Plame’s Identity Marked As Secret
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
Plame — who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo — is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
I wonder when McClellan will talk about previous statements being inoperative?
The real question now becomes which wingnut blog will apologize first for adamantly asserting Ms Plame’s job wasn’t covert? Which one will now admit a crime has been committed?
My guess is none of ‘em.
Dugger should be along shortly to explain how the State Dept. memo has ‘kerning’ or something and that such memos can never be found on Air Force One.
So noone actually read the article, huh?
“Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert.”
In other words, this memo tells us … jack squat.
I’m going to make it easy for all of the apologists- just state the letter next to your response so that you won’t have to wait precious time with a long winded reply.
a) You believe the Washington Post?
b) (S) could mean anything, that didn’t mean she was secret.
c) But Bill Clinton_________________________!!!!!!
d) They didn’t have typewriters in 2003!
e) They didn’t have the letter S in 2003!
f) Joe Wilson wrote the memo to trip up Rove!
So I guess Dugger picks b). Next troll!
Jadegold.
You are wrong (I have a macro for that). Anybody who who says that memo establishes anything about Plame is well, being nice. extremely uninformed. I’m surprised you would make your post, Jade, because you pretend to have knowledge of how the security classification system works. First of all paragraphs are not usually classified – pages and documents are classified or not. But since you are just parroting what Pincus said, we’ll ignore that. Even assuming all of the third hand hearsay is correct however and that there is a document with an “S” next to a a paragraph, that does not mean that everything in that parargraph is “S” – merely a minimum of one thing – maybe only one thing. And keep in mind, if the para is “S”, the page is “S” and the document is “S”. So according to your clever logic if that document lists the date, we must assume the date is “S” and can’t mention it right? It is imcorrect to state that it establishes anything about our gal Val. In fact, later on nearer the bottom of the article it mentions:
“Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said.”
Do yourself a favor and don’t embarrasss yourself any further on this issue.
Dugger, he’s a Badddd Man!
This article settles nothing:
“Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said.”
But, who am I to deny the members of the fever swamp their right to jump to conclusions about the evail Karl Rove?
Any person who truly cared about national security would be overcautious and believe the “S” applied to everything in the paragraph and especially language identifying a CIA officer.
Dugger’s attempts to twist this “secret” into nonexistence only proves he is the most blind of partisans. Notice how he can’t identify a specific fact other than Plame’s identity to which the “S” would apply. And let’s not forget, Rove and his cohorts, who have been leaking to the media like mad, have seen this document and have not proferred any other explanation. Rove’s defense isn’t that the memo isn’t damning; it plainly is, so he claims to not have seen it. He, instead, makes the absurd claim that he got Plame from a media “(w)horse with no name.”
Dugger, do us liberals a favor and keep embarassing yourself and the right on this issue. Thank you.
I can find plenty of documents that mention information about the White House in paragraphs labeled (S). Guess that means we can’t talk about the White House, eh?
For all the talk here about how documents are marked and who is allowed to talk about what, nobody has addressed the real issue: what was in the paragraph? It’s classified, and I doubt anyone here has seen it, so concluding that Karl Rove or anyone else released the contents of the paragraph is nothing more than a fantasy.
The fact that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA was not classified when Rove and Novak and the others discussed her.
I hate to rain on your parades there NutJob conservative apologists, but what other possible information in that paragraph would be considered a national secret if not the identity of the CIA agent? The word “the”? Especially if names of SECRET COVERT agents are routinely marked S for SECRET. It took you two seconds to come up with the dumbest excuse ever. Any information in that paragraph, particularly and especially names of CIA agents, should have automatically been treated as sensitive and subject to extreme care like verifying the person’s identity was not a secret before calling every reporter in a 50 mile radius.
Incidently, if marked S a date could be considered a state secret or should be treated as a secret if marked secret in a paragraph on a page marked as containing secrets in a document marked as containing secrets. However according to duggers logic, well forget it there is none, putting the condom box on a penis before having sex is good enough to prevent unwanted pregnancy because he would have us believe anything to do with the box must work like a condom, after all, the box says it contains condoms and must be as good as the specific wrapped item marked ‘condom’. This logic may have been passed down to him as family wisdom.
Keep making excuses, Farris and Dugger, its just the kind of humor I come here for.
Why are you so accepting of an administration that has taken dirty tricks so far as to tempt the law? Why not be honorable and just ask him to step down? There are plenty of other toadies that are waiting in the wings to take Rove’s spot, let the Turdblossom go.
If you love something, set it free. Then set it on fire, because if it leaves you its not worthy of your love.
To prove that Rove lied, the prosecutors have to be able to prove that this memo, that was written for the State Dept., made its way to Rove and the White House. The article does not indicate that such happened. Surely they would know the distribution path of the memo as it is probably indicated on the memo.
