Wherein Scylla admonishes the left wing for casting Plame upon Rove

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

No more so than if you worked for the US Embassy.

Compared to what I said, that’s a distinction without much of a difference. It’s well known that many US Embassy personnel around the world are actually CIA; that’s what’s called “official cover.”

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.

Ah, back to blaming the victim again.

Joe Wilson was for a variety of reasons a perfectly logical choice to be sent to Niger. That he spoke out didn’t point to his wife in any meaningful way, unless there’s some new adage that “behind every successful man is a woman in the CIA.” You have no basis for believing that her name would have been connected to the CIA as a result if Rove, Libby, and Armitage had been responsible custodians of the classified information they had access to, instead of blabbing it all over town.

Making the assertion that you have such a basis doesn’t back up the assertion.

How can she be a NOC when she worked openly at a US Embassy?

Depends on if there’s an enemy that’s organized and thorough enough to keep track of all present and past US Embassy employees, doesn’t it?

But if you’re talking to someone who works for a seemingly legit company named Brewster Jennings, you have no reason to dig into their background unless either (a) you already know that person’s background, or (b) they’ve already rung enough alarm bells in your head that they might be CIA that you research that person, note the former employment, and warn your government that this person could well be CIA.

How can she be a NOC when she marries an ambassador?

What, are many ambassadors’ wives CIA? That’s a new one to me.

How can she be a NOC when she tells Wilson she’s an undercover agent after their first frigging kiss?

Maybe she checked him out for reliability.

I don’t know how deep into a relationship I’d go before revealing that sort of tidbit. Maybe she holds back on a first kiss longer than you do. (I know of one couple that didn’t have their first kiss until after they were engaged.) But unless Wilson shared this information around, or unless she shared this info with a bunch of guys she dated, then it would appear that her cover remained intact.

As I’ve cited, it was dead when she worked for an embassy.

As you’ve claimed. You haven’t cited anyone on the ability of a CIA agent to be NOC at one posting after having worked at an embassy in a previous posting.

It was dead when she married an ambassador.

You keep saying this, but that’s YHO.

It was dead when Aldritch Ames outed her.

I’ve long since responded to this, and unless I’ve missed something, I’m still waiting on a rebuttal.

She spent the bulk of her career attending school.

CIA career: 1985-2003. Years as full-time student during that period?

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

RTF Hasn’t been following the thread well enough to know that Johnson is the former CIA agent who’s claims it is argued refute Rusmans (though we’ve been talking about it for over a page)

So if I’ve been rebutting your contention that Rustman is a relevant and reliable witness without relying in the least on Johnson, explain to me the significance of my having failed to follow that part of the conversation.

OTOH, the significance of your bringing Johnson into our discussion is that you’ve completely lost track of my argument, and are trying to rebut it by throwing irrelevant shit at the wall whilst pretending it has meaning.

[Scylla]

@GIGObuster

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.

It’s not debunked. Mediamatters is not exactly gospel (except to you.)

Besides, I only see two neighbors being interviewed. Hardly a quorum.

[Scylla]

@Waverly

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.

Ok. Are you a lawyer? Do you have special expertise in this area? Can you show me an athority that considers your section more relevant? If your section is more relevant than why aren’t they applying it?

The section I quoted is the section that Fitzgerald and the courts are looking at in this matter to make the determination.

For some totally unknown reason you want to use this other one. Why? Why should I go along with you on this?

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.

No. I’m sorry. The other section works just fine. If you want to use this one, you google it and demonstrate it’s superiority.

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.

I notice that USA today also uses the section I quoted in an earlier link of mine, and their experts seem to be applying it determine Plame’s status independant of who made the link, but simply towards answering the question of has a crime been committed.

Since the section I seem to be quoting is the one the courts are using and the other experts are using, I think I am going to use it to unless you can prove to me that yours is the better choice and everybody else, the Federal government, and the special prosecutor is using the wrong one.

Goddamn you are a stubborn, unreasonable and obstinate motherfucker, aren’t you?

