preserve the possibility that what you express as polemics may or may not be in American's best interest. Fair enough? It's just laying out the terrain for debate, and I agree with you that debate is a good thing and should be encouraged...."

Fair enough. When the Senators walk on to the floor, they are there presumably to do what's best for their country. Implicit in that is that their opponents are proposing ideas that are not. There is a big difference between saying their congressional opponents are "intentionally " not acting in the interest of their country and saying they are making poor choices.

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "Democrats think Republicans are evil, Republicans think Democrats are mistaken". If every time a congressional opponent focused on the other side working against his nations best interest, there would never be a civilized forum for debate. We would end up like those Taiwanese slugfests in their legislature. Even my British friend tells me how amazed they are at how cordial and deferential our politicians are on the floor.

In the same interview, Leahy sat and listened to Hatch raise his voice and he came back with:

"... LEAHY: Well, this is one of the things we're trying to -- trying to point out. We know that Carol Lam, uh, who, uh, Orrin angrily dismisses, and I'm sorry he has to get so angry so early in the morning, but --..."

I thought it was kind of funny.

Anyway, I agree with the gist of your point and hope we can attempt to emulate the cordiality as well.

Thanks for your response.

I just couldn't get through it. This thread is lost.
Can't someone ban 'it'!

I do not speak for Mr. Johnson, nor have I've seen the references you are referring to, but I too sometimes resort to referencing acts of sodomy, and consider this to be neither gratuitous or unsubstantiated. Furthermore, I consider it to be an authorized usage of rhetorical force in defense of the Dreamtime America, because it seems that far too many contemporary conservatives now hide trembling from their self-fantasized terror in bomb shelters created by reenforcing their skulls with blast walls, making their minds impenetratable by conventional methods, in a herculean effort to keep the vacuity that exists between their ears protected from logic's invasion, and assure its purity is not subverted by a rational insurgency.

You shriek in horror about poor ole Scooter, but your justification is flawed at its very foundations. Even if all that you allege about Fitzgerald, Rove, Armitage, etc is correct, even if the import of the investigation's cause has been greatly inflated, the facts remain: the investigation was an official inquiry well within the government's sphere of proper concern and control, which is the protection of human intelligence assets who have voluntarily, out of a sense of duty to our country, placed themselves without the normal protections given to the more common types of intelligence gatherers. There is no question that the political right supports governmental actions intended to achieve this end, excepting it seems, when it is one of them in the hot seat. One of the many examples of contemporary conservatism's core hypocrisy: this belief that the foundational principle of personal responsibility isn't applicable to them, but is instead only a tool designed to whip welfare mothers.

Libby intentionally lied under oath during an official government investigation, and subsequent grand jury process started as part of that investigation. Even if your allegation of others' culpability is true, it is not germane when considering Libby's conviction, unless you are positing that two wrongs make a righty.

I have attempted prior to this to respond without indignation to you complaints. I pointed you to the 1998 Supreme Court Case; Brogan v U.S., a decision which I felt at the time it was published would open the door to prosecutorial overreach. The decision was written by Antonin Scalia, and at times was bitingly sarcastic. It was heartily endorsed by the Federalist Society. On what grounds of absurdity do conservatives now claim the right to question this decision's applicability in Libby's case? Yet, you never responded, and have continued on with the same tergiversate complaints.

Now your claims of "gutter mouth rants, unsourced allegations and repeated references to sodomy", cause me to become angered by the preponderance of your insensibilities, and the intelligence failure making you unable to comprehend the big picture: that this present Administration's mendacity, cronyism, serial vitiation of personal honour, proclivity to engage in acts of juvenile vengefulness, defamation of American Ideals, repetitive breaking of their sworn oaths to defend and protect, tyrannical assertions of legality in their existence without the Constitution's Controls, preaching the righteousness of American heresy, expressions of a ten year old's morality embodied within their incessant attempts to justify acts of impropriety with "but BillyJeff did it first", the presentation of conjectures as facts which justified war, and equivocating on their theft of rights they have never possessed a legitimate authority to control, which led directly to abuses of humans detained under the Color of Authority Imparted by the American Flag; my flag, damn-it, and I add, your flag too. All of this, and much much more must cease and be reversed.

