As is your prerogative. Interestingly, my post on that topic yielded the most personal contact I’ve ever gotten from people, wanting to express their agreement. Why they felt they should contact me rather than post their opinions in that thread or the Pit thread on that topic, I don’t know. My point remains that the reason why the assertion that “Maybe there really are niggers” is wrong could never be described as “happy crap,” and doing so suggests both something less than a heartfelt belief, and also a very juvenile comprehension of the topic.
You are certainly free to disagree, and I don’t wish to get back into all of that here. As I said, I am sorry to have brought up the tangential topic.
It would seem to me that someone who truly regretted introducing a sidetrack would drop the subject, or take it elsewhere, rather than giving it a curtain call.
No. Mediamatters is presenting only a specific member of that subset.
I didn’t see all those misspellings in the PDF I looked at and linked to.
I beleive you’re making a mistake to read it that way.
No. I’ve read the whole thing carefully. The first paragraph is simply a summary of Conyers request and Mr. Moskowitz explaining that he has been tasked to answer. While summarizing, mentions that Conyers asked for information regarding the leak of the identity of an employee operating under cover.
The next paragraph is Moskowitz explaining what actually happened. To paraphrase: “we are required to report all cases where the law may have been broken, we reported a possible leak of classified information.”
Moskowitz does not confirm Conyers. He corrects Conyers, politely. “You asked about the leak of an undercover agent, what actually happened is reported the possible leak of classified information,” is how I read it.
Mediamatters reported the summarization of the request as if it were the confirmation.
According to Plame’s interview in Vanity Fair, but we know that Plame doesn’t always tell the truth. If you look at the February 12, 2002 entry in the factcheck.org timeline you’ll see that Plame claims only to have approached her husband for the mission after the CIA decided on him when in fact she wrote a memo recommending him for the job.
According to his blog. Larry left the CIA in 1989. Plame didn’t even graduate from the College of Europe and begun to work for the government until 1995. In that same post of Larry’s he goes on about Oxycontin abusing conservatives. He cites no sources for his assertions and I have no idea what his capacity in the CIA was, but seeing as he left six years before Plame started I have difficulty in doing more than chuckle over his assertions of secret missions in the 200s while she was presumably nursing her kids.
Gimme a fucking break with that guy.
Rustman, who wa actually Plame’s boss says: “her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.”
The CIA must also be providing her an active cover identity. “Valerie Plame” is hardly a cover identity, since googling it would find she was married to high ranking ambassador Joe Wilson. I think it’s safe to say that a cover would need to stand up to Google (Yeah, I know. Yahoo then.)
Only according to Larry Johnson who is non-credible in his claims.
Larry Johnson again. Did you look at this guy’s blog?
Marrying an ambassador, having twins, working as an analyst, again, according to her former boss Rustman who is much mor credible than Johnson/
It looks to me like WIlson and Plame deliberately created this scandal to discredit the administration, and are mere pretenders.
(referring to Wilson’s writing the OP-ED.)
Well, not if you want to protect your wife’s undercover, covert, super secret agent status. Then, no, you should not be writing OPEDS about the secret missions she’s involved in.
Or, perhaps she wasn’t all that secret. Perhaps she was a dilletante who went to school abroad and had some low-level functioning for a couple of three years before cashing in and marrying an ambassador and landing a cushy desk job based upon her husband’s position, and is merely a pretender.
No. The contents of Wilson’s report were classified. That didn’t stop him from leaking them in an OPED and nobody said “boo.” If he hadn’t leaked about his mission the circumstances surrounding it would not have gotten out. If they were to be protected he shouldn’t have leaked. He shouldn’t have leaked anyway, but once he did, the full story deserved to have the light of day.
Wilson just doesn’t get to decide what classified information he wants to share and he doesn’t get to just reveal a part of the picture, and then whine and play martyr when the rest comes out.
Now, I’ve stated before, I’m not nearly as well versed in the facts of the Plame affair, so while I try and pull together odds and ends of information, do you have a cite for this? The way I understood it, Wilson’s OPed piece called into question Bush’s statements that he gave at the State of the Union Address, and the fact that the Niger stuff was baloney had already been reported elsewhere. I guess I don’t understand how that means he leaked confidential information, and I haven’t seen anything where Wilson was ever even investigated for the “leak”.
The cover is for activities, not existential essence. The overt cover of Valerie Plame is ideally suited to place her in situations where covert and discreet inquiries might be made, without the principals even needing secret meetings, codes, etc.
By the way, you never did provide that cite proving that an ambassador’s wife has a diplomatic status that somehow disqualifies her from NOC status. Be nice to have that cleared up. Since, you know, you’re the one who said it.
