NY Times making war on terror tougher -

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Answer MY question. I'm still waiting, slanderer. You've done nothing but attempt to squirm away from what I've asked you to provide. You know what I'm talking about, too.

[DKW 86 7,439]

[Tiger Al 0]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

If it's Valerie Plame you're talking about, she wasn't undercover or covert. As a matter of fact, her own husband outed her in a magazine before any of this came to light.

[MDM4AU 336]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

244657[/snapback]

That arguement is falling apart daily. Nice try. Play again soon.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

244657[/snapback]

That arguement is falling apart daily. Nice try. Play again soon.

244667[/snapback]

Tiger Al, you know they don't care about facts, or even the principle they claim to care about here:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2602069_pf.html

[MDM4AU 336]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

244657[/snapback]

That arguement is falling apart daily. Nice try. Play again soon.

244667[/snapback]

Tiger Al, you know they don't care about facts, or even the principle they claim to care about here:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2602069_pf.html

244676[/snapback]

Who is "they?" Either call me out specifically or don't call me at all. I don't know who "they" are. I see your article and take it into consideration. But just as there is that article regarding Novak, there has been just as much information contrary to that account. Believe what you want, that's your prerogative. There is still evidence that is contrary to that article. If it all comes out that you are right, then I will be "outraged" at those parties. You on the other hand would rather just blame Bush and Co. because you hate them.

BTW, have you answered TIS?

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

244657[/snapback]

That arguement is falling apart daily. Nice try. Play again soon.

244667[/snapback]

Tiger Al, you know they don't care about facts, or even the principle they claim to care about here:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2602069_pf.html

244676[/snapback]

Who is "they?" Either call me out specifically or don't call me at all. I don't know who "they" are. I see your article and take it into consideration. But just as there is that article regarding Novak, there has been just as much information contrary to that account. Believe what you want, that's your prerogative. There is still evidence that is contrary to that article. If it all comes out that you are right, then I will be "outraged" at those parties. You on the other hand would rather just blame Bush and Co. because you hate them.

BTW, have you answered TIS?

244683[/snapback]

If you have evidence that the CIA did not consider her undercover, then please share it and I'll consider it.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Answer MY question. I'm still waiting, slanderer. You've done nothing but attempt to squirm away from what I've asked you to provide. You know what I'm talking about, too.

244636[/snapback]

If you are going to ask for the same response in two different threads, be intelligent enough to check in both places you have asked.

[Tiger Al 0]

If it's Valerie Plame you're talking about, she wasn't undercover or covert. As a matter of fact, her own husband outed her in a magazine before any of this came to light.

244663[/snapback]

You seem to be a lot more in the know than the CIA, because they did their own investigation and subsequently asked the DoJ to get the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation into the matter. Why would they ask the FBI to investigate something that wasn't a criminal act? Are youy saying that the CIA doesn't even know the status of its own people?

The 'alleged' magazine article you mentioned shouldn't be too hard for you to produce...as a matter of fact, hmm?

[Tiger Al 0]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

244657[/snapback]

That arguement is falling apart daily. Nice try. Play again soon.

244667[/snapback]

How does it fall apart??? If leaks that compromise national security are bad, then they should be bad no matter who the leaker is or who the media outlet is.

[MDM4AU 336]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

244657[/snapback]

That arguement is falling apart daily. Nice try. Play again soon.

244667[/snapback]

How does it fall apart??? If leaks that compromise national security are bad, then they should be bad no matter who the leaker is or who the media outlet is.

244716[/snapback]

Not saying it wasn't wrong. There is no concrete proof on whodunit and there is still a debate over if she was or wasn't outed. There is not a direct connection to the Bush Administration having a knowing hand in it yet. If it comes down to it and Cheney was the actual "outer" then prosecute. I'm not going to defend him just because I am a Cheyney supporter. If it is decided that noone outed her then that should be it. I am not going to play politics with such an imporatnt matter as National Security. Wrong is wrong regardless of whcich side of the aisle you support (or in the case of many on this board which side you hate.)

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Where was the outrage when the Bush administration and Bob Novak outed an undercover CIA operative?

244657[/snapback]

That arguement is falling apart daily. Nice try. Play again soon.

244667[/snapback]

How does it fall apart??? If leaks that compromise national security are bad, then they should be bad no matter who the leaker is or who the media outlet is.

