Redstate

that Gen. Hayden could easily confirm or deny any aspect of her story, and he chose to confirm the aspects that support Plame's account of what happened - and her status as a covert employee.

It's ridiculous, the complicated scenarios which are being bandied around to explain how the Spiders were ganged up upon by those nasty Flies.

...can go to a file cabinet, to a computer database, or interview people like Plame to find out what happened when. He wasn't there to see it. He has the "offical story," whatever that is.

You are alleging that employees of the CIA are lying to General Hayden, in order to present a false story to the media? Or maybe that Hayden is too incompetent to find out the truth? Maybe that the CIA had a big picnic lunch where the dozens of people involved could get their story straight.

Do you have any proof to back up these allegations?

the CIA hadn't updated their records.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

to reflect what?

What was the change the the CIA didn't update?

As part of Waxman's prepared statement he read, he alleged that Plame had done 'covert work abroad within 5 years of TODAY'S DATE.' Not just the date that she was outed, but today, 3 years later. Remember that Hayden certified that this was true.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this

You might believe Waxman's statement, I don't. Yes, I'm saying that it is possible that the CIA didn't update their records (OMG what a HUGE secret I just let out... bureaucracy is inefficient and slow????)

______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

but your belief that Waxman didn't tell the truth about Hayden confirming the accuracy of the prepared statement he read holds little water. It has no evidence to back it up whatsoever, and is little better than a conspiracy theory. As Hayden has not publicly denounced Waxman for lying to him - something we can all agree he would do, if they had never discussed it - there is zero reason to believe that what Waxman said wasn't true.

Theories without evidence to back them up are generally not considered to be persuasive.

Theories without evidence to back them up are generally not considered to be persuasive. - said pot to the kettle.

______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

What evidence for a theory would you like me to provide?

Normally when someone says 'pot meets kettle,' in response to someone's post, it's because they haven't provided evidence to support a theory. I'm just wondering exactly where you allege I have done this.

You are offering his statements as "proof" instead of hot air from a blow hard. You are saying one side of a he said/he said is evidence.

______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

here because he's arguing the same thing.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

Unless you can provide -

- Proof that Waxman was lying about what Hayden told him;
- Proof that Hayden lied to Waxman
- Proof that the CIA lied to Hayden

Then you have no case at all to argue that the things Waxman read in his prepared statement, which was approved by Hayden, were not in fact true. It is nothing but a conspiracy theory.

The fact that both DocJ and yourself are making the same argument, doesn't make either of you correct, unfortunately. Unless you can provide any proof at all that any of the three above is true, then you have zero case.

You've yet to provide proof that Plame was "outed" - yet you continue to claim it.

You've yet to provide proof that the White House was responsible - yet you continue to imply it.

As such, you're continued baying about a lack of "proof" - which I'm sure you think is brilliant debating - is really just annoying.

Almost all of this is speculation - on your part as well as ours. Speculation cannot be proven, only validated.

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

you need to provide "proof" that Gen Hayden is in a position to know himself that it is true. Since he doesn't have firsthand knowledge, then you need to prove who told him, what they told him, why they told him and then check the truth of all of the above. Otherwise, you're still arguing he said/he said and putting all the weight on one side.

______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

Actually, we have no idea what Hayden said. All we know is that Waxman claims that Hayden did not object to Waxman's statement. That could mean that Waxman is away on vacation, and Plame is answering his emails for all we know. Hayden hasn't said anything publicly on the subject, so trying to use his statement as proof=nullPointerException.

When asked point-blank whether Hayden said that Plame was covert as per the 1982 Identities Protection Act Waxman refused to say yea or nay.

Transcript here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Just putting "As part of Waxman's prepared statement" in any post that is supposed to be serious is absolutley hilarious.

Waxman would put

"I have firm convictions that O.J. Simpson is doing everything in his power to find the real killers of Nicole"

in a prepared statement if he thought he could gain 5 minutes on TV. Sheesh.

What's next - quotes from Cindy Sheehan to support an arguement to end the war in Iraq???

for the fact that he specifically asked Gen. Hayden, the head of the CIA, to sign off on the statement, I would agree with your argument. The confirmation of fact by the head of the organization in question only acts to strengthen Plame's claims that she was covert and had served overseas within the previous 5 years.

precisely how Hayden would personally know this - being that he didn't become head of the agency until mid-to-late 2006 and this entire kerfuffle took place in 2003.

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

I find arguments that Hayden was lied to by his own employees in the CIA to be rather unpersuasive and frankly insulting to Hayden himself.

