Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[maineman]

and I wasn't jumping into a conversation between you and care...I had been asking that question for several days. I am sorry I missed your response, but, in any case, I do not find your "answer" sufficient or anything more than speculation.

 

[Edward]

You know when a lib is losing - they go straight to the personal attacks.

And when Republicans are losing they just punch Democratic Senators or as Dick Cheney did tell them to **** off and as you are now doing choose to ignore the fact that you and those who represent your evil ass are bastards. If you consider this a personal attack ***** than so be it because I don't like you or care about your ******* opinion. In fact, you can shut the **** up and go vote for a ********** who agrees with you such as the motherfucking retard from Crawford Georgie. If you don't like this ***** than that is your problem but don't expect people to play nice with you as you and your representatives violate our rights, and send our loved ones to die for your opinions in Iraq. That makes you and those who represent you ******* murderers. Now take your comments and shove them up your ass. Now you can attack me all you want and accuse me of going straight to the personal attacks but that won't change the fact that you are a retarded bastard and would still be a retarded bastard even if other retards were to vote for your silly ass if you chose to run for Congress. Now **** off!

 

[Edward]

The point is, this case never should have been brought

Here is what one of the authors of the law covering REAL covert agents had to say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html

First, they aren't the authors of the law but merely the drafters and often the language isn't entirely theirs and they don't have any idea why someone else chose to vote for it. Second, I don't need a ******* bastard who helped to draft a law to tell me what it says because they aren't the final authority on that law because they aren't the only ones who voted for it and that means that they don't speak for what the others who voted for it intended it to mean but only what they as individuals intended it to say when they cast their votes. Even the Founding Fathers disagreed on what the Constitution meant and on the meaning of laws which they drafted and voted on.

The law is clear and the retard you link is a retard and if you have any facts other than the opinion of a ***** than please share them otherwise shut the **** up and **** them in their ass. Also, I listened to Ms. Toensing speak to a Congressional Committee and she couldn't even answer any real questions about the law outside of re-stating her opinion about the meaning of a narrow aspect of the statute in question.

 

[Edward]

Your first statment is nothing but partisan speculation on your part. You have no idea why the inconsistencies exist. As I also stated, the police, and I for that matter, would be MORE suspicious of someone who could recite "memory" verbatim than I would someone with inconsistencies in their statements.

What's pathetic is the whole dog-n-pony show witch hunt that been conducted, as evidenced by no conviction to support the allegations, just a process crime conviction in a lame attempt at damage control.

As far as your second statement, I called shifting the Whitewater Investigation to the Bill Clinton Hummer investigation a ...guess what? Partisan witch hunt. It served about as much REAL purpose as the Plame menagerie.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. No one gives a **** whether you think someone who is inconsistent isn't as suspicious as someone who is consistent in their statements because only retards would believe that being inconsistent is less suspicious than being consistent. It is one thing to confuse minor details and another to be inconsistent in your statement and any police officer who would do as you suggested shouldn't be a police officer but there are retards like you who are also police officers but that doesn't change the fact that they are retarded motherfuckers and it doesn't change the fact that you are too.

 

[maineman]

Ed: don't be too dismissive or judgmental of gunny. He is one of a handful of non-liberals/non-democrats on here who THINKS instead of PARROTS. I may not always agree with him - in fact, I rarely do - but I always respect his opinions and know that he arrived at them honestly.

 

[Edward]

Ed: don't be too dismissive or judgmental of gunny. He is one of a handful of non-liberals/non-democrats on here who THINKS instead of PARROTS. I may not always agree with him - in fact, I rarely do - but I always respect his opinions and know that he arrived at them honestly.