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.

I will so stipulate to these conditions for the purposes of answering your next question.

Did Rove act morally, ethically, and in the best interest of his country when he leaked classified information?

Yes. Wilson was selectively leaking, which created and incomplete picture of the scenario. It was therefore important that full disclosure of the circumstances and motivations of the parties involved see the light of day.

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?

It would depend on the circumstances. In these particular circumstances I would have preferred the information came out openly in a press conference.

[Scylla]

@RTFirefly

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.

Their respective careers appear to have to five to six years of overlap. On top of being her boss for a period of time he also served 20 of 24 years as a NOC and a spymaster. As a cite familiar with both Plame, and the parameters of undercover work he is pretty athoritative.

So what that you say he was only her boss for one year? I would think that he was actually her boss and superior and a 24 year veteran, and a spymaster would count in favor of his professional opinion.

You’re attempting to use the fact that he was her boss for a year to question his relevance and veracity when in fact it is point in his favor.

[Scylla]

@RTFirefly

Compared to what I said, that’s a distinction without much of a difference. It’s well known that many US Embassy personnel around the world are actually CIA; that’s what’s called “official cover.”

Yes, and Plame had official cover when she worked in Athens. She worked there under the name “Valerie Plame.” You would think that if they were going to make her a NOC they would at least use a different name than the one she used while working officially in Athens.

Anyway, I’ve already produced a cite from a twenty year veteran who says the fact that she worked under official cover precludes her being a NOC.

Joe Wilson was for a variety of reasons a perfectly logical choice to be sent to Niger.

Have I argued otherwise? What’s the relevance?

That he spoke out didn’t point to his wife in any meaningful way, unless there’s some new adage that “behind every successful man is a woman in the CIA.”

Until he spoke out nobody thought she was anything but an analyst or a glorified secretary. If the fact that she worked at the CIA was classified, you would think that the fact the she was undercover would also be classified. Indeed, in the article, Chris May writes he points out Wilson overtly says that he can’t talk about her, and then he proceeds to.

This interview with Corn is the first suggestion that Plame was undercover at any point in time according to Factcheck.org. Plames status as a CIA employee was already out. The fact that she was a spy was not out until Wilson leaked it.

You have no basis for believing that her name would have been connected to the CIA as a result if Rove, Libby, and Armitage had been responsible custodians of the classified information they had access to, instead of blabbing it all over town.

Sure I do. I have Rustman saying that her name was out in 1997 because of Aldritch Ames, and I also have him saying that her cover was blown when she started dating Wilson.

Making the assertion that you have such a basis doesn’t back up the assertion.

Citing it does.

Depends on if there’s an enemy that’s organized and thorough enough to keep track of all present and past US Embassy employees, doesn’t it?

Or that talks to one that is, or one that can use google. It would seem that if you were going to be this super secret NOC and getting captured could mean your fucking death, than maybe just maybe you might change your cover name from the one you used when you worked at the embassy. Maybe you or the CIA would invent a new cover.

Why take the chance if the penalty could be death?
I’m no spy, but that seems pretty basic.

But if you’re talking to someone who works for a seemingly legit company named Brewster Jennings, you have no reason to dig into their background unless either (a) you already know that person’s background, or (b) they’ve already rung enough alarm bells in your head that they might be CIA that you research that person, note the former employment, and warn your government that this person could well be CIA.
What, are many ambassadors’ wives CIA? That’s a new one to me. Maybe she checked him out for reliability.

Why not simply pretend to be Vanessa Jones at Brewster Jennings? Why use the same name as the one you worked at the embassy? Why take the chance? I see no upside and the downside is getting killed. It seems to me a reasonably prudent precaution to take some steps to protect yourself from scrutiny. Why wouldn’t you do it?

I don’t know how deep into a relationship I’d go before revealing that sort of tidbit. Maybe she holds back on a first kiss longer than you do. (I know of one couple that didn’t have their first kiss until after they were engaged.)

According to Wikipedia it was the second date.

