• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

CIA Agent Uncovered! Wait, she was a staffer who never left the Washington office and leak intel herself?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Oh, DNC is up to this? Now you have my interest. Linky? Nope. Specious. Not suprising.

I have more than enough links, but waiting for you to post the 'right-wing conspiracy' members that made up the lies about Clinton sexually abusing college kids. "linky?"
I am not a Clinton lover or a Bush junkie. Both are as principled as pond scum. Want to talk about Monica? Go for it, because I am not going to defend him. You on the other hand have an albatross around your neck named Bush. You have to attack and divert whenever possible. All he is you have bound to yourself, and that is sad. Be your own man, not some politicians mouthpiece. Have the courage to call a bad thing just that. You are supporting a serious violation of the law in compromising this woman and whoever she was involved with. I dont like this from any administration.


Let's make this easy.

No one (except for you it seems) is denying that whoever outed her committed a felony.

Now, given that fact, if someone in the White House committed this crime, should they be punished? This requires a one word response. Yes (If you agree) No(If you do not)

If your answer is no, then you defend politicians from crimes based on your allegence. So be it.

BTW, I found looking into the 400 files reprehensible. "Look what they did" was never a good defense for a crime inside a court or out.

Also, you show your ignorance about intel agencies and how they work. I choose to let you flounder on this one though, because I think you serve a purpose here. Belittle her some more. Demean her position. It is what you do best here.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

No one (except for you it seems) is denying that whoever outed her committed a felony.

Now, given that fact, if someone in the White House committed this crime, should they be punished? This requires a one word response. Yes (If you agree) No(If you do not)

Absolutley.


Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx


Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into roadblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...


Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
BTW, I found looking into the 400 files reprehensible. "Look what they did" was never a good defense for a crime inside a court or out.

Didn't they blame it on the bar bouncer who sneaks into the White House at night? :)



...I think you serve a purpose here. Belittle her some more. Demean her position. It is what you do best here.
Nice! I have a sense of belonging now...*smooch*
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

No one (except for you it seems) is denying that whoever outed her committed a felony.

Now, given that fact, if someone in the White House committed this crime, should they be punished? This requires a one word response. Yes (If you agree) No(If you do not)

Absolutley.


Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx


Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into roadblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...


Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
BTW, I found looking into the 400 files reprehensible. "Look what they did" was never a good defense for a crime inside a court or out.

Didn't they blame it on the bar bouncer who sneaks into the White House at night? :)



...I think you serve a purpose here. Belittle her some more. Demean her position. It is what you do best here.
Nice! I have a sense of belonging now...*smooch*

Ewww! Grinch kiss :D
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Are my cliff notes correct at this point.....

She did something for the CIA, some reporters told her husband the White House leaked her name, he immediately blamed Rove, original reporter said she was not named by anyone in the White House, husband still believes Rove is responsible....

So at this point all I know for sure is her husband hates Rove.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: 308nato
Are my cliff notes correct at this point.....

She did something for the CIA, some reporters told her husband the White House leaked her name, he immediately blamed Rove, original reporter said she was not named by anyone in the White House, husband still believes Rove is responsible....

So at this point all I know for sure is her husband hates Rove.
Well, you also know someone outed her to Novac. You also now know that carries a potential 10 year term. Whoever that was is guilty of a crime. Lets have a proper investigation and see where it goes. If it goes somewhere else, then the administration is vindicated.

Has to be someone on the outside of the white house. You wouldnt have bought a Clinton internal investigation, and neither would I.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
I think R. Lee Ermey would be a fine man to have look into it.

I trust no one else at this point.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
A few points here:
-Novak's account that he got this info offhand in some interview with a senior admin. official does not fit with the Washington Post article that states that this info was specifically shopped around to 5 or 6 different journalists (this account has been confirmed by the journalists themselves) and certainly does not fit with Novak's previous telling of the story:
Novak yesterday:
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."
Novak in late July (from an article in Newsday):
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

-Rove has been fired before for smear jobs with Novak:
link
"Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted."
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Thanks Jahawkin. I had no idea Novak and Rove had a history of dirty tricks. Can we get some independant confirmation that the first President Bush had him fired?
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Here's Novak take on the previous Rove Firing by the 1st President Bush's Campaign.
From townhall.com

Seems to be an earily similar situation...but in that case Rove was fired. I guess we will see what the dogs turn up.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Here is the first report (unfortunatly in RA format) specifically fingering Rove as the leaker:
Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Here is the first report (unfortunatly in RA format) specifically fingering Rove as the leaker:
Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.
Don't qoute from the Guardian. That is not a credible source.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: reitz


Then why would George Tenet, loyal enough to the Bush admin to fall on his sword over the Uranium claims several months ago, request an investigation by the Justice Department? Tenet knows Plame's true role at the CIA...if there was no crime committed here, why would he persue the matter?

Why would John Ashcroft, a staunch Bush ally, move into a full criminal investigation? The DNC can make all the noise it wants, but Ashcroft doesn't have to answer to them.

Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into raodblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...

How do you know that the roadblock wouldn't be in the Bush/Ashcroft Justice dept itself ? When Justice dept and White House have this cozy a relationship, the coziest since Nixon/Mitchell, there is a good reason to have an independent council lead the investigation.


 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: reitz


Then why would George Tenet, loyal enough to the Bush admin to fall on his sword over the Uranium claims several months ago, request an investigation by the Justice Department? Tenet knows Plame's true role at the CIA...if there was no crime committed here, why would he persue the matter?