244716[/snapback]

Not saying it wasn't wrong. There is no concrete proof on whodunit and there is still a debate over if she was or wasn't outed. There is not a direct connection to the Bush Administration having a knowing hand in it yet. If it comes down to it and Cheney was the actual "outer" then prosecute. I'm not going to defend him just because I am a Cheyney supporter. If it is decided that noone outed her then that should be it. I am not going to play politics with such an imporatnt matter as National Security. Wrong is wrong regardless of whcich side of the aisle you support (or in the case of many on this board which side you hate.)

244719[/snapback]

There is really no question that she was undercover-- that is why the CIA referred it to the Justice Department. There is really no question that she was "outed" by the Bush administration. There may be a question as to whether certain people who talked about her knew her undercover status-- or at least that part may be the most difficult to prove.

[AURaptor 1,126]

There is really no question that she was "outed" by the Bush administration.

Except that it wasn't the Bush administration that 'outed' Val Plame. I'd call that a 'question'.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

There is really no question that she was "outed" by the Bush administration.

Except that it wasn't the Bush administration that 'outed' Val Plame. I'd call that a 'question'.

244731[/snapback]

The tooth fairy did it?

[Tigermike 3,048]

Dean Baquet and Bill Keller have published their latest attempt to explain their disclosure of classified information.

We have correspondents today alongside troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others risk their lives in a quest to understand the terrorist threat; Daniel Pearl of The Wall Street Journal was murdered on such a mission. We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism.

But the virulent hatred espoused by terrorists, judging by their literature, is directed not just against our people and our buildings. It is also aimed at our values, at our freedoms and at our faith in the self-government of an informed electorate. If the freedom of the press makes some Americans uneasy, it is anathema to the ideologists of terror.

---

Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.

In recent years our papers have brought you a great deal of information the White House never intended for you to know -- classified secrets about the questionable intelligence that led the country to war in Iraq, about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the transfer of suspects to countries that are not squeamish about using torture, about eavesdropping without warrants.

As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of The Washington Post, asked recently in the pages of that newspaper: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?"

Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat.

How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?

Sometimes the judgments are easy. Our reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, take great care not to divulge operational intelligence in their news reports, knowing that in this wired age it could be seen and used by insurgents.

Often the judgments are painfully hard. In those cases, we cool our competitive jets and begin an intensive deliberative process.

There is a lot that could be said in response to the excerpt above and even more in the full editorial, but I will just address the following for now: "Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price." If it were true that the NYT had been doing their job, and bringing their readers unbiased, balanced and comprehensive information to enable them to make intelligent decisions, then I doubt there would have been as great an uproar (and questioning of their motivation) over the most recent disclosures of classified material. Instead, the NYT, and many other mainstream media outlets, have often treated the Bush administration as a greater threat to America than that posed by jihadist terrorists. If the history of the NYT's coverage of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror was not what it was and if their past coverage of this President had not been what it has been, their latest statement might be more believable.

I have a question for the NYTimes and the libs who defend them, "Why should we trust you?"

Yawwwn....do these guy's lawyers know that they are refusing their right to "remain silent".

Want it both ways. Well guys, if Secretary Snow showed you guys around the program in 2003, then why all the "secret reporting" here in 2006? How then could this be - as you call it - "news"? You're assertion that Snow "hoped it would appear in print", is a blatent lie as I know and have talked with someone on that "team", and you were asked not to devulge it, and you agreed and now - and only now - prior the 2006 midterms and especially when the tide (politically) for Bush as turned to the positive, you publish it.

This wasn't a "gut wrenching decision", it was a calculated move - one of many stories which both of your declining newspapers have written over the last few years - that were designed from the ground up to extract political damage on the White House. Nothing more, nothing less.

http://macsmind.blogspot.com/2006/07/knowi...to-shut-up.html

[Tiger Al 0]

There is really no question that she was "outed" by the Bush administration.

Except that it wasn't the Bush administration that 'outed' Val Plame. I'd call that a 'question'.

244731[/snapback]

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Perhaps you need to set Bob Novak straight on who his sources actually were, then.

Link

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Answer MY question. I'm still waiting, slanderer. You've done nothing but attempt to squirm away from what I've asked you to provide. You know what I'm talking about, too.

244636[/snapback]

If you are going to ask for the same response in two different threads, be intelligent enough to check in both places you have asked.

244689[/snapback]

Tex, answer the question on either thread. You haven't so far, just more two-faced Tex-babble. All I want is proof of what you said or for you to admit you lied. You said something that you had no basis to say, and you are not man enough to admit you were wrong. I'm beginning to think you are a liar.