Again, not exactly impressive security. There’s a pattern here of disinterest in security not commensurate with what we would expect from a NOC who might be killed if revealed as such.

But unless Wilson shared this information around, or unless she shared this info with a bunch of guys she dated, then it would appear that her cover remained intact.

Or she never went on second dates until Wilson. Give me a break with this. This is not behavior commensurate with the precautions we would expect from someone who could be killed if her identity were revealed. This is not the behavior one would expect from someone who is highly trained, professional, who is running spies and operations involving other people who might be killed or compromised or jailed if her status was revealed.

As you’ve claimed. You haven’t cited anyone on the ability of a CIA agent to be NOC at one posting after having worked at an embassy in a previous posting.

Yes, I did. I cited a twenty year agent in the Chicago Tribune article who said that her posting there precluded her from being a NOC.

[Scylla]

@RTFirefly

So if I’ve been rebutting your contention that Rustman is a relevant and reliable witness without relying in the least on Johnson, explain to me the significance of my having failed to follow that part of the conversation.

You really haven’t been rebutting it. You’ve said he was her boss for a year.

You’ve attempted to rebut one of his statements and challenged me to produce evidence that other people knew about her status.

I found six who make the claim, and have demonstrated neither Wilson nor Plame appear to have been particularly careful, prudent, or hesitant about revealing it, and I have pointed out that the claime that none of the neighbors knew seems to be backed up by interviews with only two specific neighbors which is hardly a quorum.

OTOH, the significance of your bringing Johnson into our discussion is that you’ve completely lost track of my argument, and are trying to rebut it by throwing irrelevant shit at the wall whilst pretending it has meaning.

The “she was only his boss for one year” meme seems to originate with Johnson.
Do you have another source for this, or did you make it up?

My source, Time Magazine : says Fred Rustman "a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame’s boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s "

As an interesting side note I just noticed this next part "— say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. "
So, Fred says she did work as a NOC. Hmmm.
The Chicago Trib cites a 20 year veteran saying “the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn’t an NOC, period.”
Maybe the “veteran” is merely saying that she wasn’t a NOC at the time she worked at the embassy.

I did read this differently earlier, under the basic logic that it would seem incredibly stupid to use the same name deep undercover as you did when you were fairly obvious.

Well, maybe when Valerie’s book comes out, we’ll hear more.

[Waverly]

@Scylla

Ok. Are you a lawyer? Do you have special expertise in this area? Can you show me an athority that considers your section more relevant?

Do I need to be a lawyer to participate in this discussion? You want an authority? OK, but you aren’t going to like it. Rove, as you know, hasn’t been charged with a crime at this point. Libby has though, and you seem to enjoy referring to information about his case. Pull up a copy of his indictment. “Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421[emphasis mine]” My earlier quote from the USC, Section 426, is merely the definitions for Title 50, including Section 426.

Libby’s Indictment
Section 421-426

I could argue all day that you don’t need to be an ‘authority’ to read a section of USC and make an argument. But I don’t have to. There it is in Libby’s indictment.

The section I quoted is the section that Fitzgerald and the courts are looking at in this matter to make the determination.

Funny! My quote too!

No. I’m sorry. The other section works just fine. If you want to use this one, you google it and demonstrate it’s superiority.

I’m not doing your homework for you, little man. Fitzgerald is your chosen authority, you look it up and explain yourself.

Goddamn you are a stubborn, unreasonable and obstinate motherfucker, aren’t you?

I might seem that way to someone with a stunted intellectual capacity. I have to be honest, and admit I’m not gifted with patience or tolerance. I am really sorry about that.

Yes. Wilson was selectively leaking, which created and incomplete picture of the scenario. It was therefore important that full disclosure of the circumstances and motivations of the parties involved see the light of day.

The outing of a CIA operative was necessary for the purpose of “full disclosure”? First, you can explain the logic, following that, you can provide a cite explaining the lawful nature of leaks that follow leaks.

