Henry Waxman Opening Statement In Plame Hearing

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Question for everyone...
How did Armitage learn that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

It was in a classified State Department memo.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One a side note: Is it not highly ironic to watch the liberals of the forum trip over themselves to defend a former CIA operative.
In any other CIA thread they would be tripping over themselves to blame the CIA for all the worlds problems.

You see, John, we're not as simplistic as your side, where the CIA is all good or all evil.

When the agency does something good - investigates whether a potential act of nuclear proliferation occured for policymakers in deciding a war policy - we say that. When an agent who is working against proliferation is outed, and our nation's ability to reduce proliferation is harmed out of incompetence and political vengeance to protect a vice president who lied to the nation to push war, we say that.

It doesn't mean we endorse all CIA policies.

This is in contrast to your side, which actually is inconsistent, usually defending anything the CIA does without regard for any 'moral issues' about non-Americans, as you attack the agent who did nothing but serve the country and was harmed by her husband serving the country by evil leaders - your inconsistency is based only on politics to defend 'your side' however much wrong they do.

So, sure, there's some faux-irony given the fact that informed liberals take issue with many CIA actions, but when you look at the situation, it's only the liberals who are ethical.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One a side note: Is it not highly ironic to watch the liberals of the forum trip over themselves to defend a former CIA operative. In any other CIA thread they would be tripping over themselves to blame the CIA for all the worlds problems.

Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. Question is, why aren't you tripping over yourself to defend the CIA in this instance?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Sorry, but the CIA has already definitively stated that she was covert. It doesn't matter how you interpret her life story.

Sorry, but covert is a BS title that is being used to make it seem like her cover was really important.
As I said in a post long ago, any CIA employee who works over seas does so in a 'covert' fashion. If I had taken that job as a radio room operator I would have been 'covert' every time I went over sears because my 'official' employer would have been the State Department, but my real employer would have still been the CIA.
Here is more from the Chicago Tribune
link

When the Tribune searched for Plame on an Internet service that sells public information about private individuals to its subscribers, it got a report of more than 7,600 words. Included was the fact that in the early 1990s her address was "AMERICAN EMBASSY ATHENS ST, APO NEW YORK NY 09255."

So much for the whole Brewster Jennings cover huh?
And here is the good stuff...

After Plame left her diplomatic post and joined Brewster-Jennings, she became what is known in CIA parlance as an "NOC," shorthand for an intelligence officer working under "non-official cover." But several CIA veterans questioned how someone with an embassy background could have successfully passed herself off as a private-sector consultant with no government connections.

Genuine NOCs, a CIA veteran said, "never use an official address. If she had [a diplomatic] address, her whole cover's completely phony. I used to run NOCs. I was in an embassy. I'd go out and meet them, clandestine meetings. I'd pay them cash to run assets or take trips. I'd give them a big bundle of cash. But they could never use an embassy address, ever."

Another CIA veteran with 20 years of service agreed that "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period."

And just as a reminder, the second she married a former ambassador her ability to work 'under cover' or 'covert' if you prefer was ruined, how covert can you be when you are married to a person known to work for the US government? And they were married in 1998, 5 years before this whole mess.

Yes, at one point in her life Valerie Plame was in fact a covert office of the CIA and she may have in fact been a ?spy?, but those days were long over when this story broke.

Please reread the OP quote:

I have been advised by the CIA, that even now after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests. But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for these hearings. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Again, the CIA does the classifying here, not you. They know what she was doing, you do not. And neither of us knows if the unspecified CIA vetrans you quote know what she was doing. For all we know, she could have been a double agent.
What you and I do know is that the CIA considered Ms. Wilson's employment status at the CIA to be classified and covered by a law prohibiting it's disclosure.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Again, the CIA does the classifying here, not you. They know what she was doing, you do not. And neither of us knows if the unspecified CIA vetrans you quote know what she was doing. For all we know, she could have been a double agent.
What you and I do know is that the CIA considered Ms. Wilson's employment status at the CIA to be classified and covered by a law prohibiting it's disclosure.

Again... ANY and EVERY person who works for the CIA overseas does so in a covert fashion.
I have first hand knowledge of this, I was going to work for the CIA in US embassies. However, my job title, pay check and everything else would have said State Department.
So I would have been a 'covert' employee.

