Redstate

would be proud of that characterization, bee ;)

said she was. That's Michael Haywood, head of the CIA.

But don't worry, Victoria Toensig (sp) says Haywood is wrong.

Yup, all the covert agents go trotting in and out the gates at Langley.

If given a choice between taking CIA Director Michael Hayden's (not Haywood, as the previous poster referred to him) or kchand's word concerning Plames status, I think I'd go with the that of the CIA Director.

Can we please move on now, at least with regard to this question?

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

She was not covert.

If you had spent a few minutes reading this blog rather than the wackos at kos we wouldn't have to convince you.

I've read the blog. Nevertheless, if the word of Director of the CIA, someone who many would consider the ultimate authority figure regarding Plame's status, doesn't convince you, I'll just say that I hope you have a nice day because there obviously won't be much to talk about.

I'm waiting to read an official transcript of exactly what Hayden was reported to have said before turning off the lights and closing the door on this one.

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

but your assertion carries very little weight considering the preponderance of evidence showing that it is a false one, and the lack of evidence showing that it is true.

You can't just repeat something over and over again without providing positive proof to back it up - not if you want anyone to believe you, that is.

Hayden was reported to have told Waxman and Reyes that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert.

As I said in my previous comment, I have not seen an official transcript and I'm not going to post a link to another blogs reporting of the hearing. You can find them yourself without much trouble, I'm sure.

If the official transcript does actually confirm that CIA Director Hayden said this, would that settle this one question (not all the others...) once and for all or not?

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

You're relying on a third-party report.

Repeat that, please. "I don't actually have a transcript: I'm relying on a third-party report."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I'm not relying on any transcript or a third party report - I watched it myself and the point was made several times that Hayden confirmed this information, a prepared piece which Waxman read at the beginning of the hearing, which included the info that Plame was covert and that she had done covert work overseas within the last five years - actually the statement which was confirmed to be true was 'the last five years from TODAY.' - which implies that we are talking about a time frame of 1-2 years before the outing, tops.

But, don't take my word for it - when the transcript comes out, you'll see for yourself.

...that you heard with your own ears Director Hayden say that Valerie Plame was covert.

Please take your next post to explicitly indicate that, or else to explicitly say "I actually don't have a transcript. I'm relying on a third-party report."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

is that Waxman said 'I spoke with Gen. Hayden last night to confirm that the information in this comment is both true and allowable to be discussed publicly, and he confirmed this to me.' Then he proceeded to read a piece which said all the things which I wrote above.

You can take that however you like. If Hayden didn't have this conversation with Waxman, then I highly doubt it would even take him an hour to issue a denial. Barring a denial on his part I see no reason to assume Waxman was lying.

Hayden's approval of a specific statement doesn't make it a third-party transcript, but a first-party one, sorry.

Much better than people running in and repeating a regurgitated talking point which doesn't even get the name right. Thank you, and you're right: if Director Hayden doesn't deny or clarify this then it's reasonable to take whatever Rep. Waxman attributes to Hayden as actually coming from Hayden.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I don't have time to watch a video of the hearing, but, barring a complete mis-representation from multiple sources, Hayden's reported statement will probably stand.

So, yes, for a third time, I haven't provided an official transcript because it isn't available yet. Is anyone here willing to accept her status as covert if, according to the yet to be released official transcript, Hayden did indeed state it? Then, maybe, discussing something important like why Armitage wasn't charged might be in order...

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

charged would be a good question.

Perhaps the Special prosecutor will show up at some point to explain himself.

I also think discussing why in the world the husband of a CIA covert agent would be telling tales in op eds would be a worthwhile debate.

Having her husband write op eds in the "paper of record" on the most controversial issue of the time would have what effect on her status?

This is why purges are necessary. Either the civil service has to be apolitical and get its rear out of political parties or we need to go back to the spoils system.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Having her husband write op eds in the "paper of record" on the most controversial issue of the time would have what effect on her status?

not really. Here's the relevant definition of the term covert agent from United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4 or IIPS if you prefer (from wikipedia)

(4) The term “covert agent” means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

Certainly the fact that Plame worked for the CAI satisfies section A.

The Direction of the CIA vouched for section (i), her status was classified. I'm not sure who else would be a better authority to make this claim.