I don't doubt that the retard arrives at his opinions honestly and thinks for himself but unlike some people that doesn't carry weight with me. I have agreed with Gunny in the past but that doesn't negate that he is a retarded piece of horse shit. If he is offended by my comments than he can **** off because I am quite willing to speak my mind regarding what I think of others. If I thought your ass was retarded I would call you retarded especially since I do disagree with you a lot of the time but you haven't demonstrated to me that you are a retard. I don't care whether someone is a Republican or a Democrat or what their opinion is. At the end of the day I base my judgment of their character and mental capacity on their position and its effects on others and Gunny's opinions aren't what cause me to consider him a ******* retard instead it is his asinine attitude combined with his opinions including those that I agree with that make me think he is a ******* retard. I have seen Gunny post some really thought out posts and I have enjoyed reading them but one, two, ten, twenty or even a hundred well thought out posts will not change my opinion of his retarded ass instead it will take a shift in attitude and opinion before my opinion of him is likely to change.

 

[maineman]

fair enough...we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[CockySOB]

Why can't the CIA come flat out and say, "sure! we'll provide evidence to a Federal judge that we met the statutory requirements which qualify Plame as a covert intelligence agent per the IIPA."

I am unaware of anyone ASKING the CIA to provide any evidence such as that. Did I miss that, just as I DID, in fact, miss the thread from whence this quote came?

Nope, it was never presented. And I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with people assuming that Plame WAS covert based solely on opinions, because our jurisprudence is based on assuming a person is innocent of the charges against them until PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW. As it is, I am assuming no one violated the IIPA because no one has been proven to have violated the act in a court of law. And since proving such a violation would require presenting evidence to the court and a finding of fact as to Plame's status under the law, we currently have no decision on her actual status. Opinions are all over the board, but no facts.

 

[maineman]

I would not disagree that a finding of FACT as to Plame's status under the IIPA has not been made in a court of law.

That is sort of like there no facts proving evolution, however. That doesn't make me believe it any less. I listen to opinions.... very very informed opinions.... and I make my own. It is my opinion that the administration leaked Plame's name to discredit Wilson...and that they were willing to throw away a valuable CIA asset for political gain.

 

[CockySOB]

I would not disagree that a finding of FACT as to Plame's status under the IIPA has not been made in a court of law.

That is sort of like there no facts proving evolution, however. That doesn't make me believe it any less. I listen to opinions.... very very informed opinions.... and I make my own. It is my opinion that the administration leaked Plame's name to discredit Wilson...and that they were willing to throw away a valuable CIA asset for political gain.

Fair enough. And I obviously think there are enough credible opinions for all sides which makes Plame's status an issue which should be settled in a court of law. That's ALL I've been clamoring for. I personally have enough questions about Plame's status that I doubt she could be considered covert under the law, but I acknowledge that there is a possibility that she could be considered such. Hence my continued calls for taking the issue to a court for a finding of fact.

As to your belief regarding allegations of the GWB administration conspiring in a vendetta against Plame and Wilson, well... you're entitled to your opinion. I haven't seen any convincing evidence to support such allegations, but then again we each form our opinions from our own perspectives.

 

[maineman]

Fair enough. And I obviously think there are enough credible opinions for all sides which makes Plame's status an issue which should be settled in a court of law. That's ALL I've been clamoring for. I personally have enough questions about Plame's status that I doubt she could be considered covert under the law, but I acknowledge that there is a possibility that she could be considered such. Hence my continued calls for taking the issue to a court for a finding of fact.

As to your belief regarding allegations of the GWB administration conspiring in a vendetta against Plame and Wilson, well... you're entitled to your opinion. I haven't seen any convincing evidence to support such allegations, but then again we each form our opinions from our own perspectives.

Also fair enough.

I can only say that, for me, her status as a matter of legal technicality is not as important as the word of the DCI appointed by the Bush administration, who felt she was covert and felt that her outing was detrimental to our intelligence efforts.