That whole opening statement and the whole thing that happened yesterday was all theater put on by the Democrats. Nothing new was learned and no new questions were answered. This isn?t my opinion, it is the one put forth by the AP
Plame sheds little light in leak case

 

[MonkeyK]

As I said in a post long ago, any CIA employee who works over seas does so in a 'covert' fashion. If I had taken that job as a radio room operator I would have been 'covert' every time I went over sears because my 'official' employer would have been the State Department, but my real employer would have still been the CIA.

And this is completely irrelevant (and a little doubtful that the CIA would discuss operational information with an applicant). Just because you would have had a state department cover for an "unimportant" job would not mean that anyone with a state department cover has an unimportant job. (For those who like logic: A implies B does not mean that B implies A)

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
had I received the position

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If I had taken that job as a radio room operator

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I was going to work for the CIA in US embassies

How far will the process have gone with your next post?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

As I said in a post long ago, any CIA employee who works over seas does so in a 'covert' fashion. If I had taken that job as a radio room operator I would have been 'covert' every time I went over sears because my 'official' employer would have been the State Department, but my real employer would have still been the CIA.

And this is completely irrelevant (and a little doubtful that the CIA would discuss operational information with an applicant). Just because you would have had a state department cover for an "unimportant" job would not mean that anyone with a state department cover has an unimportant job. (For those who like logic: A implies B does not mean that B implies A)

Now we are getting somewhere...

The whole point of the opening statement and the idea that she was 'covert' was meant to make people think that anyone with a 'covert' title must be doing something important and that their identity had to be protected. Which is not the truth.

It has been pointed out many times in this thread already that her ability to work at a 'covert' agent had been ruined LONG before the whole mess started. First she was 'outed' by a spy, then the CIA (by accident) and then through her marriage and finally by working at CIA headquarters. By time her name showed up in the papers her ability to do anything 'covert' was long over, and the CIA knew this which is why she was brought to DC in the first place.
As I pointed out in a previous post, anyone with a Credit card could have done a public record search on her and found out that she once gave her address as a US embassy.
Exactly how 'covert' can you be when anyone can find out that you worked for the government?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Priceless would be that no one can be or has been convicted of the crime you frivolously claim happened. The people most directly involved were not charged of leaking her name.

You're missing the point. The law is extremely narrow and the people involved did not fit in it. That does not exonerate them (as you do), and they made the false claims quoted.

You can be ProfJohn's assistant apologist.

So the point is a crime wasn?t committed, and you openly admit it.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Again, the CIA does the classifying here, not you. They know what she was doing, you do not. And neither of us knows if the unspecified CIA vetrans you quote know what she was doing. For all we know, she could have been a double agent.
What you and I do know is that the CIA considered Ms. Wilson's employment status at the CIA to be classified and covered by a law prohibiting it's disclosure.

Again... ANY and EVERY person who works for the CIA overseas does so in a covert fashion.
I have first hand knowledge of this, I was going to work for the CIA in US embassies. However, my job title, pay check and everything else would have said State Department.
So I would have been a 'covert' employee.

That whole opening statement and the whole thing that happened yesterday was all theater put on by the Democrats. Nothing new was learned and no new questions were answered. This isn?t my opinion, it is the one put forth by the AP
Plame sheds little light in leak case

If nothing new was learned, then you have known all along that the CIA considered Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. Personally, I had not heard that specifically stated up to now.

In any case, considering that you do not know the capacity in which she worked for the CIA, and considering that the CIA knows exactly the capacity in which she worked for the CIA, how can you dismiss their assessment that Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

As I said in a post long ago, any CIA employee who works over seas does so in a 'covert' fashion. If I had taken that job as a radio room operator I would have been 'covert' every time I went over sears because my 'official' employer would have been the State Department, but my real employer would have still been the CIA.

And this is completely irrelevant (and a little doubtful that the CIA would discuss operational information with an applicant). Just because you would have had a state department cover for an "unimportant" job would not mean that anyone with a state department cover has an unimportant job. (For those who like logic: A implies B does not mean that B implies A)

Now we are getting somewhere...

The whole point of the opening statement and the idea that she was 'covert' was meant to make people think that anyone with a 'covert' title must be doing something important and that their identity had to be protected. Which is not the truth.

