Karpinski sais she would testify Rummy odered torture

[Care4all]

If she was "covert" was was nobody charged?

She was not covert according to the law

You don't know that and this is not established as a FACT, by any means.

The CIA felt she was covert according to the Law, or they would not have requested the Justice Dept to investigate her "outing".

The Justice dept believed she was classified undercover or they would not have pursued the investigation in to her "outing".

Congress believes she was covert, they said so in their oversight committee based on all the classified information they had gathered....

Fitzgerald, the appointed special investigator... through his FBI Investigators said that she was covert and met the specific criteria in the law to have her identity protected....by listing each and every one of the standards required by the law to be covert, and listing Plame's status according to each, which MET the criteria of being covert under the law.

General Hayden, the new director of central intelligence vetted the information that could be declassified and told to us about valerie plame, and that included the fact that she was a covert, classified undercover officer for the CIA who traveled undercover, overseas, for them, the CIA.

I agree that Libby was not charged with outing her, but charged with lying to investigators, and under oath to the grand jury regarding her outing.

My question to Cocky, was what new evidence could surprise us in his appeal, when appeals usually do not include new evidence not produced in the trial, but a review of the process of the trial?

Care

 

[red states rule]

You don't know that and this is not established as a FACT, by any means.

The CIA felt she was covert according to the Law, or they would not have requested the Justice Dept to investigate her "outing".

The Justice dept believed she was classified undercover or they would not have pursued the investigation in to her "outing".

Congress believes she was covert, they said so in their oversight committee based on all the classified information they had gathered....

Fitzgerald, the appointed special investigator... through his FBI Investigators said that she was covert and met the specific criteria in the law to have her identity protected....by listing each and every one of the standards required by the law to be covert, and listing Plame's status according to each, which MET the criteria of being covert under the law.

General Hayden, the new director of central intelligence vetted the information that could be declassified and told to us about valerie plame, and that included the fact that she was a covert, classified undercover officer for the CIA who traveled undercover, overseas, for them, the CIA.

I agree that Libby was not charged with outing her, but charged with lying to investigators, and under oath to the grand jury regarding her outing.

My question to Cocky, was what new evidence could surprise us in his appeal, when appeals usually do not include new evidence not produced in the trial, but a review of the process of the trial?

Care

Yes Care, only the LAW that covers who is and is not covert says Plame was NOT covert

But why bother with details?

 

[Care4all]

Yes Care, only the LAW that covers who is and is not covert says Plame was NOT covert

But why bother with details?

The thing is Rsr, is that the Law specifically covers her with her identity protection.

Each single standard that has to be met to be covert under the definition of the Law were met.

Each one!

The reason the last few years that Victoria kept saying that Valerie Plame did not meet the criteria of this law, was that Victoria T said that Plame had not recently worked overseas, serving in an undercover manner for over 5 years....that the statute of limitatiion had been met...that it had been longer than 5 years since she had worked overseas.

BUT GUESS WHAT? It turned out that Valerie Plame was sent overseas, in a classified undercover status, 7-10 times the last few years she worked for them....WITHIN the last 5 years.... so this BLEW Victoria T's accusations OUT OF THE WATER....and she was made a fool and even repremanded, in the oversight hearing!

Care

 

[red states rule]

The thing is Rsr, is that the Law specifically covers her with her identity protection.

Each single standard that has to be met to be covert under the definition of the Law were met.

Each one!

The reason the last few years that Victoria kept saying that Valerie Plame did not meet the criteria of this law, was that Victoria T said that Plame had not recently worked overseas, serving in an undercover manner for over 5 years....that the statute of limitatiion had been met...that it had been longer than 5 years since she had worked overseas.

BUT GUESS WHAT? It turned out that Valerie Plame was sent overseas, in a classified undercover status, 7-10 times the last few years she worked for them....WITHIN the last 5 years.... so this BLEW Victoria T's accusations OUT OF THE WATER....and she was made a fool and even repremanded, in the oversight hearing!

Care

CAre, you have the right to your opinion but your own facts

She was NOT STATIONED out the country in the last five years before Novaks article - that fact makes her not a covert agent

 

[maineman]

CAre, you have the right to your opinion but your own facts

She was NOT STATIONED out the country in the last five years before Novaks article - that fact makes her not a covert agent

no. the law does not say "stationed", it says "served". big difference.