 

[Edward]

Nope, it was never presented. And I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with people assuming that Plame WAS covert based solely on opinions, because our jurisprudence is based on assuming a person is innocent of the charges against them until PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW. As it is, I am assuming no one violated the IIPA because no one has been proven to have violated the act in a court of law. And since proving such a violation would require presenting evidence to the court and a finding of fact as to Plame's status under the law, we currently have no decision on her actual status. Opinions are all over the board, but no facts.

Let's base our analysis solely on the facts. First, we know that Valarie Plame was an "operations officer" at the CIA and that she worked in the Directorate of Operations which is specifically tasked with covert activities as opposed to the other directorates at the CIA which are not and that she was tasked as a part of the covert division on the proliferation of WMD. This by itself proves that she was a covert agent because she was working in the Directorate of Operations whose task is "covert operations." This is the directorate of the CIA where the actual spies work.

Second, we know based on the facts that Valarie Plame was recruited to be a "covert case officer" in 1985 while she attended Pennsylvania State. During the 1990's she worked as a NCO (Nonofficial cover officer). This position is a covert position at the CIA. In other words they are the "actual spies" at the CIA. We also know that Valarie Plame recruited "covert agents" and that was her primary duty as a "covert case officer" and a NCO. Starting in 1997 she began work with the covert "Counterproliferation Division" (CPD). Her entire time at the CIA was as an NCO. She was never officially recognized as a covert agent and her duties within the covert Directorate of Operations was never acknowledged and for good reasons. Ironically, you do not understand why she was using the name Plame while working at the CIA yet it is obvious that she continued using her maiden name because she was a covert officer and did not want her identity as Valarie Plame, the wife of Joseph Wilson to be known. Here we have a woman who spent the majority of her life as a covert agent for the CIA being outted. You can debate this but the mere fact that she worked within the Directorate of Operations negates any argument you can give that she was the one exception to all the covert agents she worked with.

Fourth, you can start naming those people she worked with while at the Directorate of Operations or in her career at the CIA. We will wait for you to do so as none of them are covert. Wait, you can't because every last one of those she worked directly with was a covert agent and their intelligence status as a covert agent was classified whether they worked entirely as an NCO or under an official cover. Her cover while at the CIA was that she was in fact an employee of the CIA but did not work in covert operations. This information could have been relased and it would not have been a violation of the law to do so and in fact was done so to prevent people from figuring out what she actually did at the CIA. The problem wasn't that the Bush administration released the fact that she was an employee of the CIA but that she was specifically a part of the covert team at the CIA that was illegal as per the statute we have been debating which states that a) if a agent's covert intelligence relationship is classified, and b) they have resided or acted outside of the United States than their status as such is classified and a violation of the law. The problem was that the Bush Administration decided to release information about what she actually did for the CIA which was work in a covert status that was illegal. They could have told a hundred people that she was an employee of the CIA and not have broken the law because this wasn't CLASSIFIED (this is the part that the five year provision of the statute pertains to). On the other hand her intelligence relationship was and the five year provision does not apply because the five year provision pertains to THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS BEING CLASSIFIED while the provision dealing with an agents covert intelligence relationship does not have a time limite provision instead she only had to act in behalf of the CIA while outside of the United States and her status as a covert agent had to be classified for the law to apply.

Fifth, her division was re-tasked in 2001 and re-named the Joint Task Force on Iraq. She was at this time placed in charge of its "operations division" and if you still have not grasped the meaning of the word "operations" yet in terms of the CIA it is used to describe covert divisions, directorates and activities at the CIA. She wasn't just a paper-pusher or someone who worked in a covert division of the CIA as a paper pusher but was responsible for covert activities since she was first recruited as a "covert case officer" in 1985. We also know that in her role in the CPD that she traveled abroad extensively. The mere fact that she acted outside of the United States in behalf of the CIA and that her covert status was classified is enough for a crime to have been committed when releasing that relationship.

