What’s sad is that, no, he doesn’t know better. Just as he doesn’t know better that somehow it’s Joe Wilson’s fault, or that it’s ok to leak classified information, as long as it’s not covert. Don’t underestimate his stupidity in the political realm.
I disagree. It’s not stupidity, it’s wilful distortions in pursuit of an agenda. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
Thanks be to friend Waverly, who has managed to extract from Scylla, at long last, just precisely what the “covert/classified” buttwhistle was all about. I can only hope that this was accomplished without resorting to waterboarding.
Still leaves that one nasty little detail untouched: the CIA referred the matter for criminal investigation. Scylla labors mightily to believe, and to convince us as well, that Mr. Fitzgerald’s comments mean that Ms. Plame’s status was “classified” as *opposed * to “covert”. Ain’t necessarily so. It might just as easily mean that her status was classified information regardless of what that status was.
I’m willing to go out on a limb and speculate wildly that the CIA knew what status the CIA had assigned to her. Pretty crazy, I know. I also dare to venture that CIA has lawyers available to it, who can advise on matters legal. Apparently, said lawyers advised to refer the matter to Justice, there being some question as to legality.
And here is where Scylla steps on his dick.
He is eager to have us believe that Ms. Plame’s status was “classified”. He insists that we believe that such status (“classified”) contradicts and negates any suggestion that she was “covert”, that someone cannot be both.
Clearly, this is hogwash. If one were covert, then, without doubt, her status would be classified, or “covert” would have no meaning. It may also be true that her status would be classified if she were not covert, that her status would be classified information regardless of what that status might be.
We are assured by Scylla’s vast expertise in these matters that revealing classified information is not punishable. Therefore it follows that if Ms. Plame’s status were classified (and not covert), no crime would have been committed. Therefore it follows that no referral would have issued from CIA to Justice, because clearly no crime was committed (presuming that CIA has equal expertise to Scylla: I dare make so bold).
Further, we are once again given the conclusion as a given: that Ms. Plame sent Mr. Wilson on his junket to the vacation paradise of Niger. Possibly to further expedite her affair with Hillary Clinton, we don’t yet know. But we do know that “Big Dick” Cheney asked the CIA to investigate, and, presumably, the CIA is sensitive to the wants and needs of the Vice President, since he was dropping by for friendly, off-the-record chats.
Did they send someone else? Who? They might very well have wished to send Ms. Plame, whose area of expertise was counter-proliferation. By sending Wilson, however, they have a “two-fer”: a man with much diplomatic expertise and contacts in the region, who can be in close communication with his wife, who has expertise in matters of weaponry production.
Makes all the sense in the world. In that light, Wilson was the ideal candidate for the mission.
Or, to ask a simpler question: did Ms. Plame pay for his plane tickets? Or did the CIA? We may refer the question to Scylla, whose expertise in these matters is vast and comprehensive.
We wait with bated breath.
Thank you! Such vituperation from you is like harvesting diamonds from a pig’s rectum! I blush with gratitude!
The feral poodle,
desperate and alone,
whimpers plaintively.
The hell he does. The smart conservatives, who know what they’re doing, are staying far away from this mess because they know it’s a losing proposition - there’s nothing that can be said that will turn this fiasco into a conservative triumph. This thread is an example of what happens when an ideological partisan overreaches and tries to defend the indefensible.
Or you could have read the thread and see that your question had been answered.
That may be true, but I seem to be unable to find this.
By all means, show how she was covert.
It would seem standard procedure for the leak of classified information. Again though, I can’t seem to find anything about the CIA’s referral. I don’t see where you’re getting “covert” from.
I cited it. It is a fact. Do you dispute it?
It’s not “hogwash”. It’s asinine stupidity. Fortunately, I made no such argument. I see you’re back to making up lies and pretending that I said them.
It’s why I ask you to quote me directly. You lie all the time.
I believe I cited that too.
