So, the wife of the US Ambassador to Gabon would have diplomatic immunity while attending a meeting for her own pivate employer in, say, Iran? I think a cite would be useful, as it doesn’t seem at all clear to me that that would be the case. Not that it matters, as the distinction between NOC and OC is irrelevant to the laws we’re talking about.
At the time of the Novak article Plame’s status was classified. Prior to her marriage to Wilson she spent time “covert.” Whether or not she was a NOC is still another question. A chicago Tribune article shows that her address in part of the 90s was the American Embassy, Athens. The article quotes a 20 year veteran of the CIA as saying “the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn’t an NOC, period.”
Working at the embassy she would have official cover.
I guess it was possible that she was a NOC at some other time. The CIA doesn’t tell me how they work either. I’m guessing, and the unnamed veteran in the article seems to be saying that "officers serving in American embassies would have “diplomatic cover”, and their identities would be known to both “friendly and opposition intelligence services alike”.
Once they know that, it’s kind of hard to be a NOC
(Sorry I can’t link to the article. It requires registration, but I got the quotes from Wikipedia)
I change my mind and concede points pretty often compared to most. Such complaints typically imply that there’s not a very strong argument forthcoming, but we’ll see.
These are, you know, the same person.
Yes. Rustman was actually her boss for a time. He served with her. Johnson did not. Johnson left before she got on board if I’m reading the timeline correctly. Johnson has a very clear partisan axe to grind, and really no credible means to have the information he shares. The fact that he has it and shares it is pretty much self-negating as to it’s credibility.
For example, he says words to the effect that she went to Niger in 2003 and ran spies. Let’s pretend that this is actually true. He claims to bring this up to show that the outing of Plame jeopardizes Plame’s operations and at the same time he goes on to get specific about the operations she was running. Very very specific. This is much more damaging than simply revealing that she was a covert agent. He’s saying where, when, and what she was doing with such specifity it’s ridiculous. I can just see them in Niger “Oh, she was running spies, and conducting operations in 2003? We better check that out, so we can go round those guys up and kill them.”
Johnson doesn’t seem to realize the almost comical self-refuting nature of such statements to his credibility.
Rustman on the other hand seems to have like Plame, respected her and as far as I can see he is grinding no political axe while Johnson appears to be a blogging pundit who is conveniently self-condemning his own arguments.
So yeah, Rustman is a way better source than Johnson.
Me neither. Fortunately Johnson outs himself as unreliable.
But if you were doing that “overtly” as you say, than you coudn’t have classified reasons without leaking them.
If the overt cover was “official” say as being the Ambassador’s wife, it couldn’t really be “nonofficial” too. And, if she was there say as a private employee of some firm she would still be married to an ambassador and have “offical” cover
If I did, I would not have said “apparently.” I would have said “definitely.” I say “apparently” because it merely seems apparent based on the fact that Corn’s claims while uncredited seem to “apparently” directly derive from Johnson’s (which are also uncredited) which preceed them yet are nearly identical. It is not sourced, but the source seems to be “apparent.”
Stop being a pain in the ass.
She would still be the wife of the ambassador to Gabon, wouldn’t she?
True, but the claim that Plame was a NOC would make her seem more heroic and her outing more egregious if it were true, just as it would be more egregious if she were covert rathen than merely classified.
The higher the status of Plame the more serious the incident.
Interestingly enough George Stephanopolous seems to agree with me:
Though within the context of the story the last sentence doesn’t make any sense.
Just wanted to clear that up. You are rejecting Mr. Corn’s statements out of hand, having nothing more but your own biases to operate from. Of course, his statements are pretty strong, suggesting, as they do, a considerable degree of importance to Ms. Plame. If he’s lying, as you “apparently” suggest, I have little doubt he’ll be busted for it, that’s some very specific stuff there. Let me know, won’t you, when that happens?
Yeah, does seem kind of ungrateful, after you’ve been so nice to me, and all.
Yes, but I really don’t know if that’s the sort of thing that would enable the US to tell Iran that we’d like our diplomat back and require them to give her back, or if wives of ambassadors are at the mercy of the laws that the rest of us are bound to when they wander around the world on their own business. As I said, I don’t really care so much, as it’s irrelevant to the legal case, but you do seem to be making the claim that it ought to be apparent, when I don’t think it is.
I’m sure that you do. The tenor of this thread leads me to suspect that this is not one of those cases. There’s certainly not going to be a strong argument coming from me. I saw a few blatant gaps in your argument and took you to task. You’ve filled in those gaps with some clarifications and futher information, rather than invective, and I suspect I’ll be satisfied with the answers I’ve gotten soon, and quietly bow back out.
We’ll continue to disagree, of course. But I think I’ll mostly leave this to the others. I mean, I’m not sure how far out on a limb I want to go basing my arguments around the credibility of a guy that said: “Karl is a shameless bastard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out.” Sure, I still think he’s right, but sheesh.
Anyone ever seen Rove with his head shaved? Just askin…
Yes I suppose it was. Sorry, I’ll try to break it down.
I posited that there were possibly two separate acts of malfeasance that the “ilk” were accusing Cheney, Rove, and Libby of (in your thesis). The first is that, in pursuit of retribution against Joe Wilson, for publishing an Op-Ed piece that might be construed as giving the lie to a significant assertion that the Administration was using to make the case for the war, they conspired to reveal his wife’s CIA connections.