In conclusion, any intelligent person with any amount of common sense knows that a woman who worked in covert operations was a covert agent under the law and her intelligence relationship to the CIA was classified and she did in fact work abroad in behalf of the CIA both recruiting covert agents and conducting other covert activities. Now, you can argue all you want that someone who works in the Directorate of the CIA that is now called the National Clandestine Service wasn't a covert agent but that only makes you look retarded.

 

[Edward]

Fair enough. And I obviously think there are enough credible opinions for all sides which makes Plame's status an issue which should be settled in a court of law.

Those opinions are contrary to the known facts which is that she worked in the Directorate of Operations which is now known as the National Clandestine Service and that she worked both as an covert case officer, NCO and as the director of a covert division within the Directorate of Operations. This info. was released to the public by the Bush administration. Had they simply noted that the wife of Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA they wouldn't have violated any law since this information was not classified and therefore could be released but her intelligence relationship to the CIA as a covert agent who was working for the Directorate of Operations was not known. Any foreign agent would know that the work being described by the Bush Administration was that of a covert agent. That was what outted her as a covert agent. The moment they implied that she made a decision to send her husband to Niger in her role as the director of the operations divison of the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA is the moment they told the entire world that she was a covert agent and this is a violation of the law.

That's ALL I've been clamoring for. I personally have enough questions about Plame's status that I doubt she could be considered covert under the law, but I acknowledge that there is a possibility that she could be considered such. Hence my continued calls for taking the issue to a court for a finding of fact.

This will not happen because the CIA will not allow the status of a covert agent to be determined in a court of law. The only information they will release is what we already know and they will not release any more information even in private to a Judge who could betray this country and sell the information he becomes privy to to some foreign power. This is a matter of our national security and the CIA isn't going to compromise that simply to prove in a court of law that Valarie Plame was a covert agent.

As to your belief regarding allegations of the GWB administration conspiring in a vendetta against Plame and Wilson, well... you're entitled to your opinion. I haven't seen any convincing evidence to support such allegations, but then again we each form our opinions from our own perspectives.

Except, those who proclaim the loudest that someone else is entitled to their opinion are those whose opinions are not based on the facts which your opinion has been demonstrated to be. Now tell me why you think someone who worked for the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) is not a covert agent and I will laugh my ass off.

 

[Care4all]

Those opinions are contrary to the known facts which is that she worked in the Directorate of Operations which is now known as the National Clandestine Service and that she worked both as an covert case officer, NCO and as the director of a covert division within the Directorate of Operations. This info. was released to the public by the Bush administration. Had they simply noted that the wife of Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA they wouldn't have violated any law since this information was not classified and therefore could be released but her intelligence relationship to the CIA as a covert agent who was working for the Directorate of Operations was not known. Any foreign agent would know that the work being described by the Bush Administration was that of a covert agent. That was what outted her as a covert agent. The moment they implied that she made a decision to send her husband to Niger in her role as the director of the operations divison of the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA is the moment they told the entire world that she was a covert agent and this is a violation of the law.



This will not happen because the CIA will not allow the status of a covert agent to be determined in a court of law. The only information they will release is what we already know and they will not release any more information even in private to a Judge who could betray this country and sell the information he becomes privy to to some foreign power. This is a matter of our national security and the CIA isn't going to compromise that simply to prove in a court of law that Valarie Plame was a covert agent.



Except, those who proclaim the loudest that someone else is entitled to their opinion are those whose opinions are not based on the facts which your opinion has been demonstrated to be. Now tell me why you think someone who worked for the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) is not a covert agent and I will laugh my ass off.

TOUCHE'

 

[Gunny]

Those opinions are contrary to the known facts which is that she worked in the Directorate of Operations which is now known as the National Clandestine Service and that she worked both as an covert case officer, NCO and as the director of a covert division within the Directorate of Operations. This info. was released to the public by the Bush administration. Had they simply noted that the wife of Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA they wouldn't have violated any law since this information was not classified and therefore could be released but her intelligence relationship to the CIA as a covert agent who was working for the Directorate of Operations was not known. Any foreign agent would know that the work being described by the Bush Administration was that of a covert agent. That was what outted her as a covert agent. The moment they implied that she made a decision to send her husband to Niger in her role as the director of the operations divison of the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA is the moment they told the entire world that she was a covert agent and this is a violation of the law.