Still you feebly grasp at imaginary straws which are blown in the winds of this dark sirocco of evil made manifest by the Bush Presidency, and cannot understand why anyone could possibly confront you with visualisations of sodomy? Here then, have another sodomy reference thrown into your face. but one that is not a "gutter mouth rant", and is sourced with citation of fact:

Within the Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade,
commonly referred to as The "Taguba Report" on Abu Ghraib,
Part One (Detainee Abuse); Findings; can be found:

• 5. That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force...
• 6. I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
  • a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
  • b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
  • c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
  • d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
  • e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;
  • f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
  • g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
  • h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
  • i. Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
  • j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;
  • k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
  • l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
  • m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
• 8. In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses:
  • a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
  • b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
  • c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
  • d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
  • e. Threatening male detainees with rape;
  • f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;
  • g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
  • h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

I am not claiming that rules promulgated by the Administration included written authorization and instructions for using The Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment® as an interrogatory methodology, but consider how many, if any, of the above stated findings reached to the level of torture under Bybee's definition, which was also approved by Gonzales and the rest of the Bush Administration. They claim they have clean hands in all of this, but the evidence remains upon those latex gloves they put on when the public is not around. Why must we be subjected to their repeated denials of responsibility?

Worse are the pundits who muse about an Arab lack of stomach for lame sexual pranks. Even more reprehensible are the elected federal politicians who have worked hard to obfuscate the facts. Here are two notable examples:

After Gen. Taguba had presented his report to the Senate Armed Services Committee's hearing on the the treatment of Iraqi Prisoners, on May 11, 2004, Sen James Inhofe (R-Ok) entered into the hearing's public record:

"...as I watch this outrage -- this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners -- I have to say, and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."

Congressman Duncan Hunter(R-El Cajon), has worked hard to trivialize and downplay Detainee Abuses, and to deflect the flow of responsibility through its proper course. On May 20, 2004, some of this was reported:

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, has had more than enough of the news media and congressional fixation on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and on what he calls "the seven bad apples" being charged with prisoner abuse.

[. . .]

Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, got considerable notice this week when he appeared to engage in a spat with his Senate counterpart, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who is holding hearings.

Hunter was disturbed by Warner's use of the Senate Armed Services Committee to conduct high-profile hearings on Abu Ghraib. Hunter said it forced the two top generals responsible for Iraq - Army Gen. John Abizaid and Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez - to leave their troops.

[. . .]

But, a spokesman for the Central Command, which is responsible for Iraq, and a military analyst said modern high-tech communications allow the top officers to stay in contact with their commands wherever they are.

[. . .]

In the interview and in debates on the House floor, Hunter rejected the complaints that Congress had failed to investigate the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers.

"We've looked into this," he said, referring to his committee. "We had four hearings on this," with witnesses from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on down. "We've given more time to these bad apples ... than to any weapon."

"It's a matter of balance," Hunter said in the interview.

[. . .]

"We need to refocus on this war," Hunter said.

Otto Kreisher, Copley News Service, "Hunter lashes out at focus on prison abuse", San Diego Union Tribune, May 20, 2004

So sorry Mr. Hunter, but I must vigorously disagree, what this country needs is the unregenerate Bush apologists to refocus on what it means to be American. To facilitate this end I propose a free treatment be given to them: A Chemical Light Stick of GOP Enlightenment® properly inserted under the watchful observations of Official Bush Man Dates, as it is obvious, their minds eyes need illumination in those deep dark caverns they pitifully exist within.

I cannot speak of Mr. Johnson's intents, but I suspect his reasons for making the references you mentioned, broadly follow along the same lines of reasoning.

...what you refer to as "repeating ad nauseum" and "tiresome" is me refusing to be convinced of your argument. If I have beliefs and they are not swayed by your arguments, I am not necessarily to blame for your "nauseum" or "tiredness".

And while you are refusing, you are repeating "ad nauseum". Enough already, we know your arguments, you know ours, nobody is swayed by yours and you are not swayed by ours.

Which begs the question, why do you continue to make your arguments here when there are scores of other sites that would be far more welcoming to your views? If your answer is the debate thing you claim to enjoy, consider yourself well debated and move on. Why stay here and take the abuse you take when at this stage it has moved far beyond any hopes of a reasonable debate between you and the other posters on this subject?

Are you by any chance related to Scooter or is it something really personal against Larry Johnson? Speaking of which, you don't even have seixon here this time to help in your hopeless battle. What gives, TJ, to keep you in this battle here?