Rove says the first time he saw the memo was when the special prosecutor’s office showed it to him. If it can be proved that he is lying (if he is lying) then obviously he is screwed for lying to the special prosecutor, even if the underlying contents of the memo are not dispositive (i.e., Martha Stewart).
necons, didn’t you read my first post? My position leans more towards (a), given the headline is in no way supported by the article itself.
Why are you so accepting of an administration that has taken dirty tricks so far as to tempt the law?
Now THAT’S funny, especially coming from the crowd that supports a disbarred ex-President and a former National Security Advisor with TopSecret documents in his socks.
It depends on what the meaning of “secret” is.
Did anyone else read Ruben Bolling’s comic, Tom the Dancing Bug?
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/07/21/boll/index1.html
“George Washington stands by Benedict Arnold in the face of liberal smear artists.”
“The British were going to take that fort anyway.”
“It wasn’t really a fort, more like a smallish stockade or lean-to.”
“Betcha didn’t know that *Thomas Jefferson* once gave a fort to the British too, didja, lefties?”
Whatever the “S” specifically refers to, it puts the lie to the idea that Rove didn’t hear about Plame/Wilson until he heard it from Novak (or some other reporter). Again, the real problem in the end is going to be obstruction of justice. Did Rove fully cooperate with the FBI and with Fitzgerald? If the media leaks up to now about this case accurately portray Rove’s dissembling on the matter to prosecutors then he is in big trouble. Violating the IIPC? Maybe not, as Dugger says, because it’s not certain that the “S” refers to Plame’s identity alone and not some other unknown to us portion of the memo. But leading the FBI and Fitzgerald on a wild goose chase is obstruction of justice and it’s the sort that lots of famous people got nailed on (think: Clinton, Bill and Stewart, Martha).
So Ferris, I’ll put you down for (C) But Clinton______________. Next?
Dugger,
I hate to be the one to tell you (today), but you’re an idiot, and you don’t know what the hell yuo’re talking about.
I am active-duty USAF. I am my unit’s security manager. I can conclusively say you don’t know jack shit about document classification. Go google for DoD 5200.1-R, which is the DoD’s implementation of Executive Order 12958, “Classified National Security Information”. Specifically, Chapter 5, Document Marking.
Basically, the document must be labeled on the cover sheet & title page for the highest level of information contained in that document. Each page AND individual paragraph must also be marked for the highest level of info in that page or para. Here it is in tiny words:
—
C5.2.7. Identification of Specific Classified Information. Every classified
document must show, as clearly as is possible, which information in it is classified and at what level. Specific marking of each portion “parenthetical portion marking”) shall be used.
C5.2.7.1. Each section, part, paragraph, and similar portion of a classified
document shall be marked to show the highest level of classification of information it contains, or that it is unclassified. When deciding whether a subportion is included in the term “similar portion,” the criterion will be whether the marking is necessary to eliminate doubt about the classification of its contents.
C5.2.7.1.1. Portions of text shall be marked with the appropriate
abbreviation (”TS,” “S,” “C,” or “U”), placed in parentheses immediately before the beginning of the portion. If the portion is numbered or lettered, place the abbreviation in parentheses between the letter or number and the start of the text.
—
So, yes Dugger – EACH PARAGRAPH in a classified document MUST be labeled (S), (TS), (U), etc. And if Plame’s name wasn’t classified info, it would not have been in a paragraph labeled (S) – it would have been mentioned seperately, apart from any classified info, in a para. labeled (U).
Somebody on AF1 that day is royally screwed.
Oh, and Hedley, the distribution path is meaningless. According to earlier reports, what was sent from State was a copy of a memo that had been written a month earlier–around June10. The memo shows up on Air Force One in July.
The indication of secret on this memo wouldn’t implicate Rove.
If you’ve been following the story, this memo was sent to Colin Powell as he prepared to leave on a trip to Africa. Various reports have placed the memo on Air Force One.
Rove wasn’t on that trip.
However, we’ll have to wait and see what Fitzgerald has to say. This is just one little piece of the bigger picture.
Quaker, you are correct. My mistake. This is precisely what investigators are looking at right now. If Bartlett and Fleischer knew about it on the plane, did Rove also know about it? That seems to be the question.
“Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.”
So, if said information was secret, that would only be put on one memo, right? All the information in the world about Plame is in this one memo? So, if Rove didn’t see it, that meant he HAD to have heard it from one of those bastards in the press!
Rove has a history of leaking confidential information to the press. It got him fired from Bush I’s campaign team.
Hedley apparently wants no part of the idiot express that Dugger, Save Ferris & Scratch are riding. Instead, he claims you can’t prove Rove saw the memo.
Well, the only purpose the memo was on the plane was to give info re a counterattack to Wilson’s piece in the NYT that ran on July 6th; THE DAY BEFORE AIR FORCE ONE SETS SAIL. And maybe Hedley missed the story placing the memo in Ari Fleischer’s hand. Oh … in case you didn’t know, Hedley … as part of his job, Fleischer reports directly to Rove and Rove is the guy in charge of the WH’s media message.