And Plame claims to have traveled outside the US as part of her job within in the last 5 years, which counts as serving outside and hence satisfies section (ii). Admittedly it was a poorly asked question, as the time frame was shifted from the period that matters. Regardless, while her travel might still be classified it is something that can be proven or disproven and I doubt she'd lie about something that was so easily verified (well, at least to those with the proper security clearances)

So, having satisfied all three sections, legally Plame was convert agent, it's right there in the law. Which means Libby probably got real lucky that Fitz didn't charge him with violating the IIPS. My best guess as to why would be that the CIA didn't want to talk about Plame's travels in open court. I would assume that same reasoning applied to Armitage.

I also think it is pretty clear that the IIPS is a law designed for a more civilized time as it is very conservative in terms of defining what a covert agent is.

And I still am mystified why someone with Libby's (and Armitage) intelligence would risk CIA assets by trying to expose (legally or not) them. I mean, loose lips sink ships.

Celebrity secret agent that everyone knows.

She lost any claim to covert protection or status the minute her Husband launched his crusade. Lets not mince words here, no one is going to be fooled by "She works for Ace Tomato in Langley"
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

all you want.

But if you read the code, there is little doubt that Plame mets the statutory requirements to be considered a covert agent. You might not like how the statue is written, I certainly don't, but until the day that the CIA declassified her identify she absolutely was a covert agent as defined by this statue.

The answer is that she took actions that undermined her status.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

at the statue and I don't see anything in there about the relevance of her actions.

As far as I can see, if the CIA classified her identity, her identity was classified. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

Maybe I'm misreading reading it, can you show me where in the statue her actions are relevant?

Thanks

if you go out of your way to undermine them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

she didn't "go out of her way", now did she?

Even if she pushed the CIA to send her husband to Niger, that just doesn't rise to the level of going out of her way to undermine her covert status.

Now you can blame Joe for his Op-Ed piece, but that still was Plame going out of her way.

I suspect your right hand does not know what your left is doing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

at the statue and I don't see anything in there that would keep Dick No-Neck out of leg-irons if indeed Agent 006.9 were covered under said statute.

Yet Armitage is not sporting said leg-irons.

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

the absence of prosecution doesn't in and of itself doesn't mean that Libby and Armitage didn't violate the law. In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the CIA would have had to permit information that may have been classified to be revealed in open court - specifically when and where Plame traveled to overseas. If CIA choose not to provide that information to Fitz, he would have no chance of proving Plame was covert and would thus have no case.

So, I suppose it depends on whcih you find more believable.

And onthe subject of believability, aren't we pretty-much taking Super-Secret Agent Val Gal at her word that she actually was stationed overseas on "business" during the covered period? And given her, erm, rather unbelievable performace today, is there any reason her word should be worth much of anything at this point?

Especially seeing as how she stands to gain rather large sums of cash through a book deal and movie telling "her side" of the sorted tale of her "outing", after all.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

We're taking Hayden's word it's true.

Sheesh

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

at the bottom of the thread.

as I recall, the DOJ stills answers to the President. If the Administration believes the Plame lied under oath, then certainly it has the resources to investigate Plame's claim. In fact, I think the CIA still reports to the President too, so it really shouldn't be that hard to to get someone to answer a couple of very basic questions.

I think you should call the White House and demand that Val's veracity be verified.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

This administration actually prosecute someone ? For crimes harming the nation ?? Where have you been since 2000 ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...doesn't mean that (insert Administration member here) *didn't* violate the law, isn't it more likely (and more logical) that the absence of prosecution meant that no one violated the law?

You know, seeing as how no one was actually charged, prosecuted or convicted for the "leak" that has caused such hyperbolic outrage and apocalyptic scandalmania?

--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch

back up the thread, you'll see that I've shown that there are 3 requirements to be a covert agent under the IIPS. I also showed that each of those three requirements has been satisfied. Instead of handwaving, why don't you try and refute my logic. You know, like you do in a real debate.

would say he did.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I guess most of you, um, here, um, on Red State probably would.

I'm going sign off for a while as my retort would get me banned.

Examine your argument.

We have the leaker self identified.
We have a special prosecutor whose job was to prosecute just that crime.
We have ? No prosecution for the crime.

Said special prosecutor has made equivocating and noncommittal statements on her covert status.

Seems logical to me.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

..what isn't there. You're arguing that a crime was committed. I'm arguing that no one was charged, prosecuted or convicted of said crime.

Now I'll stop "hand-waving" (your pet phrase, apparently) if you'll stop searching for unicorns.

--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch

At least I didn't deliberately try and distort.

