Wherein Scylla admonishes the left wing for casting Plame upon Rove

[elucidator]

Washington Times, Scylla? Getting a bit desperate?

More importantly, it is of precisely zero consequence whether or not Armitage broke the law. The law is not voided by his actions, it remains in effect.

As for motive, your standards of proof are absurd. When a street drug dealer guns down another street dealer, its pretty safe bet it had something to do with drugs. When a political operative takes action in the political realm, its an even better bet it has to do with politics. What, you think Joe Wilson said something about Rove’s mamma? No, we are not likely to get a signed confession written in blood and notarized by God Almighty. But reasonable men can draw reasonable conclusions, esp. seeing as how this nugget of information was, in fact, used as a means to discredit Wilson.

…but I’ll just quote Novak: who said “She has been an analyst: not in covert operations.”…

Well, that certainly settles that! A man who’s reputation for candor and honesty is exceeded only by that of The Leader, Himself!

And if Plame was not a covert agent, then why did the Agency refer the matter for investigation? Shits and giggles?

[Squink]

@elucidator

In what regard?

When it comes to the Washington Post editorial staff, nothing is ever debunked until the President says it is debunked.

[Hamlet]

@Scylla

So, in summary, the whole thing is a lie, perpetrated for political effect in an election year. Plame was neither “covert” nor was she outed for revenge.

To continue to cling to this lie and defend it as factual in light of such overwhelming evidence is both stupid and disingenuous.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Now, I have, and I will continue to wait, until we get all the facts and Scotter Libby has his trial, before I get into Plamegate. I really can’t comment on your Plame being covert or classified. What I can comment on is how sad it is that you are apparently more upset over people asserting why something was leaked, and not that information was leaked by the Bush administration, and that someone is indicted for lying about it. That, in and of itself, is all I really need to know about you.

[Scylla]

@Hamlet

What I can comment on is how sad it is that you are apparently more upset over people asserting why something was leaked, and not that information was leaked by the Bush administration, and that someone is indicted for lying about it. That, in and of itself, is all I really need to know about you.

That I know the difference between indicted and “guilty?”

Or were you thinking something else?

[Hamlet]

@Scylla

That I know the difference between indicted and "guilty?

Or were you thinking something else?

Nice dodge. Wish I could say I was surprised, but, alas, I’m not.

[Scylla]

Well, I am shocked, shocked that upon having it revealed that it wasn’t retribution, and that Plame wasn’t covert and that the whole sordid mess was in fact yet another fucking lie perpetrated by the left, strictly for the value of making the accusation, that rather than address this, you would instead prefer to make vague disaproving moral points concerning my character.
Well, since you obviously can’t debate the actual debate (it being a total lost cause,) you have to resort to attempts at character assasination.
And that really tells me all I need to know about you.

[Triskadecamus]

So, you’re saying I was right?

Tris

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Scylla

Well, I am shocked, shocked that upon having it revealed that it wasn’t retribution, and that Plame wasn’t covert and that the whole sordid mess was in fact yet another fucking lie perpetrated by the left, strictly for the value of making the accusation, that rather than address this, you would instead prefer to make vague disaproving moral points concerning my character.
Well, since you obviously can’t debate the actual debate (it being a total lost cause,) you have to resort to attempts at character assasination.
And that really tells me all I need to know about you.

The problem is that nobody is buying your act, you pathetic attention whore. Somehow you’ve convinced people previously that you are not actually stupid enough to believe that when Wilson says his wife was not covert on the day she was outed, he is saying that she was not covert prior to being outed.

People also know that you are being intentionally obtuse in pretending that Armitage’s loose lips free Rove to pimp the story. Rove called Cooper at Time magazine and told him several days before Novak’s story came out. Not that it matters exactly when he chose to spread the story to other reporters and make sure that a valueable intel resource on actual WMD’s was lost to the United States.

You’re just being a sad and pathetic bitch, and ignoring people who actually felt there might be some purpose to engage you in discussion. That’s why your personality is being called into question. Apparently some people only know you from your “funny” shit. Now more people know you from your disingenuous, obtuse puss shit. That’s the stuff I’m more familiar with. That, and the racist shit.