BTW, Hedley, did you know there are these new fangled things called phones that they actually have on Air Force One. And you might be surprised to know that Fleischer & Rove coordinate the White House’s message every day and, indeed, they talk to each other numerous times throughout any given day.
Now you can believe Fleischer told Rove about the memo. A very reasonable conclusion given that Wilson was the talk of the day. Or you can believe Rove’s story that he learned of Plame through a media “(W)horse with No Name.” An incredible tale made all the worse by Rove’s initial false stories to McClellan and the FBI. Why the false stories if you did nothing wrong? In court, its called evidence of consciousness of guilt.
And why are all these guys (Rove, Bartlett, Fleischer, etc.) lawyered up? And why won’t their lawyers call Judith Miller’s lawyer and give her a direct, personal, unequivocal and unconditional release?
Or maybe, better yet Hedley, you can wait for Rove’s third story or maybe his fourth before you find the one to hang you truly want to hang your hat on.
Hmmm … Conservatives send people to the electric chair on less evidence than that.
What it comes down to is that mulitiple people in the administration have lied to the public and most likely have lied to the Grand Jury.
Why are they not populating the cell that martha vacated?
Rove isn’t the only source in play, pionar. Don’t forget Scooter Libby. I’d be hard pressed to track back to where I read it, but I think Libby was on the Africa trip. So was Fleischer.
The whole path of the info is complicated. Until Fitzgerald issues a report, we’re all just playin’ connect the dots.
Macswain,
Good point about Fleischer. It seems rather doubtful that Fleischer, after seeing the memo, wouldn’t have called Rove to tell him about it. I can already see the defense, though. “Fleischer told Rove about Valerie but didn’t mention that it was confidential. (It just slipped his mind or something). Fleischer didn’t think he was releasing info to the press, thus not violating the IIPC. Rove didn’t know she was covert so he couldn’t have violated the IIPC either.” Expect that, or something like it, to be the next Rove defense.
I don’t know how much of any of these leaks I believe anyway- For 2 years, the investigation was leak proof, since the O’Donnell whisper on McLaughlin report, there has been a deluge of leaks.
I wonder how much of this stuff is misinformation to confuse the public and the press and cast doubt on if there really was a crime, and the scope of the crime. I’m not talking about the obvious talking points, I’m talking about the “source close to the grand jury” articles.
And the best question, which none of the apologists wants to answer, is why was the White House used to smear Joe Wilson? Why is Joe Wilson being discussed on AFI?
When Dick Morris got booted out of the White House after the toesucking affair and started (and never stopped to this day) smearing Bill Clinton, did the White House coordinate a smear on Morris? No.
When the Monica Lewinsky affair happened, did the White House coordinate a smear on her? No. In fact Blumenthal’s book, I believe, said that people were on orders from the President not to smear her.
Why is the White House being defiled by partisan political attacks on people critical of administration policy?
The best thing about this whole ordeal is that no matter how loud these GOP apologists scream…the prosecutor marches on.
drip….drip…..drip….
Does this mean Karl Rove won’t be getting a medal?
BinkyBoy, they aren’t occupying Martha’s cell because that’s in a women’s prison, silly.
Actually, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t mind occupying that cell.
Give me 2 years and Fitzgeralds’ army of lawyers. No problem.
When the Monica Lewinsky affair happened, did the White House coordinate a smear on her?
Yes, she was a labeled a ’stalker’, remember? And joining her in the smear club were Paula Jones, Ken Starr, and Linda Tripp.
Why is the White House being defiled by partisan political attacks on people critical of administration policy?
I hate to keep bringing up the ‘C’ word, but the ‘defiling’ of the White House began long before January 2001…
“Yes, she was a labeled a stalker , remember? And joining her in the smear club were Paula Jones, Ken Starr, and Linda Tripp.”
This smear came from the White House? Prove it.
Well Macswain, since you have it all figured out there is no longer any need for an investigation. We can go right to the sentencing phase. Maybe, Macswain you should make yourself available to the special prosecutor since he obviously can’t figure out what you already know. Did you know, Macswain, that the memo was written for the State Dept. and was reported to have been delivered to Powell on the plane? Of course you did, Macswain. You also know that Powell showed the memo directly to Rove and I am sure you have provided your proof to the special prosecutor.
Maybe Rove did see it, Macswain. If he did, well then Macswain, it could be your lucky day and the big bad boogey man could soon be sitting in a cell where he can’t coordinate the 2008 ass kicking.
I’ll go you one better, Macswain. As you allude to, and I agree, the key to this puzzle, Macswain, is Miller. I don’t think, Macswain, that she could be protecting Rove — he supposedly gave a release and anyway that ship has sailed with the Time cooperation. So then who is Miller protecting, Macswain? Cheney? Libby? Powell? Wilson? I bet you know Macswain, you know everything.
Is strikes me as strange that this whole post is based on the assumption that Rove read this memo, which has not been shown to be the case. At any rate, since the investigation is still ongoing, I continue to be content to allow the prosecutor to do his job, and make his determinations.
“Give me 2 years and Fitzgeralds army of lawyers. No problem.”
That’s going to be my stock reply from now on whenever anyone challenges me on only point of fact. Awesome.
“Give me 7 years and $70 million dollars from the taxpayers. I still won’t be able to convict you, but I can dig through your private life and smear you with the help of my “source-protecting” buddies at the New York Times.”
Ken Starr
In other words, ferris, you’re willing to spread lies, but unwilling to back them up.
First of all paragraphs are not usually classified – pages and documents are classified or not.
Baloney, Dugger.
From the NISPOM:
“Any point of fact,” that is.
Not to change the subject, but could I ask a favor from a few of the posters here? I am an 18 year old, soon to be college freshman. Although I feel a little uninformed about many of today’s issues, I would like to change that so I can become more comfortable talking about and listening to other peoples’ views on the issues.
I ask if one or more of you from both sides could give me a brief explanation of your own political beliefs and an overview of the liberal and conservative points of view. It would be helpful if you can avoid speaking about the other side and to keep it civil and respectful.
My parents are not very political but seem to be more Democrat since they both voted for John Kerry. I’m just not sure where I stand yet, but I’m searching. Thanks.
While the wingnuts are dragging out Clinton again can I just remind you all that not two years ago the administration line was that Rove had nothing at all to do with the leak? Do you remember when McClellan said that Rove assured him he had nothing to do with? Do you also happen to catch the follow leak on Luskin’s comments that Rove only heard about Plame from a reporter? Well, rather quickly that became Rove may have heard about it from a reporter or an unnamed administration official he’s not sure.
Fitzgerald should be allowed to finish his investigation but Rove’s credibility is, indeed, in shreds. (And plus, will every wingnut telling us to stop speculating about an ongoing criminal investigation please, for the love of god, tell the same to Sean “Let’s Fly Down to Aruba for a Lynch Mob” Hannity?)
Moving on. As McSwain points out, the idea that Rove didn’t know about this Sate Department document solely because he wasn’t on Air Force One is so absurd Fitzgerald must have pissed himself with laughter when he heard it. I almost did. Phones? I bet they have FAX machines on Air Force One too. Indeed, I bet it’s like a freaking flying Kinko’s up there, they could have scanned it, converted to a PDF file, zipped it and emailed it to Rove for crying out loud. WTF.
Hedley,
The original INR memo was prepared for Powell on June 10th shortly after Kristof’s piece in the NYT criticizing Bush’s reliance on the African uranium evidence on the basis of info Kristof was receiving from an unnamed “former ambassador” (who was obviously Wilson). The memos origin is based in the counterattack effort.
The memo is then revised and sent to Powell on AFO, a flight that left on July 7th, the day after Wilson’s open piece in the NYT. Then it came out, many believe from Powell, that Fleischer was seen on AFO reading the memo. That’s what takes right to the White House media team headed by none other than Rove.
As to the waiver issue, the New York Times has specifically stated that the “waivers” obtained by the prosecutor from some White House staff, including Rove are insufficient to release Miller from the privilege. They want a direct, unequivocal and unconditional release before Miller will take. This is the standard journalists ascribe to and the one their sources expect.
So the obvious question for Rove’s lawyer is why hasn’t he given that type of waiver to Miller knowing exactly what her requirements for a waiver are?
Cooper and Time also didn’t accept the general waivers given to the prosecutors but, in a misreading of Rove’s intent, found the waiver in the statements Rove’s attorney made to the Wall Street Journal stating Cooper wasn’t going to jail because of Rove. This was wishful thinking by Cooper and explains why their is now an effort to cut off Time’s sources (albeit probably just their right wing ones).
“Maybe Rove did see it, Macswain. If he did, well then Macswain, it could be your lucky day and the big bad boogey man could soon be sitting in a cell where he can t coordinate the 2008 ass kicking.”
It isn’t hard to figure out — or to admit — that behind my own desire to see justice done is the particular desire to see Rove finally go down for all his political sins. But I might ask you, Hedley, why are you and other conservatives so afraid to see Rove go down? It is beyond the point where anyone can deny that Rove was involved in the leak. All that’s left is to figure out if he committed a crime. Why does the thought of a Rove indictment put the fear of God into so many Republicans? The knee-jerk, crazy defenses being thrown up in his name are astonishingly revealing of the strange hold that this one glorified campaign manager has on the Republican party. Indeed, the whole political machine of this administration and the GOP itself has been put on call to save Karl’s bacon. What fear and paranoia drive you to such lengths?
There’s a larger issue than Rove getting his just desserts. And that is an end to the pretense that the GOP represents national security.