This lady helped write the act you are using.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11?language=printe...

Trips overseas don't count only postings do. So no she was not covert.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

any evidence that she did in fact write this act?

In today's testimony, she said she was tasked with getting it passed - not with writing it.

I've seen this claim thrown around a lot, and would like to know people's source for it - if they have one.

gets down to the definition of served, now doesn't? Unfortunately, served isn't defined in the statue.

Victoria Toensing can babble on about what she meant the law to say, but at the end of the day all that matters to the judge is what the status actually sez.

So if a member of the US Army visits Iraq, performs some action in the line of his duty and then returns to the USA within a week, would you claim that he did or didn't not serve in Iraq?

But since you put it into the play of legal interpretation, Her lack of steps to preserve her covert status, and the actions she took to destroy it come into play.

Which is why the actual leaker is not on trial.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

suppose to do?

Have a CIA hit team take out her husband?

Further, how was she suppose to know that several senior members of the Bush Administration would call up to 9 (I think) journalists to attempt to leak her name and occupation?

She shouldn't have had the agency send her husband off as junior agent 86.

Maybe, just maybe somebody should have had him sign the standard confidentiality agreement.

You know the one that says you can't talk about your work for the CIA unless it harms a Republican.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Further, how was she suppose to know that several senior members of the Bush Administration would call up to 9 (I think) journalists to attempt to leak her name and occupation?

What in hell's name did she expect was going to happen after her hubby spun a big pack of tall tales on the Op-Ed pages of the world's newspaper of record? That no one was going to ask how he got the gig in the first place (seeing as how Joey lied about that too)? And that nobody would be able to put how he got the gig together with her?

This all goes a long way toward explaining the craptacular intel we've been getting out of the CIA lo these many years.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

although, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there have been other editorials written by spouses of covert agents. The writing and publishing of the editorial itself doesn't seem like it should be enough to affect the spouses covert status, although it might have an impact (positive or negative) on their career.

Regarding your comment about civil service, do you think that the civil service ever was apolitical, or that, in the current highly partisan climate, there is less tolerance for political leanings not having much in common with that of the party in power? Leaving aside outliers in the civil service with extremely divergent political opinions (on both sides of the political spectrum), they'll be a lot of needed institutional continuity and talent lost if each administration guts the civil service when they come into power.

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

And reinstate the spoils system.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I can't even begin to imagine anything in recent history that was meant to be as explosive as Joe Wilson's. The only thing that comes close would be the Pentagon Papers which wasn't an editorial.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

two different things.

Also, with regards to the law that was possibly violated there is a very specific definition of what qualifies as NOC.

It is clear that she had been covert at one point, but after the Ames scandal, she was brought home, because at that point it was believed she had been compromised.

The question really isn't "was Plame at any time covert" but was she covert by the definition of the law at the time.

Evidence indicates a "no" until somebody actually says otherwise.

All the wailing and gnashing of teeth cannot blur the fact that Fitzgerald, who exercised no prosecutorial discretion at all in this case, didn't even think she met the covert standard as set forth in the statute. I don't have the link, but from memory Fitzgerald said as much at his press conference to announce the indictment of Libby.

If this isn't enough for you, nothing else will be.

From the official record: http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316104030-43341.pdf

...But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay
scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.

She took on serious risks on behalf of her country.

Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequences for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with CIA.

Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk.

And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now, she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risk to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.

Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk.

As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a life-long oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended.

As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk Ms. Wilson accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong.

There should be no confusion on this point.

Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably.

We are confident that she will uphold it again today.

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Meant for it to be in reponse to "no we will not move on" by pangloss

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

As I have conceeded to musings, it's Hayden's responsbility to correct the record, now that Waxman has made this statement. So, that's one.

Two: how does Hayden know this about Plame? Careful; the question has teeth.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Try to keep up.

Second, the next person who repeats this particular talking point will also provide a link to a transcript. I've already seen the Nation link, thanks; but let's see some of that primary source action, 'kay?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

This charade was little more than a taxpayer-funded promo for Plame's upcoming book and movie.

I wonder when Rep. Henry Wax-Nostrils (D-Permanently Outraged) will investigate that abuse of governmental power and authority? I know, I know - the day after never - but it had to be asked.

Gotta wonder though whether she, in her brief appearance, might have said a little too much:

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.