It has been pointed out many times in this thread already that her ability to work at a 'covert' agent had been ruined LONG before the whole mess started. First she was 'outed' by a spy, then the CIA (by accident) and then through her marriage and finally by working at CIA headquarters. By time her name showed up in the papers her ability to do anything 'covert' was long over, and the CIA knew this which is why she was brought to DC in the first place.
As I pointed out in a previous post, anyone with a Credit card could have done a public record search on her and found out that she once gave her address as a US embassy.
Exactly how 'covert' can you be when anyone can find out that you worked for the government?

Who cares about the title "covert"?

What part of
"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958."
do you misunderstand?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Who cares about the title "covert"?

What part of
"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958."
do you misunderstand?

Tell that to the people with the facts, such as the prosecutor who felt it could not be convicted.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

So far, the most interesting part, was these statements by Waxman:

"I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA. "

What is sad is that none of this will matter. Rush, Hannity, and those unthinking masses who believe them, will insist she didn't meet the statutory definition of covert, that the investigation was a sham, that Libby's lies weren't material, and that nothing was wrong with outing her. I sincerely hope the hearings change some minds of those who can think for themselves, I just don't see anything really changing, whether in this administration or its supporters. They've had their talking points for years now, and nothing is going to change their mind.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Priceless would be that no one can be or has been convicted of the crime you frivolously claim happened. The people most directly involved were not charged of leaking her name.

You're missing the point. The law is extremely narrow and the people involved did not fit in it. That does not exonerate them (as you do), and they made the false claims quoted.

You can be ProfJohn's assistant apologist.

So the point is a crime wasn?t committed, and you openly admit it.

No, the point is that a wrong was commited, and you are unprincipled enough to be an apologist about it by trying to make the issue about a crime.

Maybe you need to check with your naked emperor, who said not that the issue was a crime, but that the leak itself was a very serious wrong and he wanted to know who did it.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Who cares about the title "covert"?

What part of
"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958."
do you misunderstand?

Tell that to the people with the facts, such as the prosecutor who felt it could not be convicted.

Knowing that a law has been broken is a very different thing than having enough evidence to convict a specific person for breaking it.
A very simple example: Imagine someone robs a bank. It is clear that a law has been broken: the money is unaccountedly missing. Police may even have a strong suspicion as to who did it but cannot provide a compelling enough case to convince a jury. This does not go to court and similar real scenarios do not go to court every single day.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Who cares about the title "covert"?

What part of
"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958."
do you misunderstand?

Tell that to the people with the facts, such as the prosecutor who felt it could not be convicted.

The law is very narrow, there are other reasons he could not charge the crime than her not being covert.

In fact, every informed source, including the CIA repeatedly, says she was covert, and the Bush administration has never said she wasn't - only the right wing liars do.

 

[Craig234]

John,

It's not terribly relevant, but the embassy role is far, far different than Plame. It has diplomatic protection; Plame was a NOC, a non-official cover agent, who are far fewer in number and who take on the dangerous tasks, without any diplomatic protection.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, the point is that a wrong was commited, and you are unprincipled enough to be an apologist about it by trying to make the issue about a crime.

Maybe you need to check with your naked emperor, who said not that the issue was a crime, but that the leak itself was a very serious wrong and he wanted to know who did it.

Outing her was wrong and should not have been done and shame on Armitage for having a big mouth.
However no crime was committed in the outing of Plame.
Now if Fitz releases a final report that says "I believe that Armitage broke law XXX when he named Plame as working for the CIA" then we can reopen this discussion.

Until such a time as that happens this will remain a politically motivated event.
If the Democrats are so determined to get to the bottom of this why don?t they get Armitage up there so they could ask him why he mentioned her in the first place. And then they could get Novak up there and ask him why he mentioned her in his article etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
John,

It's not terribly relevant, but the embassy role is far, far different than Plame. It has diplomatic protection; Plame was a NOC, a non-official cover agent, who are far fewer in number and who take on the dangerous tasks, without any diplomatic protection.

Craig, I read about that role. But I also read the statements of two people who dealt with NOCs and both said a 'real' NOC would never have a US embasy as the address, as Plame did in the early 90s, and they would never show up at CIA headquarters, as Plame did daily.

At one point in her career she may have done al this top secret stuff and ran around like a spy, but those days were LONG over when she was named in the paper. Despite all her claims about how people?s lives were put in danger because of this anyone who suspected that she worked for the government could have found out the truth rather fast.
Unfortunately too many people in this forum seem to believe that the outing of Plame was some national security disaster, and it was not.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Unfortunately too many people in this forum seem to believe that the outing of Plame was some national security disaster, and it was not.