After this, it is impossible to look upon the GOP and its supporters as anything more than quislings who would sell this country out for a relatively small price.
frameone,
Take it to the next level and here’s what has Republicans worried. The two primary architects of Republican Party power in Washington – in the White House and in Congress – are Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. And both are under deep ethical and legal suspicion of major wrongdoing. People are paying attention, and beyond the committed partisan activists – who only comprise a small percentage of the Republican electorate – people are angry. This is the perfect storm that could bring down the Republican Party’s recent national ascendancy. That’s why Republican partisan activists are worried. Think of all those “reform-oriented” voters who hate corruption and voted Republican because of the Clinton scandals. They aren’t voting Republican next time. And there are enough of them to stay home – or vote for a reformist Democrat – to turn the Congress in 2006.
Keep an eye on Bloomberg’s News Service.
I hardly think anyone is “afraid to see Rove go down.” As I have said before, if Rove committed a crime, then he should pay the price. However, just because there is smoke, doesn’t mean there is fire. Bottom line is the the special prosecutor is going to find that there was no crime committed because (a) she wasn’t a covert agent as identified in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and/or (b) there is no proof that any “leak” was knowingly made. It may look knowlingly made, you may wish it were, but that doesn’t make it so. And even if it was knowingly made, see (a). Of course, if Rove is caught lying to the special prosecutor (not to the press secretary) then whether or not the Act was violated will become irrelevant.
Democrats are so used to being the opposition party that you all can’t see how out of touch liberals are. Keep running elitist (drink, neo) Northeastern presidential candidates or whomever is next on the list of entitlement (good luck with Hillary and too bad Lieberman makes Gore look dynamic) and see if your luck changes. There is more to this country then New York, Chicago, Boca Raton and Los Angeles. You didn’t understand that after the 2004 election. Instead you looked down upon the “red states” mocking their perceived ignorance because they didn’t vote the way you thought they should.
You all appear so full of hate for Bush that all your venom does is galvanize support for Rove, regardless of whether or not he deserves it. Claiming that whatever he did is treasonous or the like is plain silly and just robs you of any credibility your arguments have. Again, if he violated the law, then he should pay the price, but the righteous indignation would be comical if it weren’t so pathetic and naive. Carville and Begala couldn’t match Rove in the negative campaigining department?
And guess what else? Politicians lie. They are “prone to self-inflating exaggeration” too. Republican, Democrat, doesn’t matter. Doesn’t make it right, but it is naive at best to think that “my party is more ethical then your party.” Neither party has a monopoly on morality or ethics. I can match you dirty politician for dirty politician anytime you want. Sad, but true.
This country is getting more and more polarized. If you want to blame Bush for that, go ahead. But to ignore liberal culpability is just more evidence of your arrogance (neo, half a sip).
Sorry for rambling. Let the flaming begin. Carville’s on line 2.
Ummm, after Dugger was proven to be either a) a liar or b) full of bull plop regarding paragraph vs. document classifications, did he respond at all??
I scrolled around but couldn’t find anything…hmmmm.
Maybe his was response was Classified.
-RT
Hannah…
Maybe you’d get some useful responses if you could give a “public use” email address for yourself (like hotmail or yahoo, but NOT an address that you use for family and friends.)
But your question is a good one. Before I offer a brief answer, I’d like to point out that on this site and others, the “political discussions” tend to be more about personalities and accusations than about politics.
Anyway, I consider myself to be a conservative, and here are some of my basic political beliefs:
- It’s OK to be strong, and it’s OK to use that strength to help other people or to protect your interests and the interests of your allies (foreign policy.)
- It’s good to help other people, but it’s probably not a good idea to provide free room and board to people who could provide it for themselves (domestic policy.)
- A good balance for a healthy society would be the government providing some help for people who need it (paid for by taxpayers), and private citizens and organizations providing the rest.
- It’s OK to talk about God in public…even in government buildings. It’s not OK (or legal) for the government to tell you which God, if any, you have to believe in.
- It’s OK to make a lot of money, and to enjoy doing whatever you want to do with it. If you want to give it away or donate it to causes you care about, fantastic. If you want to bury it in a pickle jar, that’s OK too.
For a pretty decent look at conservative philosophy, check out littlegreenfootballs.com. When you read, keep in mind that that site is routinely referred to as “hate speech.” Take a look and make up your own mind. Powerlineblog.com is also a good conservative read.
Good luck!
From the Bloomberg piece:
“The leak case shows that administration officials have in effect been using reporters as shields by claiming that the information on Plame first came from them.”
Will the US press corps now, finally wake up and stop being Dupes for the Despicable?
http://tinyurl.com/7lqzk
Ain’t it funny that now that Dugger has been shown to be oh, so very, very wrong, he disappears from this thread?
Nah. Dugger’s in Eastern Time. He usually only posts during the day.
I gave the Supreme Court nomination two days on Tueday Night and we would be talking about Karl Rove again. I guess I was wrong. It didnt knock Karl boy off the radar screen for even 48 hours!