Super Secret Agent Blondie sure better hope there are no emails running around to contradict that. She wouldn't want to be accused of lying to congress now, would she?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

her sworn testimony today. Acording to Byron York of NRO who helpfully posted yeasterday a series of questions that might be put to Ms Plame (but apparently weren't):

"1) In a 2004 report, the Senate Intelligence Committee quoted a memo you wrote to the deputy chief of the CIA’s counterproliferation division (CPD) on February 12, 2002. In it, you suggested your husband for a trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had sought uranium there. According to the Senate report, you wrote, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” Was that all your memo said? Was there any more? If so, what did it say?

2) Your memo was dated February 12, 2002. Was that before or after you learned that Vice President Cheney had asked a question about reports of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger?

3) On February 19, 2002, according to the Senate report, the CPD held a meeting with your husband to discuss a trip to Niger. A State Department report said the meeting was “apparently convened by [Joseph Wilson’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.” Is that accurate? Please describe what happened."

Was Ms Plame asked about this shall we say contradiction today? Was she asked to account for this memo? Somehow I'm thinking not.

Bythe standards being applied to the White House in the US Attorneys affair, shouldn't she have to explain this???

nt

If you're a congressman it's compulsory.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Expecting Republicans in power to suddenly discover common sense or testicular fortitude?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

didn't ask her that????!!!!!

Shocked. I am. Shocked.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

When they can't follow their own rules complain hypocrisy.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

when it comes to foreign policy and defense.

All the intelligent viewpoints on these subjects are right-wing viewpoints. The Left has almost nothing to offer.

"Do the day's work."

become fair game for conservatives? I have to say that it makes me kind of uncomfortable. This falls into the category of actions I don't want to defend.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

... a covert, clandestine arm of the executive branch engaging in a political struggle with the elected civilian chief executive?

I know it's hard to do, but if you can manage to put aside party considerations and BDS for just a moment, that's a pretty chilling scenario for a free society. Frankly, I'm shocked that liberals are so cool with it. It just shows how blind they can be at times.

Is worse,
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

There are some interesting questions here. First, who wrote the phony Niger yellowcake letter? I'm guessing CIA, or ex-CIA.

Second, how did Plame's name get circulated in the first place? I recall that there was a State Department memo, marked "Secret," that mentioned it, that made the rounds of the administration. I guess one can speculate that the CIA provided that information to State (which, as you will recall, was very tepid about going to war).

So from the outset, it looks to me like the administration was being set up--first, to include the yellowcake charge in the argument for war, and then, having Plame's name dangled in front of them when they were angry at Wilson for exposing the charge as fraudulent.

Now, you are absolutely right if you view this as "a covert, clandestine arm of the executive branch engaging in a political struggle with the elected civilian chief executive." But the fact remains that in both cases--the forged letter and the tempting revelation of Plame's connection to Wilson--the administration jumped at the bait, just as the Company knew they would, and got stuck in the position they are in now. My point remains valid--even more so given your well-taken point: IT IS A BAD PRACTICE TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF A COVERT CIA OPERATIVE. Number one, it's against the law; and number two, you're likely stepping right into the CIA's trap.

.

He was part of the setup. Only question is, was Novak, or was he set up too? I'm betting on the latter.

In a previous post you state it is against the law to disclose the identity of a covert agent. Are you saying now that somebody from the State Dept. can break the law?

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

are Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame themselves not only because Joe outed her with her permission in Who's Who and because she outed herself at Beltway cocktail parties and coming in from the "cold" to Headquarters in plain sight daily for years, but also because they had the intent to do so for the purpose of harming American foreign policy.

Plame admits that her identity inside the Beltway was not "widely" known. It was narrowly known, at least, by her own admission. This contradicts NBC's Andrea Mitchell who said "everybody" knew who she was. Russert contradicts Mitchell and then Mitchell contradicts herself...

But, Wilson and Plame were saved by the 5 year rule.

Try again with the heavyweights bantam.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks coffee cups are dangerous, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

...you should be really troubled. (BTW, I do, and I am.)

You & I seemingly agree that there was some kind of Cold War between the White House and CIA.

And you fault the White House for "jumping at the bait"? To me, it exonerates the actions of anyone on the White House staff. (My preferred way of dealing with it would have been a little more aggressive & overt - - like a huge middle and senior management shake up of the Agency. Maybe the time wasn't right for that.)

The CIA is part of the executive branch. Not only are they covert and clandestine, they have paramilitary capability. The President, as CEO of the world's most powerful organization, absolutely must maintain the upper hand in his dealings with CIA.