Al, you democrats should try holding Wilson and his wife to the same standard you paint the administration with. In Wilson's Vanity Fair article (or was it his book) he stated Valerie outed herself in 1997. She violated security procedures (documents she no doubt signed) when she told told him of her status/activities with the CIA. She outed herself in 1997 according to Wilson himself (unless he is lying, yet again) and that is the story in this case.

When this story originally broke, I was reading up on it when this particular quote threw me off my chair! This so-called undercover agent blew her OWN cover by blabbing to a sexual liaison!! That was it! Back in 1997! What is really interesting is that Wilson is more than happy to tell us Plame blew her own cover... hot and heavy sex was all it took! A couple of frauds! Now the question is: What hasn't Plame herself been indicted? Valerie Plame's "secret identity" wasn't exactly secret before she was "outed" by Novak's column. For all the "covert agent" talk, former "covert agent" seems to be more of an accurate description of Valerie Plame given that it was apparently widely known that she was a CIA agent and that she hadn't been out of the US for a few years before the Novak column.

On top of that, Karl Rove, who looks to have alerted at least Time's Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife was in the CIA, didn't reveal her name and apparently it wasn't a "malicious leak". It was designed to counter incorrect information that Cooper had. Originally, when the story broke, the leaker was being talked about as having committed a felony by maliciously outing a covert CIA operative in order to get political revenge on her husband.

Given that information, my (along with other conservative posters on this board) original opinion was that the leaker should be fired. However, knowing what we do today -- that Plame was in essence an analyst, not a covert operative, I'm not even sure that revealing Plame's identity was unethical in this case.

Now, back to the NYT's issue...............................

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Answer MY question. I'm still waiting, slanderer. You've done nothing but attempt to squirm away from what I've asked you to provide. You know what I'm talking about, too.

244636[/snapback]

If you are going to ask for the same response in two different threads, be intelligent enough to check in both places you have asked.

244689[/snapback]

Tex, answer the question on either thread. You haven't so far, just more two-faced Tex-babble. All I want is proof of what you said or for you to admit you lied. You said something that you had no basis to say, and you are not man enough to admit you were wrong. I'm beginning to think you are a liar.

Al, you democrats should try holding Wilson and his wife to the same standard you paint the administration with. In Wilson's Vanity Fair article (or was it his book) he stated Valerie outed herself in 1997. She violated security procedures (documents she no doubt signed) when she told told him of her status/activities with the CIA. She outed herself in 1997 according to Wilson himself (unless he is lying, yet again) and that is the story in this case.

When this story originally broke, I was reading up on it when this particular quote threw me off my chair! This so-called undercover agent blew her OWN cover by blabbing to a sexual liaison!! That was it! Back in 1997! What is really interesting is that Wilson is more than happy to tell us Plame blew her own cover... hot and heavy sex was all it took! A couple of frauds! Now the question is: What hasn't Plame herself been indicted? Valerie Plame's "secret identity" wasn't exactly secret before she was "outed" by Novak's column. For all the "covert agent" talk, former "covert agent" seems to be more of an accurate description of Valerie Plame given that it was apparently widely known that she was a CIA agent and that she hadn't been out of the US for a few years before the Novak column.

On top of that, Karl Rove, who looks to have alerted at least Time's Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife was in the CIA, didn't reveal her name and apparently it wasn't a "malicious leak". It was designed to counter incorrect information that Cooper had. Originally, when the story broke, the leaker was being talked about as having committed a felony by maliciously outing a covert CIA operative in order to get political revenge on her husband.

Given that information, my (along with other conservative posters on this board) original opinion was that the leaker should be fired. However, knowing what we do today -- that Plame was in essence an analyst, not a covert operative, I'm not even sure that revealing Plame's identity was unethical in this case.

Now, back to the NYT's issue...............................

244750[/snapback]

Amazing.  You guys are impervious to truth. Explains your politics, I guess. Again:

We've established a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks.

     It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals:  to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions.

     We're also working with the friends and allies throughout the world to share information.  We're working closely with the United Nations, the EU and through the G-7/G-8 structure to limit the ability of terrorist organizations to take advantage of the international financial systems.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20.../20010924-4.htm

243791[/snapback]

So, it's Bush's fault the NYT's blabbered secrets to the world. Now it makes sense!

You keep saying this isn't a treasonous act. I say you're wrong. Compromising an ongoing INTEL collection program that we know helps us to capture or kill terrorists that are trying to kill us during a time of war is treason. It could also be classified as immoral cowardice. Tex, even someone as partisan as you should be able to grasp this.