Its looking more and more to me like Rove has walked so close to the line for so long that he has finally slipped over it. Whether or not he is indicted, his credibility is shot to hell. I guess he will have to get a job with the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth or some other group that is bent on spreading lies about democrats.
Quaker in a Basement Says:
Nah. Dugger s in Eastern Time. He usually only posts during the day.
————
I must disagree. Dugger was called out at about 12:30PM Eastern Time. He had over six or seven hours of “day” to post a reply.
-RT
In shorter words for those reading scratch’s comment:
I have mine, screw you, get your own.
Dugger –
I think you’re missing the point. Whether a paragraph was marked (s) or whether or not the whole document was marked (s) or (ts), as may be the case, if you read said paragraph, wouldn’t you reasonably assume that EVERYTHING in the paragraph was classified until you could learn unequivovally what was or wasn’t covered? Essentially, anyone who saw the memo should have verified the status of Wilson’s identity before repeating it.
Your Oprah example is wildly misleading, wait scratch that, it’s beyond stupid given the facts at hand. The name Valerie Wilson was never secret. That Valerie Wilson was Joseph Wilson’s wife was never a secret. What mattered was her job with the CIA. Telling a reporter that Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Wilson, or that he married Valerie Plame, not only wouldn’t be a crime, it would be utterly meaningless as information. Telling tham that “Wilson’s wife” apparently works for the CIA is something altogether.
Now if you read a sentence that said “Oprah Winfrey learned about our top secret plans to invade Portugal, in her capacity as an analyst working on WMD proliferation” how would you rank the information in this sentence in terms of secrecy? Would you just assume that the invasion plan was the only secret part of that sentence and pass the rest of it on to whoever called up an asked? Would you contend that everything except the invasion plans were fair game? Why? Why would you assume that?
Now maybe someone on AF One did call the CIA and confirm whether or not Wilson/Plame’s job was classified. Maybe the CIA reported back that Wilson’s identity wasn’t classified. Maybe that happened. But if that happened, don’t you think someone would have told that to Fitgerald now? He can get access to AF One phone logs. But then again, that scenario doesn’t exactly jibe with the fact that the CIA requested the DOJ to open an investigation in the first place. Of course, if you prefer to believe that the CIA has an irrational vendetta against this White House, you go ahead and believe.
Hey Legion,
Do “unit security officers” have basic reading skills? My argument assumed that paragraph marking is now required though it wasn’t earlier.
You are 100% unequivocally wrong about the entire substance of the discussion:
“And if Plame s name wasn t classified info, it would not have been in a paragraph labeled (S) – it would have been mentioned seperately, apart from any classified info, in a para. labeled (U).”
You want to think about that a sec, “unit security officer” ? Anybody see how ridiculous that is?
Are you actually saying, “unit security officer”, that a name wouldn’t be in a classified paragraph if it weren’t classified. Or are you just possibly either (A) guessing or (B) full of high quality compost? Think about it. Lets say I state Oprah Winfrey has learned of our secret plans to invade Portugal. That would be in aparagraph marked S or TS but, whats really secret there is the invasion of Portugal, not the name Oprah Winfrey, even though that paragraph may be TS. But your contention would be, that “Oprah Winfrey” is classified. Do I have that right, “unit security officer” ? Is that what you are claiming? The next person that says Oprah Winfrey goes to jail!! Possibly what you mean but were unable or unwilling to state is that, depending upon context, a name associated with an event plan or activity could be classified in conjunction with that activity. But thats not what you are hotly claiming is it? Reread your paragraph – and weep. And by all means do lot let your Lt see this.
I really want to hear back from you Legion. Everybody would like to understand how a name mentioned in a classified paragraph is automatically classified.
You appear to be every bit as knowledgeable as JadeGold.
BTW, I’m not impressed by “unit secuity Officer”. In FTD and my assignments, they checked the sfaes, made sure the burn bags were completely destroyed and escorted contractors to fix the plumbing.
Your turn.
Dugger, Been There, Done It 27 Years, Not Fooled by Bluster
Dugger: Haven’t you been embarrassed enough?
After all, you were the one who boldly told us “paragraphs are not usually classified ?”
As the NISPOM clearly says–that portion of a paragraph, sentence or excerpt denoted as classified is exactly that–classified. You, me, Karl Rove, don’t get to decide what part is or isn’t classfied.
Dugger, been there, clueless, hopeless.
JadeGold, (or legion)
You failed, and then your proxy failed. Again: do you or Legion STILL claim that the mention of name in a classified paragraph makes it, the name itself, classified? That ought to be easy answer, Jade. Lets hear it. Stand by this do you: And if Plame s name wasn t classified info, it would not have been in a paragraph labeled (S)….”? Show ol’ Dugger up and answer that one.