I'm no neo-con, but I do retain a smidgen of residual liberal paranoia from my political formative years in the '70's. If an episode like this had happened 20 years ago, especially if the President had been a Democrat, the Left would have freaked. Their current love affair with CIA as the enemy of their enemy show s just how deeply affected their brains are by the disease commonly known as BDS.

important aspect of bm's claim. I do think that much of the executive branch is at war with Bush and has been since the Iraq War was being contemplated. I think this internal shadow government must be part of the explanation for the Administration's failures to better defend themselves against known fact msm memes and the like.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks cups hurl
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

...without Congressional interference.

Bush seriously needs to grow some stones and stop this. There are some horrible precedents being set.

We have established that, barring a later contradictory statement, Waxman was told by Hayden that Plame was covert.

The questions still remain:

1). How does Hayden know this? Be careful before you answer; the question has teeth.

2). Does this have any bearing on whether a law was broken? If 'yes', then we need to know why the CIA did not see fit to inform the person whose job it was to investigate the alleged crime*; if 'no', then Waxman's point is irrelevant.

As is, really, this entire exercise: unless Fitzgerald reopens the case the practical reality is that Plame wasn't covert, no crime was committed by State and Armitage in leaking her identity and I'm going to have to wade through posts like these for the next twenty years.

Fitzgerald isn't going to reopen the case.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*We have people arguing that the CIA had its own reasons for not so informing at the time; that leads inexorably to the question of why Hayden is doing so now - and, again, how he actually knows. Come to think of it, if it was all right for Hayden to talk, it should have been all right for Tenet or Goss in the first place.

Answers to the questions:

1 - Hayden knows, undoubtedly, that Plame was considered 'covert' by the CIA, that is, that her status was undercover and that she had done some work overseas. All he had to do to find this information was to ask the CIA folks who had worked with her and look at the records of her employment.

I find it interesting that there is a supposition that Hayden somehow COULDN'T know whether or not she was covert. It would seem that withholding such information from the top dog would be a big no-no. How could he not know?

* - The CIA DID inform the person investigating the crime of this. They informed the FBI that there needed to be an investigation, and they told Fitzgerald. I have always found arguments that the CIA, FBI and Fitzgerald couldn't determine her status to be rather unconvincing given the fact that a simple phone call could have solved the big mystery. I haven't found any evidence that either Tenet or Goss refrained from informing either the CIA or the FBI of the fact that Plame was considered covert by the CIA.

2 - Yes, it does have bearing. The answer to the inevitable question is one word: "intent." It's a hard thing to prove, especially when people are, oh, I don't know, Obstructing Justice and Making False Statements.

I agree that without any new information, Fitz won't reopen his investigation. But it's a serious mistake to think that this matter is over; new information from the hearings could provide Fitz the information he needs to re-open the investigation. Congress can keep investigating this as long as they like (and Waxman has pledged to do exactly that). Soon they are going to start subpoenaing upper officials in the WH; that's going to lead to a stonewall situation which I know for a fact the GOP doesn't need right now.

And with that, it's beer time. Cheers to you, Mr. Lane.

...in 2003, Plame could've been labeled "covert" in the CIA's database in the same way that today, some political database (somewhere) will list Rudy Giuliani as "current Mayor of New York City." The information was just out of date for the specific purpose of qualifying (as covert) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But in this case, that's all that matters. Apart from that, what the CIA wants to pretend Plame is is up to them.

He said he was the one who told Novak, and it was Novak's piece that did the outing.

If Valerie was covert, and met the criteria for the law, then why hasn't Armitage been prosecuted?

'The answer to the inevitable question is one word: "intent."'

If Armitage successfully convinced Fitz that he didn't intend to do it, and/or Fitz didn't think he could get a conviction - no charges. Same goes for Rove et. others. Lack of charges is not indicative of a belief that there was no underlying crime on the part of the investigator, unfortunatley.

I find it interesting that there is a supposition that Hayden somehow COULDN'T know whether or not she was covert. It would seem that withholding such information from the top dog would be a big no-no. How could he not know?

Because during the time period in question Director Hayden was the director of the National Security Agency. He didn't cross over to CIA until 2005. If he had personal knowledge of Valerie Plame's status before that time, this entire conversation abruptly takes a back seat to the infinitely more important one of why one of our domestic intelligence agencies is involved in the internal affairs of one of our foreign intelligence agencies.