Moving right along…
Perhaps. But their character flaws are at issue here only because you insist that they are. Their behavior is equally in line with dedicated persons outraged at being used to further political skullduggery, i.e., misleading the nation to war on false pretenses.
Perhaps they thought the risk was worth it? Isn’t that what we expect from patriots?
Did you by any chance see #283?
Got that shit right, for once. As I recall, you weren’t exactly thrilled about it then, either.
So, it appears the other arguments having collapsed, your putting all your chips on “Joe Wilson teh suxxor!” Probably safe there, what can’t be proven can’t be falsified. Good spot for a bunker.
The general claim of retribution is that the Bush administration deliberately leaked Plame’s name and her status as a covert CIA agent in order to get revenge and discredit Wilson, not caring that it compromised a CIA agent and endangering all her networks and contacts.
Well, I think that Wilson having publically made the allegations he did, we can expect that the rest of the story will and should come out to present all the facts.
I certainly don’t beleive that Wilson should be allowed to selectively leak classified information (such as the contents of his report,) and expect the circumstances of how he wrote the report and what credibility it should be assigned would remain similarly classified. He claims a very high status, as going at the behest of questions asked by the Vice President. It is only fair that that status be scrutinized in it’s entirety.
That is one bitch of a sentence, double negatives and all. Hmmm. I’m not really sure what you’re asking here. Is discrediting Joe Wilson proper? I think it is. We know that he conveniently left out that there was an attempt to purchase yellowcake in 1999 out of his Op-ed, and I view that piece as a pretty clear attempt to smear the Bush administration and help Kerry.
It makes no sense to me, either. That’s just the way it seems to be.
***I hope that answers your question. If I failed to do so, I apologize, but either it’s very late or my brain is fried or your sentence structure got a bit too complex and obfuscatory for me to parse.
Psssst! Scylla? Post #283, above? And that cite about the status of persons married to ambassadors? The assertion you made, but have yet to substantiate? Or do I need to quote you again, to prove my questions aren’t lies?
I was merely discussing your apparent confusion between not being NOC and not being covert. You seemed to have accepted Plame’s statements, reservedly, for the sake of making that point.
I understand that pointing to any statements made by Plame is not going to convince you of anything in and of itself. I suspect that pointing to any statements that disagree with your contentions is equally fruitless, but nonetheless…
Well, not so much secret missions as business meetings to keep alive the persona of Valerie Wilson, WMD expert with Brewster Jennings. Maintain ties to people she had worked with before. Presumably, with her marriage to Joe Wilson, and her (I don’t believe proven) outing by Aldrich Ames, it was becoming time to transition to the persona of Valerie Wilson, who retired from Brewster Jennings and got a cushy State Department job through her husband, a former ambassador. As far as I can tell, her actual identity was never a secret, merely her association with the CIA.
…and yet you expect us to take Rustman’s assertions at face value. Obviously, you consider there to be a difference between the two’s credibility on the matter. Again, I suspect that it is merely which partisan axe they grind. But, if you can fill us in, let me know, because for the invective you’ve spewed it sounds as if you really expect the left to see the obvious truth of your guy’s unsupported assertions, and dismiss our guy’s unsupported assertions.
Yes. The CIA is pretty tight-lipped about the details, for some reason. They haven’t even told me how they usually do this covert agent stuff so I can judge which assertions are more plausible, much less confirm any details.
So you are claiming she was never employed between when she received her BA from Penn State in 1985, and when she completed her graduate study in 1995? Nice.
Hey, now, just a second Fear This!. Technically, he’s being entirely truthful, she didn’t stop going to school until she got her doctorate! So, she didn’t complete her schooling until then. OK, so he left out a minor detail…
What exactly is an “overt cover?” Wouldn’t an obvious cover be somewhat self-defeating?
I swear to God, I seriously thought you were fucking with me and that was a rhetorical question. It really is that stupid. I’m not trying to be insulting, but it really is, and you’re wasting my time.
And that too is unimpressive. Corn began the whole “covert” thing apparently based on an interview with Johnson, and is simply rehashing old material we’ve been discussing.
Darned if I know. I have trouble keeping up with John LeCarre stories. But an overt cover that gives her entirely plausible reasons to be in places she needs to be for, ah, classified reason seems entirely sensible to me.
Haven’t got it. Pulled it right out of yer ass. Moving right along…
That word “apparently”. Seems a bit “soft”, like this is your personal impression, your feminine intuition, so to speak. Have any proof for that than for your last improv?
