Nice swipe. If I actually had any respect for your opinion any more, I’d be weeping.
I lied, or was wrong that you wouldn’t respond. You’re also right that Cooper called Rove. But Cooper did not know that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA before he called. So what was his “confirmation”?
Your assertion that “it was in the hands of the press” is about the lamest bullshit excuse. Did Rove know that Novak was writing the article, and that it would be published? The White House has apparently gotten people to sit on stories before. How did Rove know this one would be published? What if the story had actually gotten pulled?
I was wrong about a small part of this. You’re nevertheless still a sycophantic little pussy.
By the way, here’s what Cooper says Rove told him (bolding mine):
Alright - that’s it, you little cunt. A phrase like “make a liar out of me” does not equate to me being an admitted liar. You’ve just been such a mealy mouthed little pussy this whole time, avoiding the fact that Rove told Cooper, that I predicted you would continue to avoid the matter.
Fuck off, you worthless piece of shit.
I’m just wondering why you have such an issue with the order of my priorites that you feel compelled to comment and read into things that I omit, yet open and specious cries of “racist” elicit no comment from you.
It seems like evidence to me that you are full of shit with your moral pronouncements and not to be taken seriously or respected. So I haven’t, and I don’t.
If your concerns were legitimate you’d apply them equally. You don’t. You’re full of shit. End of story.
You mean like a guy who summarizes a letter but leaves out the stuff that torpedoes his position? That kind of guy?
You said that that would prove you a liar, so we’ll go with “liar.”
I know.
He didn’t confirm. No need to mince he words. Rove told Cooper on his own.
It would seem to be a safe assumption. Novak did claim to be seeking confirmation when he first called Wilson so we can assume that he said as much to Rove (though neither have commented to my knowledge.)
I would think it would be really stupid to not conclude that Novak was going to publish. Do you think Novak was just curious personally?
Because it was a good story and a sensational piece of information. That’s what reporters do, you know?
By whom
That maturity again.
Yes. I know.
This is getting old. I linked to the letter. Nothing in the letter torpedoes my position. Once again you attempt to create some appearance of dishonesty on my part.
Your willingness to attempt to create it where it obviously doesn’t exist demonstrates your own lack of integrity.
You really don’t give a shit about telling the truth, do you? You’re so stupid, you’ll post obvious lies just to attempt to provoke me.
You go on and on and on, about how I’m not specially explaining the difference between “covert” and “classified” to you. Again. When I actually explain it, you just ignore it and make up something else.
Your a systematic liar. You pull the same shit over and over again like a broken record, and really the only person I’m pissed at is myself for wasting my time with you. You’re stupid, careless, ignorant and dishonest. I know better than to waste my time with you, yet here I am.
Well, that was indeed a useful link:
http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
As I suspected, timelines always turn into the blind spot of extreme conservatives, really, I stopped counting how many times “covert” was the operative word for this mess.
Oh, dear me! Another night crying myself to sleep, clutching my banky…
Publicly crushed by the very paragon of civil discource and scrupulous honesty, whose integrity glows as a beacon to us all. Why, one can hardly say the name to a veteran doper without being simply awash in accolades and applause for your impeccable and excruciating candor. You shine like a golden stream, when all about you is darkness…
Thank you.
No. I’m aware of that article and Plame’s claim to have been a NOC in the process of going noncovert. I don’t credit it for several reasons, and we can discuss it in detail if it would be a major issue for you, but mainly that you can’t be a NOC if you have official status. A NOC means “non-official cover” and this refers to operatives that due not have diplomatic status to protect them if they are caught. By marrying an ambassador you have diplomatic status, so you can’t, by definition be a NOC. If you were an agent you would have official cover. At the time Wilson retired, Plame was now working domestically and having kids, and the CIA can’t operate espionage domestically by charter.
She clearly was an undercover operative at one time. Whether or not she was a NOC is subject to debate.
However, I think it’s safe to say that if you are a NOC you learn how to protect your cover since you can be killed if it is blown. If you’re cover is sensitive and blowing it can be dangerous you might probably talk your husband out of writing OP EDs about spying missions you were involved with, as you might expect your involvement might come out.
So, assuming that she had been covert and was getting rid of that status in the Spring (which assertion I find highly dubious) it must have reached the stage of safety where it was ok for her husband to write the OP-Ed piece. The other alternative is that she is a very bad and stupid undercover agent.
Might just need a bit of a cite on that one. The old citerino…
And here is the problem with you now: after your already demonstrated misleading quote on Wilson you launch a further silly assumption: That he was risking his wife’s status by telling the administration what it was actively seeking not to hear. Nowhere in that OP-Ed he mentions his wife, her status was blown by the ones that wanted to keep control of the press.
The sentences you just presented aren’t the same thing, no (although the Mediamatters characterization could represent a subset of all possible unauthorized leaks of classified information).
But the letter actually has the words
Slightly different from what your post says the CIA is saying they reported.
Or perhaps you were talking about:
If so, I don’t see why that sentence should be divorced from the preceding paragraph. The sentence about the initial report to DoJ speaks in generalities of a possible criminal violation. The antecedent paragraph mentions the more specific character of the allegation under investigation.
Is that first paragraph something you merely overlooked? Or are you contending that Mediamatters is assigning it more significance than is warranted? If the latter, I would be grateful for the line of reasoning which led you to that opinion.
Nothing so grand as that, Gigo. “Controlling the press”, nah. More simply, hoping to discredit his public stature by implying that his wife sent him on a junket to the tropical paradise of Niger. Or that he’s whipped, maybe. They didn’t have a lot to work with, so they gave it their best shot.