The supposition that there would not exist within the CIA voluminous records documenting the work Plame had done is ridiculous. Additionally, the supposition that there was a conspiracy within the CIA to change these records and/or lie to Hayden about Plame's status is equally without merit.

Before, I have been taken to task - and rightly so - for failing to provide evidence for theories I've provided here on RedState. I would only ask that others who provide competing theories also share their evidence for how they came to believe in said theory; in this case, where is the evidence that Hayden lied to Waxman? Or, where is the evidence that the CIA lied to Hayden?

Without the presentation of said evidence, there is no reason to believe that either contention is true. None whatsoever, other than it provides yet another dodge of responsibility in this matter to the administration in question. I would think that theories which are built up around evidence are more persuasive than ones which work backwards from a pre-conceived notion or goal.

A terrific non-answer to a very simple question.

You seem to have no trouble believing the administration to be capable of all sorts of conspiracies and ulterior motives. All I am doing is ascribing the same motives to an organization whose very line of work is skulduggery.

Believe whatever you want.

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

"Believe whatever you want."

This certainly seems to be the m.o. for many here on this case.

I ask you again: what positive proof do you have that any of your claims are true? Without it, there really isn't any reason to believe those claims are true at all.

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

You aren't claiming that Hayden was lied to by members of the CIA? You are dancing around that point. If you believe it, come out and say it and provide proof why. Otherwise, let me ask you to state: do you believe that Hayden was lied to by members of the CIA, or maybe that he was lying to Waxman?

Do I believe Hayden lied to Waxman? No.

Do I believe Hayden was lied to by people in the CIA? Perhaps. Though it's also perhaps possible that he simply didn't ask the right question of the right person.

All of which seems to me to have every bit as much veracity as your claims vis-a-vis the Administration. And I have identical proof of same.

Like I said, believe whatever you wish.

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

at all surprising or implausible.

After all, Plame and to some degree the CIA put themselves into the victim corner.

Also, Humes point was that she lied on a specific issue-that of her involvement in her husband's mission to Niger. There is a papertrail involved in that decision and a memo from her. She played the SODDI defense before congress, and frankly I don't swallow it in the slightest.

Hayden has absolutely no first hand knowledge of how Wilson got the job, who suggested who, or what specific information Wilson was provided.

So when Agent Grenier testified to just the opposite in the Libby trial, does that mean he is a liar? Either he is or Plame is, they can't both be right.

I put no stock in what Waxman says - written or otherwise. He's a politician and therefore, unless he's under oath, anything he says is suspect when the determination of "truth" or "fact" is the subject.

It reminded me of this quote:

- "suppose I went round saying I was emperor, they'd put me away"

Your thesis that because Waxman says something in writing - it therefore is fact is as funny as the movie that line comes from.

What reason would you have to believe that Waxman would be any more honest if placed under oath than he is normally?

The old, "On my mother's grave" wouldn't convince me!

thanks!

between "not objecting" (which Hayden did) and "sign off" (which Hayden did not).

As Waxman has never contended that Plame was an agent as defined by the law, and he gets very irate with Toensing when she asks him point blank ("that's your interpretation" he says) we are left with nothing much here.

Plame, herself, does not claim she was a covert agent as defined by the law. She falls back on "once covert, always covert" which might be true in some circles but is clearly not what the law requires.

So the statements do nothing of the kind, and the studied refusal of either Waxman or Plame to claim she was covered by the Act and rely strictly on some nebulous and undefined defition of "covert" leads one to believe they are simply playing fast and loose with the definition.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

The length of time since her "covert status" had terminated is not germane to the argument. The key words in the Covert Agent Identity Act is that someone has to INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY out an active covert agent. Per the hearings, Ms. Plame, herself, was unaware of her own status, so how can we take to heart of what Rep. Waxman is saying? There is no disclaimer on 3 years or 5 years, but on intent and knowledge. Remember, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has not, nor will he ever prosecute anyone for violating this act. IN MY OPINION, this is because no one, INCLUDING MS. PLAME, has any idea what her "covert" status was. For reference sake, here is the wording of the Act in question:

The Covert Agent Identity Protection Act comes from United States Code Title 50 (War and National Defense), Chapter 15 (National Security), Subchapter IV (Protection of Certain National Security Information), Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources, according to FindLaw. [1] (U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01.)
[edit]
The Act

Although the act is identified as the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982," its short title is the "Covert Agent Identity Protection Act":

"(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent. Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

"(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information. Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

"(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents. Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

"(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences. A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment."

"We make war that we may live in peace."
--Aristotle--

From the Val Plame testimony transcript, from a piece by Amanda Carpenter:

Plame testified that she believed her covert status was more fluid. She said, “Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan; when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general,” she told the committee. “In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for temporary assignment in Washington, they too are still covert.”