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

On April 2, 2007 - 11:40pm TJKING said:

Anyway, I agree with the gist of your point and hope we can attempt to emulate the cordiality as well.

"cordiality", heh heb heh, AFTER he got the following shot in:

It's hard to believe that Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy are best friends. After Kennedy's nephew was charged with rape, Kennedy sat down in Hatches office and asked him to help him quit drinking. Talk about an odd couple.

"Cordiality, heh heh heh. :-)

It was not intended as a shot, John. It was admiration for two Americans that can look past their differences and try to be civil.

Orrin Hatch, the conservative Utah Republican who is also a Mormon, tells this story with what he describes as "a tremendous brotherly affection." Two days before the Senate adjourned in October 1988, Hatch took a call from Frank Madsen, a former aide who had moved to Boston to supervise 200 young Mormon missionaries. Would Hatch come speak to them? Would he bring Kennedy? Would he ask Kennedy to reserve Faneuil Hall for the event?

With some misgivings, Hatch agreed to try. Shortly before midnight, he found Kennedy and Chris Dodd in the Capitol. Neither was feeling any pain.

"Ted, I've got a favor to ask."

Kennedy wrapped an arm around Hatch. "Done!"

Hatch held up a restraining hand. "No, hear me out. You remember my aide, Frank Madsen -- "

"Great fellow! Great fellow!"

"He's now in Boston -- "

"My home town! My home town!"

Hatch eventually made his request. Kennedy assented. Hatch returned to his office, typed out the agreement and sent it to Kennedy's office. The next day, Hatch spied Kennedy reading the memo. "Orrin," Kennedy called in mock horror, "what else did I agree to?" Three months later, in January 1989, Hatch and Kennedy stood elbow-to-elbow in Faneuil Hall, addressing the Mormon missionaries.

I'd give PseudoCyAnts a 10 for this post, if I could. A 200 if it also ran TJ off of this subject.

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

Tom, I read the Washington Post article and I can't imagine what you are referring to as denial. Peter Eisner is still trying to pitch the idea 5 years after the fact that the 16 words claimed "a sale" of Uranium had taken place, when in fact it says he "sought" uranium. Secondly, the entire article from beginning to end claims that the 16 words were based on the forged documents and that has been proven wrong again and again. That is the official position of the CIA as well.

I'm sorry but the verbs in the 16 words are "had learned" and "sought". The verb "sale" or "bought" do not appear in the 16 words. Can you see why a reasonable person might consider that article a bit deceptive?

Seashell, I was aware that Hatch was the driving force in getting Kennedy to stop drinking, I saw Kennedy tell that story in an interview long ago.

If I were to tell it I would have saw no need to mention Kennedy's nephew or "rape." :-)

I use: Bush wears a 38qt Stetson, but that hook seems to fly high over the heads.

Apparently you were not aware that Armitage showed the document to Woodward.

Apparently you spend too much timereading NatReview, WND, Newsmax, Drudge, or maybe some/all of the above. Armitage did not show Woodward any document, as their communication was over the phone:

At one point, Woodward interrupted one of the lawyers in the case so that he could recite his rationale for testifying.

"Mr. Armitage has released me and said I can testify about it," Woodward said. "He's gone so far as to request that I testify and offer information."

In one of the more remarkable moments of the trial, defense attorneys played portions of an audiotape Woodward had made of his interview with Armitage in June 2003, in which the senior State Department official disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, during an exchange that was edited for jurors, deleting expletives.

Greg Miller, "Libby trial reveals the politics of reporting", Los Angeles Times, February 15, 2007

Also, if you carefully read the above excerpt, you'll note, that
Armitage went much further than just releasing Woodward, he personally requested that Woodward testify in the Grand Jury. What an evil man Mr. Armitage is, for fully cooperating voluntarily, even bringing down the home PC without first being subpoenaed, and throughout it all, never once getting all lawyered up.

Not sure which of your posts to answer, so...I picked one. I'm not denying Hatch was the driving force, but who went to whom and under what circumstances? (Although I will admit it gets into the trivial aspect, but I'm still curious).

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

On April 2, 2007 - 11:15pm neoboho said:

While I'm being all councilliatory, I remind you that I have given you examples that you requested.

TJ asked for proof, you provided proof. TJ cherry picked the Ashcroft quote for obvious reasons.
He did of course, ignore the John Boehner (minority LEADER) quote.

SOP for TJ