 

[red states rule]

no. the law does not say "stationed", it says "served". big difference.

Libs keep trying to create a scandal where one does not exist

 

[maineman]

Five Sox homers back Tavarez's gem
Righty stymies Braves; Papi, Manny go deep in blowout
By Ian Browne / MLB.com


Coco Crisp celebrates his three-run long ball that gave the Red Sox a 5-0 lead in the first. (Gregory Smith/AP)
Related Links

• Tavarez's strong start 400K
• Ramirez goes 3-for-4 400K
• Crisp's three-run homer 400K
• Ortiz's two-run homer 400K
• Braves' Carlyle roughed up early in loss
• Harris' diving grab 400K
• Sox notes: Lowell gets another night off
• Braves notes: Cox gives Andruw a break
• Schilling heading to disabled list
Red Sox Headlines

• Beat the heat, catch a free flick
• Pedroia learns from early struggles
• Five Red Sox homers back Tavarez's gem
• Schilling heading to disabled list
• Sox notes: Lowell gets another night off
• More Red Sox Headlines
MLB Headlines

• Glavine quiets A's to end drought
• Cubs take opener behind Zambrano's gem
• Cards acquire lefty Maroth from Tigers
• Streak ends as Orioles put Tejada on DL
• Rays option troubled outfielder Dukes
• More MLB Headlines

ADVERTISEMENT

print this page | e-mail this page
• Tavarez's strong start 400K
• Ramirez goes 3-for-4 400K
• Schilling heading to disabled list
• Sox notes: Lowell gets another night off
• Buy Red Sox tix | Watch, listen to games live


ATLANTA -- A batting barrage and a pitching masterpiece. It isn't often that a team can combine both of those forces in one night, but the Red Sox had all of that going for them and more in Wednesday's 11-0 romp over the Braves.
Before Julian Tavarez had even thrown his first pitch, the Sox had staked him to a 5-0 lead, led by a leadoff homer by J.D. Drew and a three-run blast from Coco Crisp.

The Boston bashers, as it would be apt to call them on this night, unloaded for five home runs. Drew and Crisp would later be joined by David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez and substitute Eric Hinske in the long-distance club.

And as the night wore on, it became obvious the Red Sox didn't need to expend so much energy with their bats. For Tavarez breezed through the Atlanta lineup with ease.

Perhaps that's because Tavarez, who has looked like anything but a No. 5 starter of late, made a conscious effort to keep his eyes off the scoreboard.

"I didn't see it was 5-0 until I got to hit," said Tavarez. "To me, the game was nothing-nothing in the first inning. Once I got to hit, I knew it was 5-0. To me, the game was nothing-nothing until the last hitter that I faced."

The rubber-armed righty turned in his best performance of the year, facing the minimum 18 hitters over the first six innings. Tavarez did give up two hits over that span, both of which were immediately erased on double play balls. In seven innings, Tavarez allowed three hits, struck out four and walked just one.

He improved to 5-4 and lowered his ERA to 4.50, the best it's been all year.

"That was my best start," said Tavarez. "I had a good outing against Detroit, but I walked a few guys. Today, everything went right from me."

It was a theme that prevailed all across the Boston dugout. Well, aside from Julio Lugo, who worked five good at-bats and had an 0-for-5 to show for it, as his average dipped to .201.

But, as manager Terry Francona noted later, Lugo was still able to smile. That's what happens when a team is winning. With the win, the 46-25 Red Sox opened up a 10-game lead over the Yankees in the American League East.

Following Tuesday night's 4-0 victory, Wednesday's whitewash marked Boston's first back-to-back shutouts since July 18-19, 2006, against Kansas City.

If Francona wanted to create a blue-print for a perfectly stress-free night, the script probably would have looked a lot like what actually took place.

What did the manager appreciate most: The offense or the pitching?



Complete coverage >
"We'll take both," Francona said. "We score early. Took some good swings. And then Julian went out and did what he's supposed to. And I thought his stuff was good. We played very good defense."

The Red Sox could tell it was going to be their night very early on. Just four pitches in, Drew put one over the wall in right. Dustin Pedroia roped a double down the line. With one out, Manny Ramirez smacked an RBI double.