Not true. Pretty stupid. Doesn’t follow. Leaking classified information in and of itself is illegal. It is a crime. It is simply not a punishable crime by itself.
I don’t disagree with that. What I think he’s doing is stirring shit with this nonsense for two reasons: (a) to troll the left for his own amusement, and (b) maybe to convince someone still wanting to believe the White House PR that there are, in fact, rebuttals to all the evidence of malfeasance.
By the way, Scylla, your claimed inability to find any evidence of the CIA having referred the leak to Justice for criminal investigation is absurd.
That’s just one of a multitude of cites.
Once more into the breach.
Why is it you find the venom to rant against the Ilk for speculating on motives for a leak, but not for the administration that leaked the information, then confirmed it, and then, potentially, lied about it. Do you not see the inherent stupidity in the “It wasn’t evil, it was incompetence” argument? Why did you celebrate such an argument with as much elan and defensiveness as you could muster?
I asked myself those questions, and the only thing I could come up with was you’re a partisan hack with little to no moral center when it comes to politics. Can you give me another option?
Excellent. I don’t particularly have a lot of respect for Mediamatters. May I have another one showing primary sources?
Chipmonks ate his brain?
As in, a PDF of the actual referral from the CIA to Justice?
I can tell you what I told you before. I don’t care about your opinions concerning my motivations and I regard your attempts to focus on them as transparent ad hominem type attacks.
I am arguing a point of view by myself in this thread. I wonder why you are so focussed on attempt to psychoanalyze and judge my motivations, and mine alone.
Go back to page one and apply your personality critiques with equal vigor to everybody on your side of the argument, and then come back and talk to me and I will listen carefully to what you have to say.
Ok?
This makes absolutely no sense. Maybe if you rephrase it, it will, but as it stands… What kind of crime isn’t punishable?
You seem to be saying that revealing classified information is a crime, period. Which would mean that Ms. Plames status, covert or no, was of no relevence, since it was just as much a crime to reveal her occupation whether or not. Hence, it was a crime when Novak did it, when Armitage did it, when Rove did it and so on and so forth.
So…why then such fuss and feathers over whether or not she was covert? On the one hand, you are at great pains to insist that her status as a covert functionary must be proven by us, and, on the other, you say that her status was “classified” and revealing it was a crime, regardless. Simply an unpunishable crime, whateverthehell that is.
Ah, well, Scylla, I’m afraid there’s no way to offer a “primary source” for the content of the CIA referral, given the ruling by the Federal District Court with jurisdiction in the case, as stated on pages 30 through 32, that that document, among others, is a confidential internal government document and thus not subject to discovery by Libby’s lawyers.
So I guess that leaves us with the EEEEEEVUUUUULLLLLLLLL liberal media, and thus you may blithely dismiss out of hand any citations offered.
Now, doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
Would you accept red, rough, and sore?
Because your argument makes no sense to me. As I’ve stated before, the inanity of the “they’re not evil, they’re incompetent” argument makes absolutely no sense to me. I was hoping you would explain how the argument should be taken, but, apparently, you can’t, or won’t.
I see nobody else in this thread advancing the “it’s not evil, it’s incompetence” argument that so befuddles me. If you see it, point it out to me, and I’ll question that person too. As it stands now, you’re the only one I see advancing such a stupid argument. I can follow the “classified v. covert”, and the attempts to determine the intent of the leakers arguments. And I don’t see enough information to draw absolute conclusions yet. But the raising of “Aha! They’re not evil, they’re incompetent!” argument is confounding to me.
That’s ok. I found the actual letter to John Conyers, and it is as I thought. Meidamatters is not reporting this accurately.
You may view the letter here
John Conyers wrote regarding any requests the CIA had made to the DOJ regarding “an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of an employee operating under cover.”
The CIA replies that they are required to report possible violations of criminal law, and that they reported “a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” as per standard procedure.
Are you conceding a point or are you suggesting this somehow validates your position?