This will not happen because the CIA will not allow the status of a covert agent to be determined in a court of law. The only information they will release is what we already know and they will not release any more information even in private to a Judge who could betray this country and sell the information he becomes privy to to some foreign power. This is a matter of our national security and the CIA isn't going to compromise that simply to prove in a court of law that Valarie Plame was a covert agent.



Except, those who proclaim the loudest that someone else is entitled to their opinion are those whose opinions are not based on the facts which your opinion has been demonstrated to be. Now tell me why you think someone who worked for the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) is not a covert agent and I will laugh my ass off.

You are wrong. If the law dictates a person must meet a specific criteria to be "covert," then the law is responsible for determining if a person meets the criteria.

Plame driving in and out of the front gate at CIA headquarters every day for 3 years is HARDLY a matter of national security. If she doesn't meet the legal definition of "covert," then it doesn't matter a damn what the DCI says; except, that he's practicing damage control and hiding behind the fact that you libs don't want to look any closer at this law than you did the law concerning conducting foreign relations because it doesn't suit your agenda to do so.

 

[Care4all]

You are wrong. If the law dictates a person must meet a specific criteria to be "covert," then the law is responsible for determining if a person meets the criteria.

Plame driving in and out of the front gate at CIA headquarters every day for 3 years is HARDLY a matter of national security. If she doesn't meet the legal definition of "covert," then it doesn't matter a damn what the DCI says; except, that he's practicing damage control and hiding behind the fact that you libs don't want to look any closer at this law than you did the law concerning conducting foreign relations because it doesn't suit your agenda to do so.

What are you fighting this issue for? What is "in it" for you? The reason I ask, is because the Classified Document that named Valerie Plame's position and involvement in the Wilson Ordeal, had SECRET writen next to her name, before it was distributed.

EVEN IF, Valerie Plame did not meet the definition of Covert, by releasing her name to the press and her relationship to the Wilson Ordeal according to them, they WILFULLY disregarded THE LAW, and released classified information marked SECRET in this classified document, which is ALSO against the Law.

Do you not see "something" wrong in that Gunny? Are you defending this action of a Vice President and his cronies as something you would revere, and sanction for the purpose of political gain?

And even if it were a "HAPHAZZARD" action of releasing her name "by mistake" (from this classified document with her identity marked SECRET next to it), don't you think that our administration should be a little more precautious in handling CLASSIFIED information as they took an oath and sworn affadavit to do?

From all accounts, this outing, hurt our national security, Hayden allowed the declassification of that much, and Hayden declassified Valerie Plame's status, which was considered covert.....but I digress...

If you could answer the questions above, maybe I could understand where you are coming from on this issue.

Care

 

[Gunny]

What are you fighting this issue for? What is "in it" for you? The reason I ask, is because the Classified Document that named Valerie Plame's position and involvement in the Wilson Ordeal, had SECRET writen next to her name, before it was distributed.

It had an (s) in front of the sentence. That's how classified docs are done. That doesn't mean it was specifically her name that was secret.
EVEN IF, Valerie Plame did not meet the definition of Covert, by releasing her name to the press and her relationship to the Wilson Ordeal according to them, they WILFULLY disregarded THE LAW, and released classified information marked SECRET in this classified document, which is ALSO against the Law.

Do you not see "something" wrong in that Gunny? Are you defending this action of a Vice President and his cronies as something you would revere, and sanction for the purpose of political gain?

And even if it were a "HAPHAZZARD" action of releasing her name "by mistake" (from this classified document with her identity marked SECRET next to it), don't you think that our administration should be a little more precautious in handling CLASSIFIED information as they took an oath and sworn affadavit to do?

