Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It just really makes me sick that in order to defend this administration to the death people say on the one hand they support our troops and on the other denigrate the service of a valued CIA agent.
It makes me sick that there are still people who defend the administration at all. How bad would it have to get before these people threw in the towel? And over the years I've known and worked with an awful lot of CIA and CIA-type folks, and while some of them may be a little weird and all, for the most part, they are very solid people trying to do a very difficult job the very best they can. They do indeed deserve a lot more respect than what some people seem willing to grant them...
I still don't see how you could take a statement that says "as you may recall, BLANK recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate
She then goes on to say that her husband is willing to help. How is some other person approaching her husband for help translated as HER SUGGESTING her husband? I don't get it. Please explain for me.
As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter].
Try once more focus on what I bolded and you left out then see if it all comes together.
It is truly sad that some people allow the partisan blindfold they wear to keep them from seeing the obvious.
It is people like this that are dangerous to the American way of life...if a person gets a pass, no matter what they do, if they are from your party...then you become part of the problem rather then the solution.
It is truly sad that some people allow the partisan blindfold they wear to keep them from seeing the obvious.
It is people like this that are dangerous to the American way of life...if a person gets a pass, no matter what they do, if they are from your party...then you become part of the problem rather then the solution.
Well, I don't always agree with congress and I bet you don't either. Before all is said and done she just might end up in trouble.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has just released a new report as part of its continuing investigation into prewar intelligence. In the report, the committee's vice chairman, Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, has included a set of "additional views" in which he provides new evidence contradicting some of the public testimony Valerie Plame Wilson gave before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March.
Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, has included a set of "additional views" in which he provides new evidence contradicting some of the public testimony Valerie Plame Wilson gave before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March.
In that testimony, Mrs. Wilson flatly denied playing a role in choosing her husband, Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she testified. She said that an earlier Senate Intelligence Committee report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, what she called a "quick e-mail" describing her husband's qualifications for the trip was "taken out of context" by the committee to "make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him."
Now, Senator Bond has released the entire text of Mrs. Wilson's February 12, 2002 memo. In the memo, which was headlined "Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash," she referenced a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium that had been circulating in the previous week:
The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.
So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
The memo seems to show that Mrs. Wilson did indeed suggest her husband for the Niger mission. And it sheds new light on why Mrs. Wilson was involved in the Niger uranium matter to begin with. The conventional wisdom has always been that she suggested her husband's name in response to an inquiry from Vice President Dick Cheney about the Iraq Niger uranium story. But her memo, written on February 12, seems to show that she suggested her husband's name before the vice president asked his question on February 13. In addition, committee investigators found a cable in which Mrs. Wilson wrote that "both State and DOD have requested additional clarification" on the Niger matter. She added that "indeed, the vice president's office just asked for background information on the Niger report." The cable was dated February 13 at 3:42 p.m. — the day after she suggested her husband for the Niger mission."
First:
My question was "is she covert" and you still haven't shown me anything proving she wasn't. However, I think I've pointed out numerous people "in the know" - certainly more knowledgeable than either you or I - that assert she WAS covert. Done deal.
Second:
As for the memo - The way I read it - it appears that she is following up on a previous conversation where her husband was asked to work on another Niger project and someone had asked if he could do this one. I don't see here state "I think Joe is the guy for the job", but rather that she had discussed with him the possibility of his helping and he complied. This is in line with her testimony wherein she recounts a casual conversation regarding the VP's office wanting info on the Niger uranium link to Iraq that she followed up with a memo. If I am reading this wrong then I apologize for the back and forth, but I honestly don't see where she says she recommends him.
Third:
Either way, it is a moot point who suggested he look into it. He was qualified and he did the work and his assessment has yet to be proven wrong. I'm sure you'll dig up another National Review reference where someone claims that those documents weren't forged, but really... How many times do we need to go round this mulberry bush? If there were stockpiles of uranium - where are they? The only reason conservative apologists for this administration like to say Valerie recommended him is to try to make it seem like it is a bad thing for a wife to logically recognize the abilities of her husband. She is a seasoned analyst and he had contacts with Iraq and Niger. What difference should their relationship matter? I can see if he was paid a million dollars for the trip why people who be holding their nose about her recommendation (if it happened), but I don't believe he was on the receiving end of a big pile of money for this - was he? So why does it matter?
Was Valerie Plame covert at the time she was outed?
and:
Did Valerie Plame commit perjury?