Several key terrorists, including the leader of Islamic radicalism in Southeast Asia, were caught as a result of this program. This despite the fact that the administration announced shortly after 9/11 that it was going to go after terrorist funding, as you cited above. Obviously, just knowing we were looking for their money wasn't enough to keep them from getting caught. That's at least in part because they didn't know how we were doing it. Because of the Times and these inside squealers, now they do know exactly how we are doing it.

I'm amazed that someone that was so agreeable to have Bush, Cheney, and Rove's heads put on a stick on the White House lawn after the Plame outing (that wasn't) doesn't find this release the least bit alarming. Chalk this one down as selective indifference, I suppose. Hypocrite, thy name is TexasTiger.

244128[/snapback]

What new facts do they know as a result of the NYT's article that will fundamentallly change how they do business?

244130[/snapback]

Reading is fundamental, man!

244136[/snapback]

I did answer it. You obviously thought this was an adequate answer to my question, so I thought you would appreciate me treating you with the same courtesy. You are welcome.

Reading is fundamental, man!

I repeat, read your own posts. If you don't see it, I can't make you see it.

You are hilarious. You refer to a "particular quote", but don't quote it. Anyway, assuming your reading skills and comprehension and memory are accurate, Wilson said his future wife let him know she was undercover. Given his positions in 1997:

Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV

Ambassador Wilson served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998. In that capacity he was responsible for the coordination of U.S. policy to the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, He was one of the principal architecs of President Clinton's historic trip to Africa in March 1998.

Ambassador Wilson was the Political Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces, Europe, 1995-1997.

Don't you think he had a pretty high level of security clearance, knew far bigger secrets and may have easily been authorized to know that information? You equate this disclosure with her being "outed" so mentioning her in an article that the entire world could read didn't matter? Bush on the other hand, talks about the program at press conferences, post info on his website, and that doesn't qualify as letting the cat out of the bag? Are you this funny, or this stupid?

[DKW 86 7,439]

There is really no question that she was undercover--

244727[/snapback]

Got a link for that bunch of total hooie? Didnt think so....

She was not in any under cover role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

The CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate whether the disclosure violated federal criminal statutes. A special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to lead the investigation. His investigation has never resulted in the filing of any charges concerning this disclosure.

In various filings, Fitzgerald had contended that two Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told several reporters about Plame's employment at the CIA, which Fitzgerald asserted was classified information, although they did not say that she was a covert agent. After a lengthy investigation, Libby was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and grand jury. On June 13, 2006, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, released a statement saying that Fitzgerald had informed him Rove would not be charged with any wrong-doing.[4].

In short. Where are the indictments by the special prosecutor for divulging confidential info? Where are they? I demand a link to this crap you two are spewing. If anyone is actually guilty of anything then why arent there indictments? Afterall, you can indict a ham sandwich for the JFK assasination then where are the indictments? There are none because there was never ANY proof of the crap you two are spewing. Just like a Dem, got no real facts so just make a bunch of lies and namecall as per Dem usual.

Remember I want links to the Indictments for divulging confidential info, treason, etc. The standard for an indictment is so freakin low surely there must several dozens laynig around. Dont give me any opinion pieces either I want facts!!!!!

[TexasTiger 12,998]

There is really no question that she was undercover--

244727[/snapback]

Got a link for that bunch of total hooie? Didnt think so....

She was not in any under cover role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

The CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate whether the disclosure violated federal criminal statutes. A special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to lead the investigation. His investigation has never resulted in the filing of any charges concerning this disclosure.

In various filings, Fitzgerald had contended that two Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told several reporters about Plame's employment at the CIA, which Fitzgerald asserted was classified information, although they did not say that she was a covert agent. After a lengthy investigation, Libby was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and grand jury. On June 13, 2006, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, released a statement saying that Fitzgerald had informed him Rove would not be charged with any wrong-doing.[4].

In short. Where are the indictments by the special prosecutor for divulging confidential info? Where are they? I demand a link to this crap you two are spewing. If anyone is actually guilty of anything then why arent there indictments? Afterall, you can indict a ham sandwich for the JFK assasination then where are the indictments? There are none because there was never ANY proof of the crap you two are spewing. Just like a Dem, got no real facts so just make a bunch of lies and namecall as per Dem usual.

Remember I want links to the Indictments for divulging confidential info, treason, etc. The standard for an indictment is so freakin low surely there must several dozens laynig around. Dont give me any opinion pieces either I want facts!!!!!