Why would John Ashcroft, a staunch Bush ally, move into a full criminal investigation? The DNC can make all the noise it wants, but Ashcroft doesn't have to answer to them.

Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into raodblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...

How do you know that the roadblock wouldn't be in the Bush/Ashcroft Justice dept itself ? When Justice dept and White House have this cozy a relationship, the coziest since Nixon/Mitchell, there is a good reason to have an independent council lead the investigation.
No theres not. This doesnt warrant it. There are 50+ similar complaints by the CIA, and ensuing DoJ investigations every year, almost one a week. This is just another blip on the radar. The DoJ rarely finds violations of law from these CIA complaints.

This is only a big deal because Mr Wilson has made it a big deal. For one he should have never been sent to Niger on a CIA mission. Also there appears to be people from past admins that leaked this info to other reporters in casual converstations, so it wouldnt just be pegged on some people in the Bush admin if there was an outting of a covert operative.

Its going to be debated if she was a covert op or not, the CIA says she is, but that doesnt mean she was.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So Robert Novak knows more than the CIA.


Why is the CIA asking for an investigation and the Justice Department beginning one if her position in some way was not classified?
For the same reason they ask for the other 49+ investigations a year, that rarely show a violation of law took place. Normally the CIA is just wrong and there isnt a violation of law, on occassion the DoJ cant solve the case, rarely do they ever find a violation of law, atleast according to former CIA James Woolsey.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,294
1
76
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So Robert Novak knows more than the CIA.


Why is the CIA asking for an investigation and the Justice Department beginning one if her position in some way was not classified?
For the same reason they ask for the other 49+ investigations a year, that rarely show a violation of law took place. Normally the CIA is just wrong and there isnt a violation of law, on occassion the DoJ cant solve the case, rarely do they ever find a violation of law, atleast according to former CIA James Woolsey.

How the hell do you know what the facts are in this case ? You point is since there are some number of complaints every year, so this one shouldn't be investigated ?

btw, what is your source that the CIA alleges 50+ times a year that the Whit House may have compromised an undercover CIA employee ?


 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm

No theres not. This doesnt warrant it. There are 50+ similar complaints by the CIA, and ensuing DoJ investigations every year, almost one a week. This is just another blip on the radar. The DoJ rarely finds violations of law from these CIA complaints.

This is only a big deal because Mr Wilson has made it a big deal. For one he should have never been sent to Niger on a CIA mission. Also there appears to be people from past admins that leaked this info to other reporters in casual converstations, so it wouldnt just be pegged on some people in the Bush admin if there was an outting of a covert operative.

Its going to be debated if she was a covert op or not, the CIA says she is, but that doesnt mean she was.
Why are you saying he should have never been sent to Niger in the first place?? What evidence do you have that people from past admins leaked this info?
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Something fishy is going on here: Novak claims, "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators." So why would the CIA request the Justice Dep't to investigate this if she was not a covert operative? If she was simply an analyst there would be NO investigation.

What about the "...at least six Washington journalists..." who also rec'd this information? It's not just Novak. Are they all going to claim they learned the information during an interview and that it wasn't a leak from the WH?

Also this, "Other CIA sources told CNN on Monday that Plame was an operative who ran agents in the field."

WTF? Is she an operative or not? So far, everyone seems to think so except for Novak.
The evidence all points to that fact, and if you're quatation from Novak is accurate, it definately looks like Novak is outright lying here.
Novak said a confidential source at the CIA told him that Plame was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operatives." (Full story)

But sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency that spies on others -- and was in the field for many years as an undercover officer.

"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department," a senior intelligence official said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/index.html

The LA Times reported simularly.

Novak said the CIA asked him not to disclose Plame's name, "but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," and that he was led to believe that she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."

Novak was wrong on those accounts, according to the CIA. "We wouldn't file a crimes report" if the case didn't involve an agent undercover, a U.S. official said.
The article appears to have been routinely updated and removed the quotation since I originally found it.
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm

No theres not. This doesnt warrant it. There are 50+ similar complaints by the CIA, and ensuing DoJ investigations every year, almost one a week. This is just another blip on the radar. The DoJ rarely finds violations of law from these CIA complaints.

This is only a big deal because Mr Wilson has made it a big deal. For one he should have never been sent to Niger on a CIA mission. Also there appears to be people from past admins that leaked this info to other reporters in casual converstations, so it wouldnt just be pegged on some people in the Bush admin if there was an outting of a covert operative.

Its going to be debated if she was a covert op or not, the CIA says she is, but that doesnt mean she was.
This sounds like a BS claim to me.

An obscure law that could come into play in an investigation of alleged leaks by the Bush administration has rarely, if ever, been used to prosecute someone for the unauthorized disclosure of a covert U.S. agent's name, people familiar with the law said yesterday...

After it was signed into law, the measure quickly faded into obscurity. Government officials said yesterday they could not recall a single prosecution under the law, although they said they could not completely rule that out...

A former Justice Department official with experience investigating national security cases said the 1982 law was seldom considered by prosecutors and that there were few, if any, prosecutions under the law because the statute's enactment had the desired effect.

"The fact that it's on the books has a very sobering effect on people who have access to sensitive information," he said. "Usually its existence is enough of a deterrent, and that has been the case with this law."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19699-2003Sep29.html

It sounds like this law is almost never violated and the evidence is that SOMEONE in the government almost certainly leaked this information and broke the law.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS