I think it is illegal to expose an undercover CIA agent. I don't think Plame was under cover.

I think Plame being in the CIA should not have had anything to do with the Administration's response to the report. Nor was it important who sent Plame's husband to Africa.

I think the Administration should have stated early that the report of yellow cake from Africa was wrong. and just put an end to the issue.

Given the above and what I think was an error in the Admistration's response, I don't think they did anything illegal, nor do I think Libby's reported "lies" were material to hindering the investigation or to the core issue.

Thanks for your clarifications. I guess we agree on a lot of things. However, I do disagree with some of your conclusions. I believe there was enough evidence to suggest a crime may have been commited prompting an investigation. In that investigation Libby lied under oath on questions that were directly relevant to the investigation. Regardless of whether a crime was originally committed or not obstructing this investigation was still a crime.

Do you think Clinton obstructed justice, is guilty of perjury? Do you think he should serve jail time? I would answer no to those questions, because his "lie" was not material to the Paula Jones matter.

ace....and anyone else.....your thoughts on the following...i.e., who is and is not telling the truth....who is defending, IMO, the indefensible....what does this say about the integrity of the administration, and who is acting in the interests of "the nation, in a time of war"?
.....and why...with the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, saying this:
....was it neccessary to add thos "Some People Say....", "critics" lines to the "story".....why would "a liberal press", add "foxisms" to the story, especially after Libby was convicted.

Has there been any official statement from the White House, the DOJ, or the CIA, that contradicts Patrick Fitzgerald's "her employment was classified" statement, made in front of news cameras....so why are "critics say" references in the article that match no official statements, and would directly refute Fitzgerald, a man without a blemish on his record?

In all honesty, Ace, what does Clinton have to do with this?

What we should not punish people in government for wrong doings because you think we should have punished Clinton worse?

WTF it's been close to 10 years, doesn't your hate get old and expire after awhile?

Libby was found guilty he should pay the price.

And it's not just you it's a vocal bunch of GOP'ers that want to keep bringing Clinton's name up. WTF.

How can this country move forward in a positive manner if you and your party's voices are going to keep past hatreds and resentments alive?

Hey Zeus Freaking Crisps...... get the fuck over Clinton.... If you party screws up get the screw ups out and move on. Bringing up Clinton all the time does nothing..... except keeps hate alive and even that wears off after awhile.

Oh wait, the Left is being unfair to Bush sooooo the Left needs to just keep having what happened with Clinton 10 years ago thrown up and that gives the Right Carte Blanche. :rolleyes:

Politics of hate..... can't we all just want and work for what is best for this nation and stop the bullshit?

Out of the context of the flow of my exchange with Rekna, nothing.

I thought going after Clinton was a waste of government resources as was going after Libby. I think government should focus on things that matter to and have an impact on most of Americans. The political tit-for-tat appears as if it will never end.

How do you figure I "hate" Clinton? Just because I asked a question involving an issue during his time in office? If that is the test - it seems any reference to history is off limits. I don't accept that, so think what you will.

In our history many have been found guilty of crimes, when the charges were politically motivated. A guilty verdict does not make that kind of thing right.

There are double standards, involving both parties. I see it. Do you?

I don't resent or hate Clinton. In-fact, I doubt you could find a negative word ever written by me about Bill Clinton. So WTF are you talking about?

How about reading what I write before making attacks. I know it is easier to argue with stuff you make up. But if you want to make stuff up, don't use me.

The Bush administration "outed" Plame. At this point I don't think anyone is saying they didn't.

We disagree, but I think the attacks on the Bush administration has hurt our efforts during war. The administration in my opinion has an obligation to respond to critics. In this situation their response was wrong.

Was she undercover, or her job? If she was undercover, why didn't he charge Libby with that crime?

Don't know.

I think her status could have easily been de-classified by the administration. I think Fitzgerald is smart enough to know the difficulty in bringing a case on that issue. And he is smart enough to know it would not have been a wise thing to do, assuming he cares about his career. So, perhaps Fitzgerald is not as altruistic as you may want me to believe.

Host - sometimes you have to read between the lines.

Libby didn't get charged for outing her as a CIA agent because the law is very specific and requires a very heavy burden. In order to be prosecuted under the law you have to prove first that he knew she had a covert status and second that he intended to break her covert status.

Proving what someone knew and didn't know is very difficult but proving someones intent is near impossible without an admission.

Thank you for answering Ace. I didn't mean to single you out but I truly get tired of.... "well Clinton did...." and your post raised my ire.

