“The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.”
Is there a source for that?
To answer your question–facts. Facts as found by an independent investigation, not rumors, innuendo, half-baked stories, etc.
As far as the classification issue–Are you aware of how many people there are running around federal agencies with outdated security classifications? I want to see that she really qualified, under the law, as a protected operative, not just that someone forgot to submit some paperwork somewhere to change her status.
How about this then?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html
Perhaps this won’t convince you, but you and others have been happy to peel from the Wash Post and NYT when it has suited your purposes (to “exonerate” Rove, etc.), so I don’t see why this wouldn’t work as well. And given that the notion that she wasn’t covert would as well be, in your parlance, a “half-baked story”, I don’t see why that gets default credence with you.
As I said (and I have said this before)–I am waiting for the facts. When the investigation is over, if it is shown that anyone committed illegal or unethical acts, they should be punished. Until then, it is all supposition.
And if it comes back and Rove broke the law, what will be the excuse as to why it’s acceptable?
The entire paragraph was marked…not just the sentence about Valerie Plame. There were 7 sentences (I think that’s the # I heard on NPR yesterday), so just because the paragraph had an (S) by it doesn’t necessarily mean the info on Plame was the classified bit.
Spot
So let me get this straight. You’re a political operative. You hold in your hand a document with one paragraph highlighted, and “S” for Secret next to that paragraph. You think it’s within your ability and/or authority to decide which particular portions of that paragraph are classified, and which can be revealed by you to the press?
If you think so, you’re mistaken.
I didn’t say that…I don’t think a political operative can make those sorts of decisions. All I am saying is, it sounds to me that everybody is jumping on this information that her name was in a classified cable and are coming to the conclusion then that her position as a CIA operative must classified, and that’s not the case.
Spot
It most likely is the case. In the first place, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the identity of CIA operatives is most likely classified info. In the second place, if you have in your grubby little paws a document with a paragraph highlighted with an “S” next to it, it’s pretty safe to assume that the whole freaking paragragh is classified Secret. For damn sure it ain’t up to you to decide this or that particular sentence in the paragraph doesn’t count.
Please, I’m asking nicely here- please stop defending Rove here. It’s indefensible.
I deal with classified every day, and your assumptions are not correct. Only one part of a paragraph labeled secret might actually be secret. As to the identity of Valerie Plame (this is according to NPR), the fact she had been a covert agent may not have been classified. Apparently, if you have not been working as a covert operative for 5 years or more (I think that was the correct # of years), then it is no longer classified, and its very possible that was the case with Valerie Plame.
I am not out to defend anyone. If Karl Rove knowingly released classified info, then fry him. I’m just saying its not yet obvious that what he released was classified.
Spot
I deal with classified every day, and your assumptions are not correct. Only one part of a paragraph labeled secret might actually be secret.
My “assumptions” are not assumptions, actually. If you have a paragraph entirely highlighted, the clear indication is that the whole thing is classified. Certainly Rove doesn’t get to decide which parts are and aren’t classified in any event- let’s say that nothing was highlighted, and there was only a “S” next to the particular paragraph. In that case, it might be that only one portion of the paragraph is classified, but guess what- Rove doesn’t get to reveal any of it. If you think otherwise, better check with your security manager, before you wind up in hot water yourself.
**Apparently, if you have not been working as a covert operative for 5 years or more (I think that was the correct # of years), then it is no longer classified, and its very possible that was the case with Valerie Plame. **
I think you’re mixing up your legislation. There’s a specific law against revealing the identity of a covert operative, and Plame may or may not have been covered by that law. *If *she wasn’t, it doesn’t mean that her indentity was unclassified, and any laws against revealing classified information still apply.
And for crying out loud- does it matter? The man revealed the identity of a CIA operative! ! ! You guys defending him are making a pretty feeble case based on supposed legal technicalities, and I’m saying he gave up a CIA agent! Good grief, I cannot believe that this is a matter of any controversy at all. Patriotism, or partisianship? Patriotism, or partisianship? . . . I find the answer more obvious and more depressing day by day.