Chairman Henry Waxman told Toensing he was “stunned” with her assessment that Plame was not covert at the time of Novak’s disclosure. Waxman told Toensing, “General Hayden, the head of the CIA, told me personally that she was -- that if I said that she was a covert agent, it wouldn't be an incorrect statement.”

Toensing asked him, “Does he want to swear that she was a covert agent under the Act?”

“I'm trying to say this as carefully as I can,” Waxman said. “He reviewed my statement. And my statement was that she was a covert agent.”

“So he didn't say it was under the Act,” Toensing clarified.

“Well, OK, so you're trying to define it exactly under the Act,” Waxman said.

“That's important,” she said. Waxman didn’t permit Toensing to explain further the definition of a covert agent under the Act.

He cut her off abruptly. “No, no, no. No, no, no” Waxman said. “I’m not giving you—I’m not yielding my time to you. So that’s your interpretation.” Then, Waxman changed the subject.

So far, neither Plame, nor Waxman, nor Hayden or anyone else has been able to show that by law Plame was a covert agent on July 14, 2003.

Sooner or later, this will sink in. I promise.

interpretations of a law with definitions of status. I and others are well aware that the IIPA has a very strict measurement of who is considered covert, and who isn't. But that doesn't preclude the CIA from declaring people 'covert' if they wish to do so; the law does not prevent them from using whatever term they wish to use.

I think we can all agree that Toensing isn't exactly an impartial observer in this case, and there's no reason to take her interpretation of the IIPA to be a hair more relevant than anyone else's.

A question: as long as the legality of it can be dodged, you see no problem whatsoever in outing people whose identities are considered 'covert' by the CIA - an established fact in this case - for political reasons?

Prove she was covert at the time and covered under the law - and no, "because Hayden sez so" isn't proof.

Prove she was outed and by whom.

Prove it was done with intent.

Then go apply for a job with Fitzgerald - because he apparently wasn't able to prove anyone "outed" anyone.

Oh, and:

an established fact in this case

Horse-pucks.

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

"an established fact in this case

Horse-pucks."

It has been established by Gen. Hayden, head of the CIA, that the CIA considered Plame to be 'covert' and that she had worked overseas within the last 5 years. So I'm not sure what you are saying 'horse-pucks' about.

As I have said before, the fact that no one has been charged for the crime of outing Plame is not proof that no one outed her; especially since a major part of the law is 'intent,' a difficult thing to prove, especially when people are Obstructing Justice and Making False statements to a Grand Jury.

Using non-corollary and circumstantial evidence as proof of a point is a rather sophomoric error. In an actual debate your point would be demolished easily.

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

Your latest post did not address the topic of our discussion. I can only assume that you do not in fact have a good answer to my previous post.

So far noone here as provided a lick of evidence to support their claims, which I find to be pretty funny given the generally serious nature of the site.

As such, it's completely relevant. I cannot prove that Plame wasn't outed (as the legal term is employed, implying knowledge of here status and intent to do harm) - any more than you can prove she was.

Oh, and by the by, you're the one dropping all sorts of claims (Plame was "outed", for example) without a lick of proof.

In other words, Mr. Kettle? Meet Mr. Pot.

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

and swear under oath that she was covert and met the conditions for covert under the law.

That would resolve the major issue we are all still dancing around which is whether any law was violated or not.

I want to see some sworn testimony not agreed statements.

Get Hayden to say one way or another and then we can all move on.

The interchange between Waxman and Toensing (who only wrote the law, after all) shows that for the purposes of prosecuting people under the law that Toensing wrote, Plame was not covert. If that's not enough for you, then go read Joe Wilson's own book where he states that his wife hasn't been overseas since the birth of her twins, born in January 2000. Since the law specifically says that it only covers agents stationed overseas in the last 5 years, either his wife left the country sometime that Joe Wilson didn't know about (good luck trying to prove that point), or she's not covered under the Act. Therefore if Hayden claims she is in fact covered by the Act (which he didn't, merely that she was 'covert' by some undefined standard), he's relaying provably false information.

Your jibe about 'circumstantial evidence' is awfully amusing, since that's pretty much all the evidence we have on either side. In any case, Plame can't be currently covert under the Act, and it's scarcely likely she ever was since 1999.

If you want to continue stacking up your house of blocks that everyone else in this thread keeps knocking down, then answer me this: what kind of covert agent is listed in Who's Who?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

a written list of every agent that has been provided Non-Official Cover by the U.S. government to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Precisely what affirmative measures were taken by the U.S. government to protect each agent's NOC status must accompany the list.