Frame,
But none of us has read that paragraph, because it is classified and so we don’t know what was and what was not said in it. Not you, not me. We don’t the context in which the name was used and what it was associated with. We could “maybe” for eternity. I spent 27 years in a wide variety of AF jobs reading classified. I’m familiar with it out the yin-yang. A classified paragraph can and often does have a lot of benign, in isolation, unclassified data. That ought to be mere common sense. Again just think. Thats all you have to really do. You don’t like my hilarious Oprah example – how about Pres Bush. If I say Pres Bush will be at Ontario next Thursday to witness a test of the new TS stealth drone, that would be a TS paragraph and the document would be TS. Now does that mean the name Pres Bush is TS and to use it is a crime? Of course not and Legion and Jade (look back at Legion’s quote) are all composty on this. Again, (I’m gonna keep saying this till it sinks in): the mention of a name in a classified paragraph does NOT necessarily mean there is anything at all classified about that name).
Dugger, Been There, Done It
Again: do you or Legion STILL claim that the mention of name in a classified paragraph makes it, the name itself, classified?
It is an easy question, Dugger. One which I’ll illustrate by example.
Suppose I’m reading a classified document. I come to a paragraph that reads:
(S) The house at 123 Elm Street is painted red and blue.
The SECRET classification renders the statement classified. That means I cannot go around blabbing about the red and blue house at 123 Elm Street. Nor can I decide what is or isn’t classified about the house at 123 Elm. And I can’t play little games, trying to parse words about a house on Elm with red trim.
27 years in the AF and you didn’t learn anything, Dugger? Sheesh, I’ve had fish smarter than that.
Jadegold Says:
July 22nd, 2005 at 2:14 pm
What he said….
-RT
Jadegold…
(S) The listening post is in the mayor’s attic on Elm Street.
I can talk all I want about the mayor’s house on Elm Street. I just can’t mention that it has a listening post in it.
Your example paragraph states only one fact: that the house is painted red and blue. That fact is classified. If you were to expand your paragraph so it had seven sentences or more facts, then the red and blue paint may or may not be classified (”The mayor’s red and blue house on Elm Street…”)
A very common problem is looking at a paragraph and wondering, “What makes this classified?” Sometime’s it’s obvious, sometimes it’s not. In this ‘Plame’ paragraph, maybe it was obvious and maybe it was not. But the fact is that without the text of the paragraph, we don’t know if the mention of his wife was classified or not. It may have been classified because it mentioned some activity of hers, or somebody else’s, that was not even discussed by Rove or anyone else. We just don’t know.
Just so you’ll know, I certainly consider it within the realm of possbility that Rove mentioned someting he shouldn’t have. But I also consider it well within the realm of possibility that he did not. Just the mention of someone who works at the CIA is not in and of itself a crime. I’ve never heard anyone claim, for example, that Rove even mentioned her covert work six years earlier.
A very common problem is looking at a paragraph and wondering, What makes this classified?
Scratch–the point is, it isn’t up to you or me or the guy by the watercooler to make a determination as to why something is classified. It just is.
There’s no subjectivity involved. Things are classified for a reason; they’re not classified on the basis of whether or not it makes sense to us or whether we may or may not agree.
Additionally, we don’t play games with classified material; we err on the side of caution. Hence, if we suggest we are veering into the classified realm (the mayor’s red and blue house on Elm), we don’t disclose such info except to those with a legitimate need to know. If there’s a question about it–you see your designated security officer for a clarification.
You, indeed, are Dugger.
27 years of ignorance; surely, in that time span, we could have taught you to say “Want to make that a combo?” in order to have gleaned some possible use from you.
Jadegold…
True, it is not up to you or me to decide. But as I said, sometimes it is obvious and sometimes it is not. The mention of Plame may have been obviously classified, or it may have been obviously unclassified. You and I don’t know. I am open to either conclusion, to be drawn at some point in the future by someone with access and knowledge. “Plame mentioned in paragraph labeled SECRET” makes a great headline for a blog but it proves exactly nothing.
Do you sincerely buy that explanation, Scratch?
That–somehow—Joe Wilson’s wife made in into a classified State Dept. document and that the portion of the document discussing who she was and what she did was designated classified—but that mentioning her was UNCLAS?
Well its Friday afternoon, the day darkens and JadeGold tastes the agony of defeat. As witness his/her complete surrender on the issue of a name in a classified paragraph being automatically classified. Somehow, I thought victory would be more satisfying. USOL (Unit Security Officer Legion), you there? Anybody?
Dugger. Is Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame’s Marriage License a classified document? Must we shoot all wedding guests and the reverend?
“Again, (I m gonna keep saying this till it sinks in): the mention of a name in a classified paragraph does NOT necessarily mean there is anything at all classified about that name).”
Holy god damn you’re an obstinant bastard. Valerie Wilson’s name is not what is in question here. Listen and listen close: The mere repetition of Valerie Wilson’s name or the fact that she was Joseph Wilson’s wife is not what anyone is under investigation. The name “Valerie Wilson” was not classified. Her job with the CIA was! Do you see the difference? Can you see the difference?