A assertion that you have no way of supporting. All that we have to go on is the CIA's assessment, which makes no such assertion one way or the other, all it claims is that the outing of Ms. Wilson was prohibited by law.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Unfortunately too many people in this forum seem to believe that the outing of Plame was some national security disaster, and it was not.

A assertion that you have no way of supporting. All that we have to go on is the CIA's assessment, which makes no such assertion one way or the other, all it claims is that the outing of Ms. Wilson was prohibited by law.

The following is from Wikipedia, if you doubt the sources go there and look at them yourself.
link

In contrast, in an October 27, 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, Bob Woodward commented:
? They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone, and there was just some embarrassment.

In an appearance the next night, October 28, 2005, on Hardball, Andrea Mitchell was quoted as saying:
I happen to have been told that the actual damage assessment as to whether people were put in jeopardy on this case did not indicate that there was real damage in this specific instance.

Following Mitchell's appearance on Hardball, on October 29, 2006, The Washington Post's Dafna Linzer reported that no formal damage assessment had yet been conducted by the CIA "as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." Linzer writes:
There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences ? the risk of anyone's life ? resulted from her outing. But after Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's column, the CIA informed the Justice Department in a simple questionnaire that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation, officials said.

How much of a security threat can her outing pose when she went to work at CIA headquarters everyday?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much of a security threat can her outing pose when she went to work at CIA headquarters everyday?

You must be the one that said there was WMD in Iraq.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much of a security threat can her outing pose when she went to work at CIA headquarters everyday?

Who the fsck are you to presume to judge? :roll:

She was a career undercover officer. Her official title was Chief of Operations.

In blowing her cover, they also blew the cover for the name of the company she used as a front when travelling on CIA business. Since she travelled extensively, with and without her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, she was often under surveillance by the security forces of the countries she visited, and everyone she encountered, from those in high profile positions to the lowest street vendor in the bazaars were immediately identified as possible CIA assets and contacts.

Do you want to speculate which of them, which business execs, which government employees, which secretarys, which falafal vendors or which hotel housekeepers or desk clerks were unknowing background people and which of them were actually helping our nation fight the terrorists?

Do you want to explain to the families of any of those people why some of them were suddenly arrested, found dead or just disappeared?

Do you know enough to speculate which valuable resources were compromised? If so, tell us. If not, you continue to prove you're just one more chickenhawk neocon liar and Bushwhacko apologist.

You are truly pathetic.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Unfortunately too many people in this forum seem to believe that the outing of Plame was some national security disaster, and it was not.

A assertion that you have no way of supporting. All that we have to go on is the CIA's assessment, which makes no such assertion one way or the other, all it claims is that the outing of Ms. Wilson was prohibited by law.

The following is from Wikipedia, if you doubt the sources go there and look at them yourself.
link

In contrast, in an October 27, 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, Bob Woodward commented:
? They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone, and there was just some embarrassment.

In an appearance the next night, October 28, 2005, on Hardball, Andrea Mitchell was quoted as saying:
I happen to have been told that the actual damage assessment as to whether people were put in jeopardy on this case did not indicate that there was real damage in this specific instance.

Following Mitchell's appearance on Hardball, on October 29, 2006, The Washington Post's Dafna Linzer reported that no formal damage assessment had yet been conducted by the CIA "as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." Linzer writes:
There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences ? the risk of anyone's life ? resulted from her outing. But after Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's column, the CIA informed the Justice Department in a simple questionnaire that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation, officials said.

How much of a security threat can her outing pose when she went to work at CIA headquarters everyday?

Oh, so now it's that it was a "victimless crime"?

First you say that Ms. Wilson's outing wasn't really covered by the law, even though the OP quote quite clearly shows that the CIA states the exact opposite. Then you say that the effects were minimal because nobody died as a result (Woodward's statement is interesting, but one would have to know more about his source and the meaning of "embarassment").

All that I see from you is meaningless assertion after meaningless assertion. Business as usual?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
All that I see from you is meaningless assertion after meaningless assertion. Business as usual?

Maybe because it is a meaningless scandal that is more about politics than anything else?
About the only thing non-political about this scandal is the way her name came out in the first place. After that it is all about politics and scoring points against the other side.