[Scylla]

@Waverly

Do I need to be a lawyer to participate in this discussion? You want an authority? OK, but you aren’t going to like it. Rove, as you know, hasn’t been charged with a crime at this point. Libby has though, and you seem to enjoy referring to information about his case. Pull up a copy of his indictment. “Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421[emphasis mine]” My earlier quote from the USC, Section 426, is merely the definitions for Title 50, including Section 426.

Hmmmm.
I could argue all day that you don’t need to be an ‘authority’ to read a section of USC and make an argument. But I don’t have to. There it is in Libby’s indictment.Funny! My quote too!I’m not doing your homework for you, little man.
[/quote]

You just did.

Fitzgerald is your chosen authority, you look it up and explain yourself.I might seem that way to someone with a stunted intellectual capacity. I have to be honest, and admit I’m not gifted with patience or tolerance. I am really sorry about that.

Interesting. It appears to me that we have two valid sections of code which both apply and which each have their own definition of covert.

If you concur with that, than we are either both wrong, or both right. We would both be wrong in assuming that our section applied exclusively, but both right in assuming that our section does in fact apply.

The outing of a CIA operative was necessary for the purpose of “full disclosure”? First, you can explain the logic, following that, you can provide a cite explaining the lawful nature of leaks that follow leaks.

You asked me my personal opinion of a specific hypothetical and I gave it.

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

It’s not debunked. Mediamatters is not exactly gospel (except to you.)

You must confuse me with soemone else, Every time a blog or website appears with news I do like to check their accuracy, everytime I find a site or poster is not accurate I drop it from my trusted source base, regardless if it is left leaning.

In this case there was no need to check the fine debunking of Media Matters did regarding the “evidence” Mediamax or May presented as supporting the outing of Plame as “being common knowledge”

That Newsmax piece never pointed at any neighbor confirming her outing, after a year and change the defense should have produced the witnesses that derailed the investigation, since this did not happen the cited piece in MediaMatters has an overwhelming edge on being the most accurate.

Pretending that that Newsmax piece had somehow improved with age and be comparable with the MediaMatters cite is the certified gullible part (That is being generous, the tone of the thread since the OP shows that your protests that you brought those cites only to check them, that you did not swallow them, to be a defense even the water boy of the Steelers would be ashamed to propose)

Besides, I only see two neighbors being interviewed. Hardly a quorum.

And hardly a cite that showed evidence that the Neighbors knew, the worse thing was that the hearsay was not related to the neighbors knowing.

That cite regarding Plame being outed early was not truthful, it was not even a semi-truth. or a quasi-truth, not even the margarine of truth, or the Diet Coke of truth. Just one Valerie*… … being outed early confirmed cite by a neighbor?

Nope, so that Newsmax “article” remains debunked.

• Tip to Mike Myers

[Scylla]

Gigo:

You’ve definitively (in your own mind) debunked the Newsmax article with the Mediamatters article without making any form of reference to the actual contents of either.
That’s quite a trick.

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

Gigo:

You’ve definitively (in your own mind) debunked the Newsmax article with the Mediamatters article without making any form of reference to the actual contents of either.
That’s quite a trick.

Meh, you did not reference it either, but **ever ** fear! People just need to click on your Cliff May link to check for themselves.

[Waverly]

@Scylla

We would both be wrong in assuming that our section applied exclusively, but both right in assuming that our section does in fact apply.

No Scylla, that is bitter milk that I’m not sipping. I was not the one assuming that a given section applied exclusively, because I know that is not how the law works. The law is full of overlapping and cascading statutes. I was stating that I had identified a relevant statute that, if violated, would be an indication that crime had been committed. I also produced a relevant definition of the disputed term ‘covert’. So I was not wrong, because I had never made the assumption of exclusivity, and I don’t consider you right because you most certainly did. Arrogantly, and repeatedly.

You asked me my personal opinion of a specific hypothetical and I gave it.

Your answer says much about you. I was trying to learn more. Are you refusing to elaborate?

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

You’ve definitively (in your own mind) debunked the Newsmax article with the Mediamatters article without making any form of reference to the actual contents of either.

I forgot to mention that I also did not think it was necessary since I used the monumentally excluded “middle” that is based on the facts: in almost 2 years there was no neighbor coming forward or confirmed saying that they knew about her cover blown. And that also goes for all the other “obvious leads that tend to exonerate the White House and that have been in the public domain for two years?”* hearsay of the “article”.

Conclusion: the truth advantage goes to Media Matters.

• From the Cliff May link

[Scylla]

@Waverly

No Scylla, that is bitter milk that I’m not sipping. I was not the one assuming that a given section applied exclusively, because I know that is not how the law works. The law is full of overlapping and cascading statutes. I was stating that I had identified a relevant statute that, if violated, would be an indication that crime had been committed. I also produced a relevant definition of the disputed term ‘covert’. So I was not wrong, because I had never made the assumption of exclusivity, and I don’t consider you right because you most certainly did.

I did not assume exclusivity, and I’m willing to accept that yours is relevant since you’ve demonstrated it as such. You did dismiss mine and replace it with yours, suggesting that your definition has precedence.

When presented with new valid information I am flexible and integrate it. Sadly, you don’t appear to be.

Your answer says much about you. I was trying to learn more. Are you refusing to elaborate?

No, but hypotheticals are kind of pointless. Let’s see.

your questions:

The outing of a CIA operative was necessary for the purpose of “full disclosure”? First, you can explain the logic, following that, you can provide a cite explaining the lawful nature of leaks that follow leaks.

In your original question you said “Rove committed no crime” as one of the stipulations of your hypothetical so therefore it was “lawful,” and the logic of full disclosure should be self explanatory. The conditions that led to Wilson’s actions are germaine.

[Waverly]

@Scylla

You did dismiss mine and replace it with yours, suggesting that your definition has precedence.

Again, no. You tried to force me to substantiate a position using Title 18, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge the relevance of Title 50, which was the actual basis for my argument. This is not a dismissal of Title 18, which is clearly a statute, and is clearly being considered by the special prosecutor. I have not to this point stated an opinion as to whether Title 18, Section 753 has been violated by Libby, Rove, or anyone else. I have only stated that it is likely that a crime has been committed by Rove, and cited Title 50 as the basis for this opinion.

These are legal citations, Scylla, and of apparent equal weight as they both come from the USC. If these were scientific citations, it would be necessary to consider each fact and attempt to integrate it into the hypothesis. However, only one law needs to be broken to make a criminal.

In your original question you said “Rove committed no crime” as one of the stipulations of your hypothetical so therefore it was “lawful,” and the logic of full disclosure should be self explanatory.

That was poor choice of words on my part. I should have asked about the ethical nature of following a perceived leak with a deliberate leak.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

Their respective careers appear to have to five to six years of overlap. On top of being her boss for a period of time he also served 20 of 24 years as a NOC and a spymaster. As a cite familiar with both Plame, and the parameters of undercover work he is pretty athoritative.

Does Rustman know a great deal about undercover work? Yes; never argued to the contrary.

The point that you’re citing Rustman on, that I’m contesting, is whether her friends and neighbors knew she was CIA.

So what that you say he was only her boss for one year? I would think that he was actually her boss and superior and a 24 year veteran, and a spymaster would count in favor of his professional opinion.

You’re attempting to use the fact that he was her boss for a year to question his relevance and veracity when in fact it is point in his favor.

It establishes the lack of any connection between his expertise and his claim.

Since I’ve said that from the start, I feel you’re arguing in circles here. First you say I had to be wrong about his being her boss for a year in the 1980s because she was still a Penn State undergrad, then you bring in a whole bunch of mostly irrelevant bit and bull about her grad school in the 1990s, and now somehow the fact that he was only her boss for a year back in the 1980s somehow puts him in a good position to know what her and Joe Wilson’s neighbors in the late 1990s and early '00s knew about her.

What a crock.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

It’s not debunked. Mediamatters is not exactly gospel (except to you.)