The second is that Cheney, Rove and Libby conspired to reveal Valerie Plame’s CIA connections in order to impeach the substance of Joe Wilson’s Op-Ed piece, and in so doing, rescue their significant assertion’s usefulness, on the grounds that Wilson’s mission, to which he referred in the piece, was tainted by nepotism; therefore his conclusions were less trustworthy than the assertion which they purported to cast doubt upon.
I noted that you have done a creditable job of establishing that the first accusation can fairly be called “baseless”. I also said that anyone who was making that accusation, and that accusation alone, should be ashamed of [him]self (at least, that’s what I hoped to be understood as saying).
I was also attempting to point out that you did not seem to have expended much energy in attempting to prove baseless the accusation that they had acted to rescue their significant assertion. Because I personally believe that to have been the motivation for their actions, I think you would have had a much harder task in proving that accusation baseless. So I congratulated you for being smart enough not to attempt it.
The entirety of the preceding, of course, rests upon the assumption that you in fact view those as two separate accusations, and that you were only remonstrating “ilks” for the first.
As to your belief that discrediting Joe Wilson is proper, well, I’m not prepared to argue in absolute terms that discrediting your opponent (or your opponent’s “star witness,” as it were) is never legitimate; the courtroom-seasoned lawyers around here would eat me alive ;). But I do feel that decency demands that one impose some limits upon one’s own tactics and behavior when doing this (Hentor the Barbarian might disagree with me on that point :dubious: ). You probably agree with me on the point that some means of discrediting are not legitimate (else why this thread?), but I suspect you draw the line at a different point than I do.
Perhaps not, to you. You’ve already established pretty adamantly your view that Armitage’s loose lips sank Plame’s cover so completely and irrevocably that anything Libby said, even before Novak’s column saw the light of day, was so close to common knowledge as to not constitute the slightest impropriety.* Stephanopolous apparently doesn’t agree with you 100%.
Be pretty alarming if he did, of course, your respective histories being what they are. 
*This is what I understand the gist of your position to be. Please enlighten me if I’m misreading you.
And shorter Scylla on another issue: ‘Rustman is authoritative, because I agree with him.’
Seems that in Scylla’s mind, any evidence, any source, that contradicts Rustman, is automatically wrong, because Rustman worked for the CIA and was briefly Plame’s boss in the very early stages of her career.
This despite the obvious weakness of Rustman’s assertions that Plame’s friends and neighbors all knew she was CIA: the friends and neighbors we know of who’ve been interviewed didn’t know, and AFAWK no neighbors who claim they did know have ever been produced.
Even former CIA agents are human, and can say things that reflect their personal animus rather than their professional expertise. What we know is that Rustman has made an allegation about Plame that is at odds with the other facts we have. We don’t have any evidence of Rustman’s track record as an honest and reliable witness other than this. Accordingly, Rustman must be considered a questionable source.
For one who chose to take me to task for the, perhaps graceless, manner in which I tried to respond to Hamlet’s charge while I simultaneously apologized for the sidetrack, it is unclear why you would now wish to poke sticks at me.
In any event, your post suggests that anyone may act prickishly in any given situation, intended practices notwithstanding.
I was being kind. Calling it ambiguous seemed more polite than saying, “you are deliberately taking liberties with the definition.”
Didn’t we go over this? The first condition that must be met is that her status must be classified, which Fitzpatrick establishes. The 2nd condition is that she must have served overseas within the past 5 years. You are going to doubt sources that state that condition #2 has been met… but why the fuck are you adding in this “providing active cover” non-sequitur? You sense that Plame might well meet the definition of covert, perhaps even NOC, so you throw in your own qualifiers like a petulant child. Grow up and stick with the facts, or come right out and admit that you intend to waste my time.
Yes, condition #2 depends upon Johnson’s claims being substantiated. The claim itself is plausible, but I’d like to see a second source, and presumably time will tell. I certainly think this is a more reasonable approach than holding up Rustman as inherently more credible because, well, because he says things you like to believe are true.
Rustman was fairly far removed from her during the period of time in question. Any idea why her current boss isn’t speaking? Maybe he believes that ‘classified’ means classified. Think about it… what does silence from the CIA, other than their request to have the matter investigated, seem to indicate? If they had some wannabe poseur on their hands, they’d have debunked the notion themselves early on.
As for the rest of this non-sense… what do you think an operative is? Maxwell smart with a shoe-phone? Getting married and having children does not prevent Plame from posing as an energy analyst when her real purpose was quite different. You don’t need to skulk around in disguise with a number rather than a name to act as a spy.
Eh, sorry, I’ve made the mistake of calling Patrick Fitzgerald, “Fitzpatrick”. I’m apparently not the only one, since the mistake is common in blogs and newswires.
Oh, no you don’t! It’s perfectly clear that you hope to confuse Fitzpatrick with John Fitzgerald* Kennedy. Your nefarious purpose in this is obscure, but obvious!
What’s this button “Preview”? Looks dangerous. Best leave it alone…
From Daily Kos:
Roger Cressey, former Chief of Staff to the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the White House from November 2001 to September 2002, told Scarborough:
Emphasis added. Offered without comment.
Good thing there is no comment, because I fear it is in the wrong thread. Instead of here, it should have been in the 9/11 movie thread.
Indeed.
Lighten up.