Now, if you want this to explain why Tenet didn't talk, that's another issue entirely, but not one that I particularly need to buttress my own theory on the subject*, so feel free. Beer and Casino Royale await, for my part.

Moe

*Short version: Fitzgerald looked into it, decided that there was no there, there - but needed at least one scalp to avoid looking like a total doofus. He has a scalp, and may now walk away reasonably safely. And there it ends, Waxman or no Waxman.

Guess which theory's simpler?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

'Because during the time period in question Director Hayden was the director of the National Security Agency. '

Yeah, but Hayden didn't verify that she was covert THEN; he did it last night, according to Waxman's account.

As he is the chief of the CIA NOW, he asks other people in the CIA who do know the truth - they tell him - he tells Waxman.

I mean, how could this not be the case? How could he not find out from others in the CIA - and there must be dozens of people who know whether she was covert or not, he only needed to ask one - when Waxman asked him?

I haven't seen any evidence that either Goss or Tenet didn't tell Fitzgerald anything he asked them about Plame's covert or non-covert status. Have you?

Back to beer!

This is the rock that your scenario founders on: he couldn't have known personally at the time - he had better not known personally at the time, or else heads will really roll - and if his statement is based on supposed institutional knowledge that she was covert, then the CIA should have told Fitzgerald that, back when there was an actual investigation. The reasons why they didn't is your job to explain away, not mine.

Unless, of course, the situation is that Plame was simultaneously 'covert' and in a position where leaking her identity did not actually break the law. In which case... well, I'm happy that Waxman is enjoying himself, but he's got other things to do. That appropriations bill won't drive itself into the ground, you know.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

'Lack of charges is not indicative of a belief that there was no underlying crime on the part of the investigator, unfortunatley.'

Do you have evidence that the CIA didn't tell Fitzgerald her status? Or are you inferring this from the fact that Fitz didn't file any charges?

You aren't supposing that the CIA - right now, today - who has people who do know what her status THEN was, is lying to Hayden, their director. Are you? Because even if the CIA didn't tell Fitzgerald back then, they still had the ability to tell Hayden today. Hayden confirmed that these statements were true according to Waxman. This indicates positive knowledge on his part. Unless you have some proof that the CIA lied to Hayden, or Hayden lied to Waxman and told him that she was covert when in fact she wasn't, then there is zero reason to believe that she was not, in fact, covert. Neither of the theories that could explain her being not covert hold any water, given Hayden's admission.

Her 'not being covert' now relies on Hayden repudiating Waxman's statements. I haven't seen anything come out by him today, but I'll keep an eye out for it and apologize if it turns out Waxman was lying. But I doubt he is.

The fact that you don't like this inconvenient fact - or the one that the case will not be reopened - isn't my problem. Not going to recapitulate (core assumption mismatch, and all that), but there are two scenarios that purport to describe what happened re Plame, and one is much simpler than the other. Hint: it isn't yours. You're going to have to eventually deal with this, so you might as well start now.

I predict that, ten or so years down the road, you'll wish that you had.

Moe

PS: I think we're done, here. But, hey: think of the satisfaction that you'll have if Fitzgerald reopens the case!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I don't believe that Fitzgerald will reopen his case, but I do believe that this affair is far from over.

I don't mind being done; but our being done doesn't negate the fact that you did not respond to my point about Hayden being head of the CIA today, having the ability to garner this information today, and doing so today in a positive way.

I'm not sure who you are alledging is lying in this situation, but I'm sure it's obvious to you that Hayden telling the truth to Waxman is a simpler answer then Hayden lying to Waxman or Waxman lying about what Hayden said. Both of those explanations seem rather far-fetched given the lack of denial on Hayden's part. And I wouldn't dream of insulting Hayden by suggesting that he is being manipulated by his own agency.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Here's the question again:

'aren't we pretty-much taking Super-Secret Agent Val Gal at her word that she actually was stationed overseas on "business" during the covered period?'

Your answer is - no, it was confirmed by Hayden through Waxman.

Which leads to four follow-ups:

1) I didn't see anything in Waxman's statement that indicates overseas stationing during the covered period
2) So I'm supposed to trust Waxman? I hope you'll forgive me if I take a pass on that one.
3) It still doesn't answer - especially given Hayden's apparent willingness to puke his guts out to Congressman Nostrils - why Dick Armitage isn't in an orange jumpsiut today.
4) What Moe said.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?