Given the Democrat's propensity to leak classified information to the press when it suits their political agenda, and absent any leaks indicating she was indeed included in the list of NOC agents during the time period in question, I must assume that her name was not listed.

From a legal standpoint:

Foreign station is required for an agent to be eligible for NOC status (Classified "trips" overseas does not satisfy this requirement).

Plame made statements, some under oath, that allege she took "trips" overseas for the Agency. If true, those same statements prove that she was not eligible for NOC status, and therefore, she was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

think you make a good point.

There is no way the democrats in congress would have kept silent when this mess broke, if her name was on that list. They absolutely would have leaked it to somebody in the media to make the original scandal bullet proof and to avoid these conversations.

I hadn't heard anything about the requirement to send a list of NOC's.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Diary it, in fact.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

USC Section 423 Report

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

nt

Isn't it reasonably possible that the democrats did put the country and more importantly these peoples lives first and not leak information from those lists.
______________________________
"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

and one hopes that anyone, Republican or Democrat, sitting on either of the Intelligence Committee's would honor the oath and feel duty-bound to put national security before party politics.

However, the Democrat's unmitigated hatred for President Bush, their desire to destroy Karl Rove and by proxy the Bush Presidency, and their willingness to use the Senate Intelligence Committee to politicize pre-war intelligence does not instill a great deal of confidence.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

But it does beg the question - why would they start now?

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

I can't recall any leaks from the intelligence committee. There's many leaks from the CIA itself. Heck they authorized books to be written that were little more than hit pieces from leaks. Then there seems to be a constant dripping from the administration itself.

Finally there is the matter of calculation. If the senate intelligence committee did leak and it got out. Well there is a real scandal for the press to try and ignore.

I don't really believe this myself. There is just a real lack of information here and an excess of disinformation.
______________________________
"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

and you beclown yourself constantly with this.

By your logic, Hayden could say Plame was the King of Spain. Just because the law has a different definition, there is nothing wrong with her claiming that status and indeed it would be wrong for anyone to say she wasn't the King of Spain.

You have reduced this discussion to a Monty Python level of parody. Congrats.

No one has established that she was a covert agent under the law. There can be no "obstruction of justice" on this point as a simple look at Plame's personnel file, which Fitzgerald did have access to, would provide conclusive proof.

She and her husband chose to interject themselves into a political debate and now are upset when the width and breadth of their perfidy and sheer numbskullery is exposed.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Quit making this mistake and just let the quality of your arguments condemn you.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

It's now been said enough times by enough people that it must be true, and is now impossible to refute.

"We are great.  We are free.  We are wonderful.  We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle!  We all say so, and so it must be true." -- the "Bandar-log" monkeys in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book.

See the Academy

then I'd have to redecorate.

See the Academy

The country did

Redstate wasn't around.
______________________________
"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

...we'd go ballistic, too.

But, seeing as it has been determined that no crime was committed in revealing Valerie Plame's identity -

(Holding up hand) Stop. Do you have a signed piece of paper from the Special Prosecutor indicating that a crime was committed in revealing Valerie Plame's identity?

No?

Then sit down, sir. Sit down, and read.

- only that there was a crime committed in the process of determining that no crime was committed in revealing Valerie Plame's identity... well, it really is very simple; just not in the way that you mean.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

but this

"But, seeing as it has been determined that no crime was committed in revealing Valerie Plame's identity - "

Has not been determined. Not by any legal or realistic status of determined, anyways.

Naturally, this was determined in the minds of many far before any actual investigation took place to find out the truth. Now, did this take place on the other side of the fence as well? Of course it did. But neither the position that there DEFINITELY was a crime committed, nor that there DEFINITELY was not a crime committed, is a factual or logical one. Both rely upon shaky assumptions.

It has been determined that no crime was committed in revealing Valerie Plame's identity. No-one here is obligated to humor your protestations otherwise. No-one here will have to humor your protestations otherwise until someone is actually charged with the crime of revealing Valerie Plame's identity. And even then there's still the little matter of actually getting a conviction.

So either get that signed piece of paper, start using the word 'alleged' - or get a grip.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

This proves the point I made upthread about The Outing Of Valerie Plame For Revenge™ has become the ultimate "known fact". You keep going and going on this because for some reason that the rest of us don't understand, you -need- it to be true.

When a gigantic investigation to determine if wrongdoing has been done is launched, and after its completion nobody is charged with said crime, reasonable people assume that the crime did not occur. I think the status of determined is in this case legal, and certainly realistic.