244782[/snapback]

David I realize you have the reading comprehension of my cat, but this one should be easy. My link is up the thread:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2602069_pf.html

You clearly don't understand this case.

I said this:

There is really no question that she was undercover-- that is why the CIA referred it to the Justice Department. There is really no question that she was "outed" by the Bush administration. There may be a question as to whether certain people who talked about her knew her undercover status-- or at least that part may be the most difficult to prove.

To charge with the disclosure of classified info under the statute most frequently referenced, one must knowingly disclose the classified info. The question is not that she was undercover-- the CIA referred the case for that reason--- it is not that the Bush administration disclosed that she was a CIA operative-- it is whether it was done knowing that that information was classified. It is usually far easier to prove what one did than it is to prove their state of mind when they did it. Fitzgerald said when he indicted Libby that he had been thwarted by the Bush administration in his investigation in regard to making that determination. So he was left with perjury and obstruction of justice.

He also said this:

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

FITZGERALD: Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102801340.html

Thems the "facts."

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The 1982 law is very clear on the statute of limitations of NOC, and it means within five (5) years of the last overseas NOC assignment. Novak's story was published in 2003, six (6) years after Plame's last apparent NOC assignment, which means that no crime occurred in identifying her as "apparently working for the CIA."

[TexasTiger 12,998]

The 1982 law is very clear on the statute of limitations of NOC, and it means within five (5) years of the last overseas NOC assignment. Novak's story was published in 2003, six (6) years after Plame's last apparent NOC assignment, which means that no crime occurred in identifying her as "apparently working for the CIA."

244807[/snapback]

The prosecutor was not charged with looking only at that law. As he said in his press conference:

And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.

That is a difficult statute to interpret. It's a statute you ought to carefully apply.

I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.

Let me back up. The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that's specifically just says, "If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."

There may be an Official Secrets Act in England. There are some narrow statutes, and there is this one statute that has some flexibility in it.

So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act.

FITZGERALD: I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.

That actually feeds into the other question. When you decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime, you want to know as many facts as possible. You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts.

Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.

We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight.

And our commitment on the other end is to use our judgment as to what we prosecute.

FITZGERALD: And if we don't prosecute, we keep quiet.

And we're simply saying in here, we didn't get the straight story, and we had to -- had to take action.

...

FITZGERALD: I will say this. I won't touch the specific damage assessment of what specific damage was caused by her compromise -- I won't touch that with a 10-foot pole. I'll let the CIA speak to that, if they wish or not.

I will say this: To the CIA people who are going out at a time that we need more human intelligence, I think everyone agrees with that, at a time when we need our spy agencies to have people work there, I think just the notion that someone's identity could be compromised lightly, to me compromises the ability to recruit people and say, "Come work for us, come work for the government, come be trained, come invest your time, come work anonymously here or wherever else, go do jobs for the benefit of the country for which people will not thank you, because they will not know," they need to know that we will not cast their anonymity aside lightly.

[Tiger Al 0]

David, I think TT covered it pretty well. Libby was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. It's hard to indict him when he has allegedly lied and it's unlikely that Rove or Cheney will raise their hand any time soon to confess when they have plenty o' Scooters around to fall on the sword for them.

Where's the outrage?

[DKW 86 7,439]

Same place the indictments are, obviously nowhere to be found.

Post Article on Wilson BS.

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission

Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

By Susan Schmidt

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson Lied.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

His accusations were total crap. What he said happened was 180 degrerees from what he actually said. Wilson lies again.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy , was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

Stupidity is not illegal it seems.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her 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." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me ."

Lies, lies, and more lies, or in Dem terms: "It all depends on what your definition of the term 'recommendation' is..."

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger

Even more whopper lies by Wilson, remember this is from the Washington Post...

This is just from ONE article on the crap. Wilson lied about Plame's involvement. She was deactivated too long for the law to cover her anymore. The law also says that it had to be intentional, no one asserts that anymore. He got caught lying about seeing the documents and was EIGHT MONTHS out of sync on his time line.

The reason there were no indictments is that the laws could not be bent 100 ways to make the situation actually fit a crime.

Wilson is shown to be lying about Plame in the memo recommending him.

Wilson is shown to be lying about the documents being forged.

Wilson is shown to be lying about even having SEEN the documents.

Wilson is shown to be a lying partisan hack without much brains.

Those that quote this story are either easily duped or are themselves: "a lying partisan hack without much brains."