I hope you know by our few exchanges I hold deep respect for you, so I am truly sorry if in any way you feel I was attacking you personally.

That said, I appreciate the answers and more people should be like you. It was a waste of money and our government was at a standstill unable or unwanting to do anything at the time.

This time around, the Bush admin. just keeps pushing the envelopes and seeing how far they can go.

Granted the Libby trial and all this hoopla over Plame, imho, is politically motivated and a waste of taxpayers money. However, I do think the Gonzales issue has teeth and should be investigated. We cannot be firing government officials like this simply because of their political leanings, it truly is abuse of power.

And yes, it is on both sides. Until the voters wake up and decide they want better we will continue to keep this downward spin in politics.

I'm just waiting for the sweeping presidential pardons when Bush leaves office, everyone involved will be back home in short order.

This condradicts every documented source on the matter. If you have some secret information that everyone else doesn't have -then do share where you are getting your information from.

I read about Plames testimony last week. First she seems to clearly say she is under cover. Then when asked directly if she was under cover she says - She is not a lawyer and could not answer the question, and says they did not tell her she was under cover, but that she did go on secret over seas missions. I think this qualifies as a joke at this point.

Here is a portion of the transcript of her testimony.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_...ript_0316.html

The jury believed "Pat", ace....and what he told the press, on camera, and what he told the court....federal judges....ace....facts asserted by a prosecutor, Pat Fitzgerald, who is clean enough to survive Rove's "opposition research" efforts, unscathed....

....and what he has said contradicts your points, which are identical to the talking points that are posted on conservative websites and uttered by conservative pundits, all over this land, for the past 3-1/2 years:
ace....if you're gonna continue to post your "stuff" with no support that comes close to matching or trumping mine....please strengthen your argument by offering support for a contention that Patrick Fitzgerald is mistaken, iis unreliable...so as not to be believable, or that he has lied in court filings or in statements to the press....there are video tapes, and transcripts. Or...post for us some reasons why Libby's lawyers did not try to prove that the testimony that Libby was convicted for falsely swearing to, was "not material", as a defense that you are attempting for him, here and now.....

....could this be why, ace?:
...and please forgive the link to a "blog" page for the preceding citation.

Document 184 is not located with other filings in the Libby case, here:
http://www.pegc.us/archive/US_v_Libby/
...and I cannot find document 184 elsewhere, but I am confident as to it's validity. May loquitur....if he's reading this, can validate it's authenticity, for us.....

My post came from her testimony. What can be better?

She was not told she was covert. She did not directly state that she met the definition. Fitzgerald did not bring forth charges against anyone for blowing her covert status.


See the above.



My only question is - If they have proof and Libby was involved in blowing her covert status, why didn't they attempt a conviction on that issue? I don't know, but you don't either. So why is your speculation more on target than mine?

What could be better? The actual context of the quote.



There was never any question on Plame's Covert Status. The congressman was asking a silly question like -do people come up to you and tell you that you are a covert agent. The congressman himself seemed to think that the Administration themselves did not know that Plame was covert -however this understanding means that PLAME WAS COVERT

Just to summarize your analysis of the incedent -you take one statement out of context to defend against a plethora of statements within context.

IMO, this very much has an impact on most Americans.
The result of their actions was the outing of a CIA Agent and the destruction of the anti-proliferation work done under Brewster-Jennings.
How much more relevant and necessary expense of resources is there than to remove individuals who would harm our intelligence gathering network to protect lies for political reasons, on something so vitally important as nuclear weapons?

Course, I guess it pales in comparison to perjury within the confines of a civil suit about sexual deviancy.

I looked at the video. The exchange speaks for itself, and I don't think my post took the quote out of context. The fact of the matter is that she was not told that she was covert meeting the definition of the law and she seemed to think it would take a lawyer to answer the question.

Pssst! Guess what - nobody told me but I am a covert agent for the CIA. I am so covert the CIA doesn't even know I work for the CIA. I have been under cover overseas. I think the thread count was about 500.:paranoid:

How can I take Plame serious when see poses on the cover of a national magazine? I don't think covert agents would do that. I still think this is now a joke.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/images/vf_wilson_plame.jpg

Her covert status is gone now thanks to the admin so posing on a magazine isn't a big deal. Anyway whether she is covert or not is a decision for a Jury.

I hope the CIA tells its covert agents they are covert. If they don't we have a problem in the CIA. We don't need a jury for us to know if she was in-fact a covert agent. We don't need lawyers either.

IMO, the "joke" is that you continue to repeat conservative "spin" that is completely opposite the position that the politicians in the executive branch, and at the CIA, and that special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has sworn to in court filings, both in the federal circuit court of appeals, and in federal court.