Other than the runaway spending, I generally support this administration. With that qualification I can’t understand the legalese defense of Rove. To pretend he’s not a sleazy politician is fantasy. By the same token, to pretend Wilson and his wife, who started the whole thing, aren’t just as sleazy is just as absurd.
I think our intelligence services deserve a little more than a strict adherence to the minimum legal language. If you knowingly release information about someone who isn’t an overt CIA employee you should lose your job. I don’t know that this has been proven in Rove’s case but it is the standard that should be applied, not “had she been back in the States for 5 years?” as required for a violation of the law.
I also think that if you use your position in the CIA for political purposes you should lose your job. Plame and Wilson should be unemployed with a federal injunction prohibiting a lucrative book deal.
I have no pity for any of the players here. Our country would probably be better off without all of them.
Just my opinion.
to pretend Wilson and his wife, who started the whole thing, aren’t just as sleazy is just as absurd.
I agree with that- neither one of them seem like people who I’d like to have over for dinner. But that doesn’t justify being outed by Rove in the press.
I also think that if you use your position in the CIA for political purposes you should lose your job. Plame and Wilson should be unemployed with a federal injunction prohibiting a lucrative book deal.
Wow, what a bunch of complete nonsense
Wilson doesn’t work for the CIA.
What did Plame do that was political?
If you are referring to her referring her husband, please keep in mind Rheinquist, Powell, McClellan all have siblings working in the administration.
Back to the initial point of the post:
Since a few days ago there have been more revelations:
-
Rove was seen wearing a button, “I’m a source not a target” (not joking)
-
Ari Fleisher was seen by Colin Powell reading the memo
-
Bolton forgot to mention that he was questioned about this by the grand jury during his confirmation
-
The President nominated a scj guy 2 months ahead of schedule
Anyone willing to take the plunge?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_democrats
Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak
By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 57 minutes ago
Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush’s lack of action has jeopardized national security.
In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame’s identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush’s silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.
“I wouldn’t be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief — protect and defend the Constitution,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. “The minute that Valerie Plame’s identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees.”
Rove, Bush’s deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine. Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson’s wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.
In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame’s undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller — who never wrote a story about Plame — has been jailed for refusing to testify.
Bush said last week, “I think it’s best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well.”
Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.
Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel and defense intelligence officer, said Bush’s silence sends a bad signal to foreigners who might be thinking of cooperating with the U.S. on intelligence matters.
“This says to them that if you decide to cooperate, someone will give you up, so you don’t do it,” Lang said. “They are not going to trust you in any way.”
Johnson, who said he is a registered Republican, said he wished a GOP lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and “call the ugly dog the ugly dog.”
“Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?” Johnson asked. “I expect better behavior out of Republicans.”
Wilson doesn’t work for the CIA.
From Wilson’s original article: “The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” He said he was sent by the CIA. Are you saying it was someone else?
What did Plame do that was political?
It is my understanding that Plame engineered the sending of her husband to Niger. The sole purpose of the trip was to falsely trumpet the false “news” that Iraq never attempted to buy uranium from Niger and the Bush “lied” in the State of the Union address. The whole operation was a political ploy.
As vitus said, none of that excuses Rove if he leaked her undercover identity. My point was merely that all of the players in this are up to their arses in sleaze.
The sole purpose of the trip was to falsely trumpet the false “news” that Iraq never attempted to buy uranium from Niger and the Bush “lied” in the State of the Union address. The whole operation was a political ploy.
Again, total nonsense. Cheney’s office asked the CIA for clarification on the supposed uranium pruchase, and the CIA sent Wilson. Sure Plame had a hand in getting him selected, big deal.
Again, total nonsense.
Man, what’s your problem? According to the Senate report and the Kerry campaign who dropped him like a hot rock it’s not total nonsense so excuse me if I don’t take the word of an anonymous internet poster. I don’t have a dog in this fight so I don’t give a rat’s ass in the first place.
Obviously, in answer to the title of the thread NOTHING is going change your opinion that everyone who says something you agree with is an angel straight from heaven and anyone who thinks differently is a complete idiot. It must be awfully warm and comfy in your world.