With two outs and runners at second and third, Braves manager Bobby Cox opted to intentionally walk Jason Varitek and face Crisp. Cox was burnt, as Crisp put the 0-1 pitch out of the yard in right for a devastating three-run blow. It was Crisp's third home run of the series, astounding when you consider he had just one all year when the Red Sox arrived here.


rest of article here:


http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/g...tent_id=2039222&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

 

[red states rule]

No counter to facts again MM?

 

[Care4all]

CAre, you have the right to your opinion but your own facts

She was NOT STATIONED out the country in the last five years before Novaks article - that fact makes her not a covert agent

The LAW says SERVED in an undercover status overseas...

she SERVED the usa in an undercover status overseas, 7-10 times, within the last 5 years of working for the CIA.

The LAW does NOT say STATIONED overseas rsr, it says SERVED...they are distinctly different meanings imo. And they could have writen the LAW with the word Stationed, which would have given a different meaning to the identities protection act, but they DIDN'T, they used SERVED in undercover status overseas!

Victoria T was wrong in her assumption that plame had not served in classified undercover status overseas within the last 5 years. She presumed Plame had not served overseas since she had gotten married to her husband, joe wilson, WHICH WAS over 5 yeears ago.

But Victoria did not know the CIA's business, did not know Plame had served overseas in undercover status since her marriage. SHE was wrong rsr!

care

 

[red states rule]

The LAW says SERVED in an undercover status overseas...

she SERVED the usa in an undercover status overseas, 7-10 times, within the last 5 years of working for the CIA.

The LAW does NOT say STATIONED overseas rsr, it says SERVED...they are distinctly different meanings imo. And they could have writen the LAW with the word Stationed, which would have given a different meaning to the identities protection act, but they DIDN'T, they used SERVED in undercover status overseas!

Victoria T was wrong in her assumption that plame had not served in classified undercover status overseas within the last 5 years. She presumed Plame had not served overseas since she had gotten married to her husband, joe wilson, WHICH WAS over 5 yeears ago.

But Victoria did not know the CIA's business, did not know Plame had served overseas in undercover status since her marriage. SHE was wrong rsr!

care

Business trips do not count Care

 

[Care4all]

Business trips do not count Care

Fitz makes the following points:

1. Valerie Wilson was an operations officer working in the Counter Proliferation Division (CPD) of the Directorate of Operations and headed a unit that covered weapons proliferation issues concerning Iraq.

2. While in CPD Valerie traveled overseas seven times to more than ten countries always, repeat always, undercover.

3. Valerie was a covert officer on 14 July 2003, when Novak identified her as a CIA employee.

4. The CIA was taking "affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

kind of hard for me to argue with that rsr....

libby's legal team did not even try to counter fitz on this at the trial and they should have tried, and would have tried to dispute fitz's statement, if it were not true, imo!

care

 

[maineman]

Business trips do not count Care

in fact, they do. performing CIA company business overseas is, in fact, serving overseas.

For nearly all of my time at sea, I was "stationed" in the United States....but I sure as hell "served overseas" for plenty of that time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no. the law does not say "stationed", it says "served". big difference.

NO ONE WAS CHARGED with outing her. Libby did not do it. If he didn't do it, why would he cover for someone that supposedly ordered him to do it?

It is irrelevant whether she was covert or not. The investigation found NO ONE to charge with outing her. All they have is a bogus claim that " we all know where I live" that Cheney ordered an event that NEVER happened. Libby was convicted of Obstructing an investigation into NOTHING. NOT one person has testified or recollected or claimed that Cheney told anyone outside his immediant office that Plume was a CIA employee. AND no one has made a single claim he knew she was covert and that he ordered her to be disclosed as such. Libby never told anyone she was Covert, if he did PLEASE provide the proof and explain WHY he was not charged.

The CIA FREELY told anyone that called their switchboard Plume worked for the CIA. Libby did nothing more than what the CIA was already doing.

Of course we have Care on this board claiming that where a stamp of Secret appears on a classified document indicates the name of a person in the document is covert. You, Maineman know better than that. She further claims that failing that test, just having her name appear in a classified document proves anyone that read the document would know she was Covert. You , Maineman know that IS NOT true either.