However, there is a sadness to someone so pathetically desperate for attention. So, here’s some. I’ve now given it to you.

I hope it makes you feel less weak.

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

Well, I am shocked, shocked that upon having it revealed that it wasn’t retribution,

Not clear yet, and the defense now is to call it incompetency, hardly a comforting thought since even though many of these clowns lied to Bush, he thinks in the end that that is all fine and dandy.

and that Plame wasn’t covert

Tell that to the prosecutor and the grand Jury, she was. All the fantasies of the right thinking she was not can be originally traced to the Washington Moonie Times, Fitzgerald found those “she was not covert” points silly.

and that the whole sordid mess was in fact yet another fucking lie perpetrated by the left,

If it was’t for the CIA crying foul nothing would be happening, the left was powerless to organize an investigation with teeth.

strictly for the value of making the accusation, that rather than address this, you would instead prefer to make vague disapproving moral points concerning my character.

Well, since you obviously can’t debate the actual debate (it being a total lost cause,) you have to resort to attempts at character assassination.

And that really tells me all I need to know about you.

A character, to be liable to assassination, should be a character that is reasonable, a character trowing misleading dead horse arguments to make points looks to me as being already a zombie. No need to deal with such a living dead character.

[Scylla]

And the Ilk carefully avoid arguing that Plame was covert (except for Lucy) and goes for the character asassination, like all losers do when they find their arguments are bankrupt, and they lack the moral fiber to admit an error.
How… expected.

Oh, and Lucy, if Novak isn’t a good cite, you forgot about her husband and the other sources I cited.

You have a reliable cite saying she was covert, yes?

[Carol_Stream]

@Hentor the Barbarian

That, and the racist shit.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but that’s a pretty strong accusation. When has **Scylla[/] posted “racist shit”?

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

And the Ilk carefully avoid arguing that Plame was covert (except for Lucy) and goes for the character asassination, like all losers do when they find their arguments are bankrupt, and they lack the moral fiber to admit an error.
How… expected.

Oh, and Lucy, if Novak isn’t a good cite, you forgot about her husband and the other sources I cited.

You have a reliable cite saying she was covert, yes?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert

Newsweek
Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done “covert work overseas” on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal” her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge’s opinion.

“and they lack the moral fiber to admit an error.”

We’ll see who’s character is alive…

[elucidator]

To hear is to obey!

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.”

[New York Times, 10/5/03]

[DoctorJ]

He discussed with reporters Novak and Woodward. Novak subsequently spoke to Rove, and when asked about it Rove said “OH, you know that?” (not a direct quote, but close.)

Confirming classified information is just as bad as leaking it in the first place. This is even more true when it’s being leaked to a journalist, and that confirmation is necessary before the information gets published.

Her husband, Joe Wilson also says this: “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”

That should put “covert” to rest.

No, not at all. The fact that her covert work was behind her does not make it OK to leak it. From the Wikipedia article on Brewster-Jennings:

Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, the name of which has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. Now, Plame’s career as a covert operations officer in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with – on business or not – may be in danger. The directorate is conducting an extensive damage assessment. And Plame’s exposure may make it harder for American spies to persuade foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said.

And no, her marriage to Wilson did not raise any more hackles than any other marriage between a government wonk and someone from a related private sector industry. It happens all the time. I’m sure it made it hard to do more covert work, but there’s no reason to think it would blow her previous cover.

[DoctorJ]

(Note: the Wikipedia quote above is actually a quote from the Knight-Ridder news service. I just happened to find it at the Wikipedia article.)

[crowmanyclouds]

@Scylla

…You have a reliable cite saying she was covert, yes?

Are your cites reliable? The Time cite,

…Some Bush partisans have suggested that the outing of Plame is no big deal, that she was “just an analyst” or maybe, as a G.O.P. Congressman told CNN, “a glorified secretary.” But the facts tell otherwise. Plame was, for starters, a former NOC — that is, a spy with nonofficial cover who worked overseas as a private individual with no apparent connection to the U.S. government. NOCs are among the government’s most closely guarded secrets, because they often work for real or fictive private companies overseas and are set loose to spy solo. NOCs are harder to train, more expensive to place and can remain undercover longer than conventional spooks. They can also go places and see people whom those under official cover cannot. They are in some ways the most vulnerable of all clandestine officers, since they have no claim to diplomatic immunity if they get caught.

Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, 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 — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a “nice European city.” Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. “[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, ‘Yeah, he works for us,’” says Rustmann. “The degree of backstopping to a NOC’s cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is.”…

The Boston Globe cite,

…WHATEVER THE legal outcome of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of officials who disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, it is already evident that they have caused a great deal of harm…Once before, Plame was caught up in a case illustrating how costly it can be for a CIA officer to be in danger of having her cover exposed. The agency called Plame home in 1997 in fear that Aldrich Ames, the notorious Soviet mole inside the CIA, had revealed her true identity to his KGB handlers. At least 10 people were executed by the Soviets as a consequence of Ames’s disclosure of CIA identities…

CMC fnord!
BTW, I welcome our new ability to cite editorials as facts!

[elucidator]

[strictly hearsay]

Listening to one of those news show, some talking head was talking about an aide to Bullet Head saying that Armitage was actually defending the choice of Wilson because his wife was an acknowledged expert in matters of weapons proliferation.

[/hearsay]

[GIGObuster]

And regarding this dead horse:

Her husband, Joe Wilson also says this: “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”

That should put “covert” to rest.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003

But the context of the interview on the July 14 edition of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports demonstrates that the AP misconstrued and falsely reported Wilson’s remarks. In stating that “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” Wilson was simply noting that Plame’s identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it. In fact, when host Wolf Blitzer specifically asked Wilson if his wife “hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before” Novak’s column was published, Wilson responded that he could not comment on her past status as an undercover officer, but noted that “the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed.” The implication of Wilson’s statement is clear. Had Plame not been a clandestine officer at the time Novak published her identity, the CIA would not have believed a possible crime had been committed.

From the July 14 edition of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports:

BLITZER: But the other argument that’s been made against you is that you’ve sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife [in the January 2004 Vanity Fair magazine], who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you’ve tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That’s not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I’ll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that’s why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared.

And as Media Matters for America has documented, multiple press outlets reported that Plame was an undercover CIA operative at the time Novak wrote his column.

Note: After this item was written, but before it was posted, the AP corrected its error. New versions of the article read:

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove’s conduct was an “outrageous abuse of power … certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House.”

Wilson also said “my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”

In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

Though the AP ran a correction, other news outlets had already repeated its mistake. CNN’s Ed Henry told viewers that “Wilson himself suggested that she was not undercover.” The Drudge Report link to the AP story suggested the same thing, and numerous other news outlets picked up the AP article.

Good lesson to learn: don’t use sarcasm when saying a bastard blew your wife’s cover, other bastards will run with it and mislead other bastards.

In the end the whole truth is that after Novak blew hew cover she was no longer a clandestine officer.

This horse is worse than dead.

[elucidator]

What’s this you say? Scylla brought forth an edited reference out of context? No! Perish the thought!

But, you know, when you read the actual CNN transcript, its pretty clear that’s what Wilson was talking about…

…What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That’s not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I’ll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that’s why they referred it to the Justice Department…

Note well that last reference, as I mentioned before: the CIA referred the matter to Justice. If they didn’t regard her as covert, for the purposes of the law, what would there have been to refer?

[Scylla]

@GIGObuster

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
“and they lack the moral fiber to admit an error.”

We’ll see who’s character is alive…

Indeed.

I am aware of that article. More importantly, I am aware of where that Newsweek assertion originates and that it draws a false conclusion.

I refer you to the subpoena of Judith Miller, item 81

libby-fitzgerald-affidavit-20060203.pdf

“If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame’s status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered “information respecting the national defense.” In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work”

Several sources have interpreted this to mean that Plame was covert, including Newsweek. A careful reading cannot support that conclusion as Fitzgerald is not stating such, but merely the conditions that would need to occur and exist in order for their to be a violation, and it is either a deliberate misinterpretation or an accident, but Newsweek is incorrect in their conclusion on this.