Bringing up the second question is what's called a fallacy of association and it's an invalid argument to the question at hand because the two are completely unrelated. In this case, those who raise the second question do so in an attempt to justify what happened in the first question and are looking to conlude their argument as:
Valerie Plame may have commited perjury after she was outed so therefore her outing was justified.
This is an illogical statement, ergo the argument is false.
It is an argument, however, used by rightwing and leftwing propagandists to discredit critics hoping that you, their audience, won't catch it and will, instead, be distracted by the second, unrelated argument.
Remember, "They're impeaching Clinton over sex with an intern!," when, in fact, that wasn't even in the articles of impeachment? Same deal.
I think the main issue is over Plame's "status"...
Was she technically "covert"??? Maybe and I don't mind even saying yes to that.
Was she active NOC?? Most certainly not.
MY problem with this whole situation is that while "outing" her was improper, opponents of the administration want to make it sound like it was a priority 1 leak that endangered the lives of Plame, Wilson, and the thousands of NOC agents in the field and THAT's where I start to b**ch about being overly dramatic here.
Lose her career??? Are we sure that the CIA can't find something else for her to do??? Contrary to popular liberal opinion, the CIA employs many people who AREN'T secret agents. Not that she won't be receiving tons of money for appearances and interviews and book deals and such in the near future anyway....
Let me again re-iterate that I think what occurred was still a *****ty thing for our government to do, but I simply think the situation is being overblown by political opponenets which is nothing new in politics.
I also love how responsibility of the press is completely ignored here. So anxious to publish the story that they never thought to question whether they should. While I'm not for censoring the press I think it's fair to ask for a little responsibility from them.
First:
My question was "is she covert" and you still haven't shown me anything proving she wasn't. However, I think I've pointed out numerous people "in the know" - certainly more knowledgeable than either you or I - that assert she WAS covert. Done deal.
Second:
As for the memo - The way I read it - it appears that she is following up on a previous conversation where her husband was asked to work on another Niger project and someone had asked if he could do this one. I don't see here state "I think Joe is the guy for the job", but rather that she had discussed with him the possibility of his helping and he complied. This is in line with her testimony wherein she recounts a casual conversation regarding the VP's office wanting info on the Niger uranium link to Iraq that she followed up with a memo. If I am reading this wrong then I apologize for the back and forth, but I honestly don't see where she says she recommends him.
Third:
Either way, it is a moot point who suggested he look into it. He was qualified and he did the work and his assessment has yet to be proven wrong. I'm sure you'll dig up another National Review reference where someone claims that those documents weren't forged, but really... How many times do we need to go round this mulberry bush? If there were stockpiles of uranium - where are they? The only reason conservative apologists for this administration like to say Valerie recommended him is to try to make it seem like it is a bad thing for a wife to logically recognize the abilities of her husband. She is a seasoned analyst and he had contacts with Iraq and Niger. What difference should their relationship matter? I can see if he was paid a million dollars for the trip why people who be holding their nose about her recommendation (if it happened), but I don't believe he was on the receiving end of a big pile of money for this - was he? So why does it matter?
Identifying a CIA officer who is undercover has been a crime since 1982 when President Reagan signed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee and helped frame the law.
If she says Plame was not covert at the time thats good enough for me.
"Joseph Wilson. In July 2003, when he demanded an investigation of a White House cabal for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by "outing" his wife, Mr. Wilson knew Ms. Plame did not meet the factual requirements for covert status under the act. She was neither covert at the time of publication nor had a covert foreign assignment within five years. He acknowledged so in his book: "My move back to Washington [in June 1997] coincided with the return to D.C. of a woman named Valerie Plame." As the Senate negotiator for this 1982 act, I know a trip or two by Ms. Plame to a foreign country while assigned to Langley, where she worked in July 2003, is not considered a foreign assignment. I also know covert officers are not assigned to Langley."-VICTORIA TOENSING
How about some house government oversight committee testimony
Henry Waxman “How could you say that? How could you say she wasn't covert?”
Victoria Toensing “Well, because she wasn't. I wrote the statute.”
Henry Waxman “I'm not asking for your credentials.”
Victoria Toensing “Well, my credentials are how I know. I wrote the law. She was not covered by the law.”
How about some house government oversight committee testimony
Henry Waxman “How could you say that? How could you say she wasn't covert?”
Victoria Toensing “Well, because she wasn't. I wrote the statute.”
Henry Waxman “I'm not asking for your credentials.”
Victoria Toensing “Well, my credentials are how I know. I wrote the law. She was not covered by the law.”
LOL!!! It's like arguing with Jefferson and Madison over the intention of the Bill of Rights...... Classic!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