Besides, I only see two neighbors being interviewed. Hardly a quorum.

I identified three earlier; I think I got that from them. And AFAIK, you’re the only one who doesn’t accept MediaMatters as a good cite. Besides, they back up their assertions with cites, as you’ve probably noticed when you were trying to debunk them.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

Yes, and Plame had official cover when she worked in Athens. She worked there under the name “Valerie Plame.” You would think that if they were going to make her a NOC they would at least use a different name than the one she used while working officially in Athens.

Anyway, I’ve already produced a cite from a twenty year veteran who says the fact that she worked under official cover precludes her being a NOC.

I assume you’re referring to post 302, where you say:

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)

So you’re lying about your cite: the agent says she couldn’t have been NOC then.

You’re citing yourself for the conclusion that she couldn’t have been a NOC later, either.

Scylla the authority. Can this get any more ridiculous?

Oh, and you could at least link to the Wikipedia article where you got the Chicago Tribune quotes from.

Have I argued otherwise? What’s the relevance?

The relevance is that Joe Wilson going public about that trip in an op-ed doesn’t in any way, shape, or form point to his wife.

Until he spoke out nobody thought she was anything but an analyst or a glorified secretary.

And after he spoke out, nobody was thinking about her either. Except Rove, Libby, Armitage, and quite possibly Cheney.

If the fact that she worked at the CIA was classified, you would think that the fact the she was undercover would also be classified. Indeed, in the article, Chris May writes he points out Wilson overtly says that he can’t talk about her, and then he proceeds to.

Who’s Chris May? And I just re-read Joe Wilson’s op-ed that started all the kerfluffle, and he mentions his wife a grand total of zero times.

This interview with Corn is the first suggestion that Plame was undercover at any point in time according to Factcheck.org. Plames status as a CIA employee was already out. The fact that she was a spy was not out until Wilson leaked it.

And I’ve already addressed the complete and total irrelevance of this.

Sure I do. I have Rustman saying that her name was out in 1997 because of Aldritch Ames, and I also have him saying that her cover was blown when she started dating Wilson.

I’ve already addressed both of these points.

Citing it does.

You’re citing Rustman, a source that only you find credible.

Are you gonna whip out your Johnson again? Save it for your wife.

Or that talks to one that is, or one that can use google. It would seem that if you were going to be this super secret NOC and getting captured could mean your fucking death, than maybe just maybe you might change your cover name from the one you used when you worked at the embassy. Maybe you or the CIA would invent a new cover.

People used Google in 1997?

Why not simply pretend to be Vanessa Jones at Brewster Jennings? Why use the same name as the one you worked at the embassy? Why take the chance? I see no upside and the downside is getting killed. It seems to me a reasonably prudent precaution to take some steps to protect yourself from scrutiny. Why wouldn’t you do it?

What does this have to do with anything??

Is anyone besides you and a couple of wingnut crackpots claiming Plame wasn’t NOC while she was supposedly a Brewster Jennings employee - in effect claiming that she was never NOC?

According to Wikipedia it was the second date.

Again, not exactly impressive security. There’s a pattern here of disinterest in security not commensurate with what we would expect from a NOC who might be killed if revealed as such.

And they married a little over a year after they met. And while he may not have been officially authorized to know that she was CIA, by virtue of his positions he’d have to have had all sorts of security clearances. This wasn’t exactly a high-risk disclosure; their relationship was clearly getting pretty serious pretty fast; and there are things you have to tell someone when a relationship is getting serious.

So, did Wilson ‘out’ her to anyone, before Novakula outed her to the freakin’ world?? You may say “not exactly impressive security,” but did this blow her cover? You have no evidence that it did.

That’s the issue here, not whether Plame was the ideal CIA agent.

[RTFirefly]

ISTM that a discussion of Plame’s NOC status during her Brewster Jennings days shouldn’t be tucked away in some corner of a thread that only a few people are still engaged in. So I’ve started a GD thread here concerning this question.