If either of those are true then I was a covert agent of the Government also as are thousands of service members and civilians that appear in reams of classified documents, op orders, plans and directives, as well as classified orders.

 

[Care4all]

NO ONE WAS CHARGED with outing her. Libby did not do it. If he didn't do it, why would he cover for someone that supposedly ordered him to do it?

It is irrelevant whether she was covert or not. The investigation found NO ONE to charge with outing her. All they have is a bogus claim that " we all know where I live" that Cheney ordered an event that NEVER happened. Libby was convicted of Obstructing an investigation into NOTHING. NOT one person has testified or recollected or claimed that Cheney told anyone outside his immediant office that Plume was a CIA employee. AND no one has made a single claim he knew she was covert and that he ordered her to be disclosed as such. Libby never told anyone she was Covert, if he did PLEASE provide the proof and explain WHY he was not charged.

The CIA FREELY told anyone that called their switchboard Plume worked for the CIA. Libby did nothing more than what the CIA was already doing.

Of course we have Care on this board claiming that where a stamp of Secret appears on a classified document indicates the name of a person in the document is covert. You, Maineman know better than that. She further claims that failing that test, just having her name appear in a classified document proves anyone that read the document would know she was Covert. You , Maineman know that IS NOT true either.

If either of those are true then I was a covert agent of the Government also as are thousands of service members and civilians that appear in reams of classified documents, op orders, plans and directives, as well as classified orders.

Who's YOUR SOURCE rsgt? Where do you gather your opinion on this from? The RNC? The GOP? Who? I just don't get it?

washingtonpost.com
Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01



A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

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.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

 

[red states rule]

in fact, they do. performing CIA company business overseas is, in fact, serving overseas.

For nearly all of my time at sea, I was "stationed" in the United States....but I sure as hell "served overseas" for plenty of that time.

The bimbo was an overpaid paper pusher who got her hubby a cupcake job at our expense

Now she is cashing in and the libs are using her like they used Cindy Crackpot Sheehan

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From YOUR source the following....


Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

...........

You have repeatedly claimed the mark CLEARLY identified HER as the classified part. YOUR own source shows your wrong. The fact that the CIA switchboard freely identified her as an employee proves that simply disclosing that she worked at the CIA was NOT classified information.

Please provide a source document that indicates Libby EVER identified her as a COVERT agent. Someones sworn testimony under oath would work as well. If you find it, explain why Libby was NOT charged with breaking the law.

 

[Care4all]

From YOUR source the following....


Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

...........

You have repeatedly claimed the mark CLEARLY identified HER as the classified part. YOUR own source shows your wrong. The fact that the CIA switchboard freely identified her as an employee proves that simply disclosing that she worked at the CIA was NOT classified information.

Please provide a source document that indicates Libby EVER identified her as a COVERT agent. Someones sworn testimony under oath would work as well. If you find it, explain why Libby was NOT charged with breaking the law.

What? Are you searching for some kind of "technical knockout" to make you "feel" better? The SPECIFIC paragraph containing her name was marked secret....that is standard protocol for covert operatives. Why oh why did the vp and his MINIONS ignore it???? Did they just not care? Did Cheney declassify? Were they just idiots too concerned with covering their own butts regarding the yellow cake from Niger statements?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What? Are you searching for some kind of "technical knockout" to make you "feel" better? The SPECIFIC paragraph containing her name was marked secret....that is standard protocol for covert operatives. Why oh why did the vp and his MINIONS ignore it???? Did they just not care? Did Cheney declassify? Were they just idiots too concerned with covering their own butts regarding the yellow cake from Niger statements?

Your assumption directly contradicts the very source YOU provided. YOUR the one grasping at straws.

 

[maineman]

RGS.... are you suggesting that she did not serve overseas within five years of the story by Novak?

 

[Care4all]

Your assumption directly contradicts the very source YOU provided. YOUR the one grasping at straws.

no, you are grasping at straws, and you have been from day one!

Are you just being obtuse?

her name, with the RELATING paragraph to her INVOLVEMENT was SECRET, period!

SGT, please....enough already...this apologistic stance of yours is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.

but feel free to continue on....i wouldn't want to curb yours or anyone elses ''style''.

care