Let's look at the story for a moment: A) Joe Wilson discovered Niger had no dealings with Iraq, thus the State of the Union Speech was "a lie", and B) as retribution for A, administration thugs leaked his wife's identity, as a cruel punishment.

Since it's been established beyond a shadow of a doubt by bipartisan intelligence panels that A is false, why must B still be true? And even if A was true (its not), B still doesn't make any sense. A guy writes an op-ed criticizing the administration, so they tell everybody that his wife, who gets in her car and drives past the checkpoint into the CIA headquarters every morning, in fact works for the CIA!!! What kind of "revenge" is this?

Really. You honestly believe that the CIA cleared Waxman to say untruths, in their name and Hayden's name in particular?

The CIA does not make a determination about issues of law, btw. It would be inaccurate for them to make any determination of her status under the IIPA one way or the other; as was repeated, they aren't lawyers.

Waxman (and Hayden by extension) did go out of his way to include in the statement that she HAD served abroad within the 5-year window. This is a mighty odd thing to include in your CIA-approved statement; that is, unless you are implying that the agent most definitely was covered by the IIPA. I cannot imagine any other scenario in which it makes sense to bring up the fact that she's worked outside the US in the last 5 years, as the IIPA is the only thing which would require such a distinction.

On one hand of this debate, we have logic and simplicity. On the other, conspiracy theories about the CIA lying to General Hadyen and increasing complexity. I will choose to go with the simplest solution, seeing as that is the only one which actually has any evidence to back it up at all. Even if some disagree with the nature of the evidence, the other side of the argument - the 'someone lied, so she really wasn't covert side - has absolutely zero evidence, which makes the choice of what to believe quite clear.

It should be a relatively easy task for a proponent of the other side of the debate to provide a single piece of evidence showing that the CIA lied to Hayden, or maybe that Hayden lied to Waxman. Until such evidence is produced, it is hard to see how these theories - and the conclusions drawn from them - are anything more than base conspiracy theories.

just serving abroad doesn't neccessarily qualify one as covert, there are still other aspects of the law that have to be met.

That is what Toesing's testimony was about, and what Waxman was unable to answer.

Basically until somebody says "yes she was covert and met the qualification as NOC under the relevant law" it is all just guesswork. AT this point there is nothing to be lost by clearing up this point, the people that would use it to ferret out others have already done so under the impression that she is, they do not have to give details of where and when, but a simple yes or no she meets the qualifications is in order.

To date nobody has done that, and Waxman danced around that answer and finally moved away from that point of contention.

At this point, I think the CIA needs to answer this aspect of the question or we need to move on.

Plame herself should know if she met the qualifications for the law, instead she pulls her "I am not a lawyer" statement. Wilson's own statements indicate she hadn't been overseas, but Wilson is pretty much a proven liar, so who knows.

Why would a covert agent be listed in Who's Who, as she was from 1999 on?

You're hanging a lot of weight on your third-hand information from a politician.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Who's who mentioned his wife's name, Valerie Elise Plame. It did not state her occupation.
You are under the wrong impression that Plame the woman was meant to be hidden from humanity. It was her identity as a covert agent that was not meant to be leaked.

all CIA employees. In fact, don't you now that all the picture IDs at the CIA have either "Some Guy" or "Some Gal" in the name box?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

He started equivalencing Chavez to Bush on another thread; worse, he was not civil to Academic Elephant.

Alas, he is now dust in the wind.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Plus possible script posting

I got under 20 minutes.
______________________________
"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

Bush to Chavez, but instead explained how Chavez lust for power is different from say Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, etc., he could have done us a great educatin' service. Now, we will have to find someone else with that insight.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

but mistreating AE is a capital offense!

Valerie Plame was covert. Her status was classified when Novak's column appeared. Thus, she was "outed" by the column. So, who is responsible for this "outrage"? Karl Rove? Vice President Cheney? Chimpy McBushitler? Uh, you do know that the actual leaker was Richard Armitage? A war opponent? From the State Department, not the White House? Even if you are correct, the person responsible for all this mess is Richard Armitage, and I don't see you or anyone else who is still beating this dead horse calling for his scalp. No, it only makes a difference if you can feed your BDS and claim that the President or Vice President or Karl Rove, your leftist axis of evil, are responsible. Even without evidence that they were. Kind of makes your faux concern over this little more than a "base conspiracy theory".

There is no indication that Libby/Novak even knew that Plame was covert. That is the key requirement in the IIPA. You can't out someone for being covert when you didn't even know it yourself. It was actually David Corn who first published that plame was covert, shortly followed by Wilson's "frog march" speech which claimed the same.

if the President hadn't been violating his first amendment rights.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.