From all accounts, this outing, hurt our national security, Hayden allowed the declassification of that much, and Hayden declassified Valerie Plame's status, which was considered covert.....but I digress...

If you could answer the questions above, maybe I could understand where you are coming from on this issue.

Care

Yeah, I see something wrong. I see a partisan witch hunt. I see an agent being called "covert" who doesn't meet the criteria. I see an agent being called covert 3 years after being pulled from the field when CIA SOP for maintaining cover is 2 years.

I see a woman who used her position to get her hubby a job, and he had to run his mouth so bad that HE brought attention down on himself; thus, his wife; yet you lefties INSIST on blaming Republicans.

I see a trivial conviction as a face-saving justification for existence that has nothing to do with the charges. In fact, no one has been charged nor convicted for blowing Plame's cover.

I see lefties wanting to convict Republicans for blowing Plame's cover; yet, refuse to accept the legal definition of "covert" as the defining factor.

You betcha I see something wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What are you fighting this issue for? What is "in it" for you? The reason I ask, is because the Classified Document that named Valerie Plame's position and involvement in the Wilson Ordeal, had SECRET writen next to her name, before it was distributed.

EVEN IF, Valerie Plame did not meet the definition of Covert, by releasing her name to the press and her relationship to the Wilson Ordeal according to them, they WILFULLY disregarded THE LAW, and released classified information marked SECRET in this classified document, which is ALSO against the Law.

Do you not see "something" wrong in that Gunny? Are you defending this action of a Vice President and his cronies as something you would revere, and sanction for the purpose of political gain?

And even if it were a "HAPHAZZARD" action of releasing her name "by mistake" (from this classified document with her identity marked SECRET next to it), don't you think that our administration should be a little more precautious in handling CLASSIFIED information as they took an oath and sworn affadavit to do?

From all accounts, this outing, hurt our national security, Hayden allowed the declassification of that much, and Hayden declassified Valerie Plame's status, which was considered covert.....but I digress...

If you could answer the questions above, maybe I could understand where you are coming from on this issue.

Care

Again your logic is flawed. A name of a person in a document that is classified is not proof a person is covert. Using your logic we must assume her husband was Covert also, as HIS name appears also in said document. Further WHERE the stamp of the classification appears has NOTHING to do with what part of the document is or is not classified.

My name has appeared in classified documents, BUT I was NEVER Covert. Unless you can provide evidence of your previous claim that Libby Specifically told anyone she was a COVERT agent your entire claim is destroyed by the simple fact the SWITCHBOARD at Langley freely admitted she was a CIA Employee.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Again your logic is flawed. A name of a person in a document that is classified is not proof a person is covert. Using your logic we must assume her husband was Covert also, as HIS name appears also in said document. Further WHERE the stamp of the classification appears has NOTHING to do with what part of the document is or is not classified.

My name has appeared in classified documents, BUT I was NEVER Covert. Unless you can provide evidence of your previous claim that Libby Specifically told anyone she was a COVERT agent your entire claim is destroyed by the simple fact the SWITCHBOARD at Langley freely admitted she was a CIA Employee.

the SWITCHBOARD at Langley freely admitted she was a CIA Employee


Can you link me to court documents, and/or non-partisan mainstream sources that demonstrate this.

thanks.

 

[Truthmatters]

I also asked for any proof of everyone knowing her work commute but got nothing.

They make these statements like they are fact ad then back it with nothing.

Yet when you offer them proof of what you claim they just ignore it.

This is an American nightmare, there is nothing to be gained from proof to them.

Its a sad day in America when they will blindly accept what their party heads will say but will refuse anything from sources like the CBO,GAO,CIA and the court system.

They truely believe there is another whole set of facts which comes from Faux noise ,shill Oliely,Lush Limpballs,Mann Cultwhore and the Bush admin.