Kaylasdad, you’ve made a pretty obvious blunder. The Media Matters uses the inflammatory words “undercover agent”, whereas the official letter merely refers to an “employee working under cover”. “Undercover agent” means she was carrying an L-tablet of cyanide as she skulked and daggered about. “Employee working under cover” might just be someone from the typing pool.
Perhaps. I’d kind of like to hear it Scylla’s own words, though. Alas, I see by the grey dot by his name that he’s away from the board at the time of this posting. I had originally tried submitting #273 a couple of hours ago, but my internet connection was down. Good luck for me that it came back before I shitcanned the content; bad luck that I didn’t get to post it until prit-near midnight his time.
I’ll check the status in the morning.
One thing (one other thing) that’s been nagging at me throughout this thread: What “retribution” is anyone talking about? ISTM that “retribution” would be something like trumping up a charge of “unauthorized disssemination of classified materials*” against Wilson, and tossing him in the cooler. The insinuations that arose out of the Novak piece strike me as falling under the general heading of “discrediting the source.”
As “retribution,” making Joe Wilson look like a leftist shill stumping for an anti-war agenda would work how, I wonder? By seeing to it that Joe Wilson never again got called out of retirement for a pro bono** fact-finding mission? How does that work against his interests/aspiratons? But for “discrediting the source,” if there’s a perception within the WH that Wilson’s piece tends to weaken the case for war, there is a distinct advantage to the WH in making it appear that the piece cannot be relied upon to be reporting objective facts.
Opportunistically taking advantage of the leak about to appear in Novak’s column to volunteer the information to other reporters strikes me as an effective (and coolly efficient) mechanism for achieving the discrediting of Wilson’s Op-Ed piece, and reaping the benefits therefrom.
So, Scylla once again I’d be grateful for some clarification from you as to the thesis of your OP: do you distinguish between “Discrediting an inimical source” and “exacting retribution upon an enemy” in your catalog of what cannot be laid at the door of the Cheney-Rove-Libby troika?
If you intend to characterize them as seperate line items, then I commend you for not engaging in a quixotic effort to demonstrate that discrediting Joe Wilson as a reliable reporter was not among the White House’s motivations; and sticking to the “destroying-Joe-Wilson’s-reputation-and-seeing-to-it-that-the-remainder-of-his-days-were-spent-in-bitter-isolation-from-all-men-of-good-report-type revenge” line. 'Cos, I agree with you, they’ll never be able to pin that one on Messrs. Cheney, Rove, and Libby.
In fact, I can’t even see why anyone would want to, what with the juiciness of the other one, that will never quite be disproved. But shame on you for trying, if you did.
*(okay, Scylla, while operating a motor vehicle with a cracked tail-light, if you insist that it be accompanied by a side order of “other infraction”. 
)
** I gathered from the Vice President’s handwritten notation that he, at least, believed that Wilson was not paid for his efforts. If I’m mistaken, then I will admit that I was wrong to rely on Vice President Cheney’s words to learn the facts of the matter. Any of them.
The quote said that she was transitioning from non-official cover to official cover. Either of the two would be a covert agent for purposes of the IIP. Furthermore, according to former CIA agent Larry Johnson:
If that is true, and as you’ve already conceded that Valerie Wilson’s “identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information”, then Valerie Wilson was a covert agent.
Also, note that there is no exception in the IIP for telling someone after they had already learned the information, or for telling someone after being pretty sure it was going to be in the press the next day.
The only out I can see for Rove is if he didn’t know about Valerie Wilson’s status through having access to classified information, but had only heard it through non-official sources. Again, assuming we take Larry Johnson’s word on her status as being true.
The definition of a covert agent is admittedly ambiguous, but you are going to great lengths to twist that definition to your own ends. To be considered ‘covert’ Plame’s status must be classified, which it was, and she must have served as an operative overseas within the past five years, which she had. She made trips for the front company Brewster Jennings and Associates in 2001, 2002, and 2003, months before she was outed. Not only did Plame serve as an operative, but she traveled on these dates without diplomatic credentials under the premise that she was an energy consultant. This certainly fits the definition of covert, and further, think it is likely that she would be considered an NOC, a non-official cover agent. As such, if caught she could face execution as a spy while her own government denied knowledge of her.
‘Serving’ does not require a permanent overseas station. You are deliberately ignoring her service during the years after 1997, and are belittling the hazardous nature of that service. It’s some strangely patriotic administration that would deride the contribution of one of it’s service people in order to protect the asses of a couple of bureaucrats. You should be ashamed at having bought into it.
Perhaps this was not a wise choice. Perhaps he should be censured or punished. This would have no bearing on the crimes committed by Armitage and Rove. You do understand that confirming classified information relating to the outing of a covert agent is as much a crime as leaking it in the first place, don’t you?
You don’t have to marry a diplomat to receive diplomatic status, it could be awarded to anyone. Though just because Valerie Wilson would be eligible for diplomatic status, it does not follow that, during the course of a covert operation, Valeria Plame would carry Valerie Wilson’s diplomatic passport. This is a ridiculous objection.
I didn’t know that you needed protecting. There, there, poor little Scylla, mighty Hamlet will protect you:
Hentor, you shouldn’t have hijacked the thread with an accusation of racism against Scylla. And I think you’re absolutely wrong about the accusation and it that wasn’t really borne out by your cite.
There. Can we stop the “But the other kids are doing it too!” crap now?
Your “respect” means fuck-all to me. But more kudos for continuing the Republican machine of refusing to answer questions about your own problems with idiotic accusations against others. A tad predictable and daft, but you gotta go with your strengths.
Same ole’ Same ole. 6 pages in and you still haven’t condemned this administration’s leaking of classified information, confirming the leak, and being indicted for lying, but rather blamed it all on Joe Wilson. Par for the Scylla course.