OK, so what? Again, why should I care that you’re waving your Johnson around? I’m not impressed.
Somehow, the fact that there exists a guy named Johnson who’s “a total fucking nutjob” is supposed to be some strike against my argument?
Wow, Scylla. I think you’ve lost it for good.
From GIGObuster’s cite:
So May found out about Plame being CIA in the brief interval between Wilson’s piece and Novak’s - when Rove, Libby, and others were whispering her name all over town. For some reason, he got the impression that it was hardly a well-kept secret.
Can’t imagine why.
Wow.
Can you say “dumb as a post”?
Can you recognize it in the mirror?
If you are a CIA NOC, then when it becomes known that you work for the CIA at all, then your cover as a NOC is blown.
The important thing isn’t whether the general public knows whether you were NOC at one time; the important thing is whether the people a NOC was trying to obtain information about didn’t think about her because they had no idea she was CIA.
Once they knew she was CIA, her effectiveness as a NOC was dead.
Oh, I agree. Bush said that same thing about Iraq, and he was right in exactly the same way.
Why would I look for the definition of ‘covert’ in section that describes the unlawful release of information? Tell you what, let’s use the correct source. Title 50, chapter15, subchapter 4, section 426, Definitions:
We are using definition A in this case. The conditions are just as I described them. There is no requirement for ‘providing active cover’. The conditions are ‘classified status’ and ‘overseas service’. Got it this time? You seem satisfied to debate the technicalities of the definition. I wonder what would happen if considered the spirit of that definition.
Yeah, I know the feeling.
You are mixing your metaphors here. The first topic of discussion was the definition of ‘covert’. The second was whether Rove may be guilty of crimes. Scooter has not been a topic of conversation, at least not between you and I, so I fail to see the relevance of Fitzgerald’s comments on Libby. We are chatting about Rove. Turd Blossom.
Fair enough. This was just something to consider.
Maybe Wilson didn’t feel it was appropriate to write about trips his wife made at the request of the CIA?
Agreed, she’s woman, presumably has PMS on occasion, and is not as ideal an operative as a man would be
You might want to check post 348.
:sigh: You’ve missed the point. Let’s move on.
I guess I’m the only one following the thread.
Who’s Johnson?
No more so than if you worked for the US Embassy. Nobody thought she was an agent until Wilson blew his mouth off. In fact, she was portrayed as an “analyst,” or even a glorified secretary.
Wilson blew the undercover thing. No question about that, at all.
How can she be a NOC when she worked openly at a US Embassy? How can she be a NOC when she marries an ambassador? How can she be a NOC when she tells Wilson she’s an undercover agent after their first frigging kiss?
As I’ve cited, it was dead when she worked for an embassy. It was dead when she married an ambassador. It was dead when Aldritch Ames outed her. It was practically stillborn. She spent the bulk of her career attending school.
[Pauses to grant that ineed he posted a link to the debunking…
Relizes that does not change the fact he still swallowed the Newsmax BS]
Bha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!!
Oh my! 
[wipes tears]
Hard to type when chuckling.
Yeah, that should be:
[Pauses to grant that indeed he posted a link to the debunking…
Realizes that that does not change the fact he still swallowed the Newsmax BS]
No we’re not. We’re using Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act]. We’re using that one because that’s the one Fitzgerald uses, and he oughtta know. That he’s using it in reference to Libby matters not at all. It would apply equally to anybody else as regards the outing of a “covert” agent. Title 18 is the statute Fitzgerald uses as germaine to the situation of determining Valerie Plame’s covert status.
Unless you have a cite from a higher athority then the special prosecutor of the case, than I think it’s safe to assume that he is using the proper statute, not you.
I understand that you are trying to substitute another statute for the proper one that applies to this case.
Well than, maybe it wasn’t appropriate to be writing OPEDs about secret missions she was involved in. Maybe it wasn’t appropriate to go claiming she was an undercover agent when all anybody knew was that she was an “analyst” at the CIA.
I strongly disagree. Being a woman has nothing to do with it other than the gender specifity of the condition. Suggesting a woman can’t be an excellent secret agent is stupid and mysoginistic. Ever here of Scheherezade? Post partum can be a serious illness, and apparently it was for Plame. I’m only suggesting that the illness would have likely precluded activity of this nature while she was suffering it.
Sheesh!
You’re such a dumbass. Mediamatters is as left wing as Newsmax is right. I posted both so that we might discuss them and factcheck them. I posted both because I didn’t swallow either, but want to see both sides and confirm facts and try to determine what credibility should be assigned to the claims.
You post Mediamatters, which I already posted, and having a POV which agrees with you, you just accept it and stop there.
You don’t even see what I’ve posted.