You "carry water" for deluded, extremely partisan pundits, bloggers, and republican PR "operatives" (examples... Victoria Toensing and her close, personal friend, Bob Novak....) in an effort to downplay the effects on moral and recruiting at vital agencies, during "a time of war", such as the CIA, DIA, etc....of the intentional leaking to the press, by high officials in the executive branch, of the classified details of a CIA employee who worked for a CIA "front" company, engaged in WMD counter-proliferation operations....

Why do you make the effort to do this ace....aren't you undermining "our troops", and giving those who violated their security clearances for political revenge, a "pass" that is akin to voicing your support for their crimes?

If you disagree with my points here, can you provide a quote from any high level, executive branch official, denying that Valerie Plame's CIA employment status was classified information? That would seem a required, and not too difficult, initial step in support of your oft posted argument.....if it is an accurate one, that is.....

I speak for myself and form my own opinions.

You just lost all credibility with me ace.

Having your credibility and quarter gets me what?

The point is that serious people don't make a mokery of their profession.

I don't know what the lady was thinking, but she had to know posing like that would be percieved as humorous.

Also, just because her name was listed in print did not mean her secret covert contacts would be able to connect her real name to the name she would use on her ultra-top-secret-missions. D'oh, but she had her picture published in a national magazine. D'oh, I bet she used her real name. D'oh, I bet she showed her secret covert contacts pictures of her husband. D'oh, looks like she forgot about that whole creating a false identity thingy for her ultra-covert-secret-missions.

Come on - you have to see the humor in that.:)

The woman was covert -that is a fact.

Saying that she isn't in the face of overwhelming evidence -is a lie.

Your credibility with me and certain other posters on here -obviously means very little to you.

I won the argument, you lost. Get over it.

For the moment I will accept that you are correct and that she was "covert" or what the agency calls "Non-official cover" as stated in the Vanity Fair article.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/va...erie_plame.php



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-official_cover

If she was NOC many questions beg to be answered, for example:

Why didn't she deny working for the CIA if she was NOC?
Why didn't the CIA deny her employment if she was NOC?
Why didn't Fitzgerald bring charges on blowing her NOC cover?
Why was she donating money to Gore and Kerry using her NOC cover?
Why was her husband drawing attension to his family by publishing articles against the administration while his wife was covert?
Why did people know she worked for the CIA if she was NOC?

This does not add up, and I still do not believe she was "covert" at the time she was outed.

damn it, this is getting tired. i'm sorry, i know that's not a very articulate positon, but for fuck's sake. her 'covert' status isn't up for contention. its a fact. she was 'covert' previously, when she worked for brewster-jennings. afterwards, she publicly took a desk jockey job with the cia; a natural move for someone with her public experience. this isn't simple shit, and they don't play cookie cutter roles. my guess on the first couple of your questions, ace is that that story was so huge that it made little difference. her contacts would have been compromised based on a rumor half that large. i don't think they wear groucho marx fake moustache glasses with an assumed identity; that's why its so dangerous. your background holds up to scrutiny because you really earned your degrees and so forth. you're a real person the government reaches out to in order to conduct espionage.

i personally hope they hold these guys to the fire on this one. i think its pretty obvious that scooter's the fall guy; but i can't feel too badly for him. he knew the game he was playing. i wonder if the precedent that may be set in the doj / executive privelage / advisory testimony could have any affect on follow ups to this.

Since it is March Maddness, saying Plame was covert is like saying an NCAA basketball player planning on going into the pro draft is a student. Sure the title may fit, but the reality is that the basketball player planning on going pro is no more a student than Plame saying she was "covert". I thought of that one over lunch and felt the need to share it, I promise that's my parting shot. (Pardon the pun.)

ace,

you know, i really do like you; you stick around no matter what. don't let wind get taken out of your sails, regardless and so forth. i don't mean this in a bad way, but that analogy really makes little sense to me. plame:covert as ncaa college player:student. um, no. when plame was a noc, she was a noc. when she retired from that role, she wasn't actively conducting covert activities, but her previous covert status was permanently classified.

furthermore, that player (sort of factually) is a student. that's what they are, by definition. if they talk to nba scouts at the wrong time, if their college coach sets up talks at the wrong time, if they accept gifts, so on and so forth, they get fined, the college gets fined. if they take certain types of professional merchandise, if they have an official team jersey with numbers, if they do a lot of other things. why? because they are a college student and treating them in certain ways is illegal. sort of like blowing the cover of a formerly covert noc.