There’s a probably apocrophyl story about the first settlers that arrived to America. The claimed the Indians never physically saw the boat the settlers arrived on.
They missed it, not because it was hidden but because it was something they had no experience or concepts for. It was simply outside of their understanding, so they didn’t see it.
I never really beleived that story until I watched you dimwits in action.
Ha! 
What I said then was:
What is clear to anyone is that you still choose the BS. I’m just following common sense regarding the issue of her cover blown to neighbors, your deduction regarding the “strength” of the evidence that her cover was blown by Valerie or Wilson is hearsay.
Yep, that still stands.
Ho ho ho. You are the dumbass, I was begining to laugh at your newsmax link from post #339
It is apocryphal, just like your powers of deduction.
For a real eye opener of what was really lost check: 1491
I knew I forgot why it made it funnier!
Bull crap, those items were discussed before and me and many others concluded Newsmax was full of BS.
Let us rewind:
(Notice the lack of “I didn’t swallow” candor.)
They equivocate (it is a lie based on what I learned in ethics) in the report of the Plame neighbors. Anyone that reads that and comes thinking the neighbors confirmed Plame’s outing is gullible. The report actually mentions that the neighbors interviewed were surprised about Plame’s cover. Indeed, you bringing up those misleading and then debunked pieces of “news” is done only to continue trowing sand into the umpires’ eyes like Levi did.
Let’s say I want to understand all of the levels of classification among CIA employees.
I want to learn what the basic types of positions there are
I want to know all of the different levels of classification, from “Not Classified at All” to “Tippy-Top Secret” (I think that’s the technical term).
Because I’m after understanding, rather than just rote lists, I’m also going to want to know all of the prerequisites for any given classification to be assigned to an employee in any given position. I’m going to want to know what conditions disqualify an employee from obtaining classification at a given level, and what conditions disqualify an already-classified employee from retaining a previously-assigned classification.
Only after I have mastered all of these facts, in all of their myriad permutations, will I consider myself to be approaching an understanding of who’s properly referred to as “covert”, and who isn’t.
Does anyone here have any idea how I would research these questions and obtain a reliable set of data? 'Cos I’m not comfortable with accepting the notion that anyone posting to this thread has yet demonstrated actual knowledge of the issue. I have the impression of a lot of Ken Follet, and Robert Ludlum, and John LeCarre, and Trevanian, and Tom Clancy, and Brian Freemantle having been read, but nothing that strikes me as authoritative.
From Frontline PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/readings/humint.html
More info in the link.
Title 50, Section 421 is another section from the same United States Code. It’s disingenuous to assume that because you can’t find Fitzgerald quoting it on Fox and Friends, that it isn’t relevant, or hasn’t been considered. Note it includes a definition for a term used throughout the USC. It isn’t a statute that can be violated or would appear in an indictment, it’s a supporting clause that is necessary to properly understand the term “covert” as it appears in Title 18 and other sections of the USC. Section 421 is widely discussed by experts on both sides of the issue, give it a google if you doubt me.
Of course it does. Libby’s actions are not necessarily the same as Rove’s – they aren’t co-defendants. Measuring Libby’s actions against the relevant statutes has no bearing on how Rove’s actions will measure against a set of statutes that could differ significantly. This parallelism you attempt to assign is ridiculous.
Rather than make a fallacious deferral to authority, would you like to retract this statement and form an argument?
Could you point to the where I stated that Libby’s covert status [?] was relevant? I seem to remember stating that I’d focus any discussion on Rove, and his alleged crimes.
Let’s add one more concept here. Let’s pretend for a moment that Plame was not a covert agent (I do not concede the point, so please don’t play semantics games), and she had been stateside enjoying domestic life for 6 years. Her status with her employer, the CIA, was no more or less than “classified” as I believe you have agreed earlier in this thread. Rove committed no crime, per se, by confirming her relationship to the CIA. Did Rove act morally, ethically, and in the best interest of his country when he leaked classified information? Would you expect a high ranking official to out someone who still had the status of a covert agent 1 year prior? If you were king, would you continue to employ such a person?
The point, or at least my point, was about Rustman’s questionable relevance and veracity as a witness.
He was Plame’s boss for about a year in the 1980s, but we know of no futher professional relationship between the two. If you’re moving on, I presume we can include this in the Findings of Fact, as the lawyers would say.
I’m reading my posts and your responses, and posts by others that seem to bear on this exchange. That should suffice.
You brought up Johnson, without any indication of who he was, or how he was relevant to our discussion. But apparently he’s a nutcase, and that fact, you imply, somehow weakens my arguments, despite my not relying on the existence of anyone named Johnson. That is of course ridiculous.
If you’ve got a case to make, make it. If not, don’t bring in junk and pretend it should mean something.