Now you use your common sense. You are presented with the following paragraph so marked secret:
“(s) Joseph Wilson’s wife is Valerie Wilson. Her maiden name is Plame. They live at 1234 Elm Street and have two children. Valerie Wilson works for the CIA on WMD proliferation issues and may have been involved in her husband’s recent trip to Niger. The Wilson’s own a dog named Spot.”
You could read this and call every reported in DC with the hot tip that “Valerie Wilson is Joe Wilson’s wife” and not only will no one give a shit, but you’ll probably never some under investigation. But the minute you add, as did Rove, that “Joseph Wilson’s wife works for the CIA” well, then you’d better a get a lawyer. Can you see the difference between this example and yours?
Mere common sense says that if you don’t know what is or isn’t classified in a document, you don’t go around quoting or repeating any part of it until you do know. You can switch the names in your examples all you want but the fact remains that it isn’t the name that’s important here. Again Dugger, your examples are entirely specious because it is not Wilson/Plame’s name that was classified. It was her position at the CIA. Get it through your skull.
I may not have read the State Department document in question but I’ll bet that the paragraph referring to Valerie Wilson didn’t just say: “And we also know that Joseph Wilson is married to a woman named Valerie Wilson.” Who the hell would care? No one. What they cared about was her position at the CIA. Why else bring her up at all? You are way, way over and done with this line of argument. Better try another.
Again, Rove etc are not under investigation becayse they told a reporter that Joseph Wilson had a wife, that the wife’s name was Valerie or that they had two lovely children. They are under investigation because — and this beyond question now, mind you — they confirmed and/or spread the information that Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson, worked for the CIA and that she was involved in his trip to Niger. That’s considerably more information than just her name.
Now you use your common sense. You are presented with the following paragraph so marked secret:
(s) Joseph Wilson’s wife is Valerie Wilson. Her maiden name is Plame. They live at 1234 Elm Street and have two children. Valerie Wilson works for the CIA on WMD proliferation issues and may have been involved in her husband’s recent trip to Niger. The Wilson’s own a dog named Spot.
It might oughta be if it says: apparently she works at the agency on wmd.
Um, that’s CAN’T tell from vague descriptions. I miss the old preview and edit.
I miss having a preview option too.
There is absolutley no question that Plame’s identity as a CIA officer was classified information. Was it “secret” or was it “top secret” information. I don’t know. But the argument that the CIA was NOT trying to keep her position with them classified is dead in the water.
The only reason the memo is important is that it’s the link that suggests someone in the White House knew that the CIA was trying to keep Plame’s identity a secret. But, in my opinion, the whole did they know or did they not know discussion is purely a legal one. Morally and ethically they should have known what her status was before the started bandying her job description around to the DC press corps. It’s as simple as that. If Rove didn’t know he should have told Novak and Cooper both “No Comment” or “I’m not free to discuss that aspect of this” then he should have known.
That Bush would allow a man with such reckless disregard for such matters to keep his security clearance as this thing goes forward is beyond me and a lot of other people including former CIA case officer James Marcinkowski:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/22.html#a4088
Jadegold…
…the portion of the document discussing who she was and what she did was designated classified.
That’s the problem…everyone on your end wants to assume that the paragraph talked about who she was and what she did, and that those facts were classifed. But we can’t draw any of those conclusions from “contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked (S) for secret.” Maybe those conclusions will turn out to be correct, but we certainly can’ tell that from vague descriptions like this. We know that Rove talked about her working at the CIA…that is beyond dispute. What we don’t know is whether the paragraph in question contained classified information about her or whether Rove mentioned classifed information about her. “She works at the CIA” is not, as far as I can tell, classified.
Again, Scratch, your task is made difficult by the fact there was that pesky (S) or (TS) in front of the para referring to Valerie Plame.
There’s just no getting around that.
Jadegold…
There’s no getting around the fact that 2 sentences out of seven referred to Plame in a paragraph marked SECRET. Those sentences may or may not have been classified, Rove may or may not have seen those two sentences, and he may or may not have shared the contents of those two sentences with somebody else. In fact, the linked article says that the paragraph mentioned that she was the wife of Wilson but did not mention her covert activities. From the known information, it’s impossible to conclude that the two sentences were classified, or that Rove discussed those two sentences, or indeed that Rove discussed any classified information at all.
You comments about erring on the side of caution and security are excellent rules of thumb when in doubt, but it’s a different matter when you actually know the contents of a document. I can very easily write a half-page paragraph with a single word or number that is classified. The paragraph would be marked SECRET, but anyone with or without a clearance would be free to discuss the entire contents save for that single word or number. In fact, just for fun, I might throw in a sentence or two about CIA employee Valerie Plame.
Frameone…
There is absolutley no question that Plame s identity as a CIA officer was classified information.
Please show me the facts to back up this assertion.
First, the paragraph of a State Department memo in which her name was mentioned was labelled secret.
Second, when her name and identity was outed in the press, the CIA referred the case to the DOJ for investigation.
Third, every judge that Cooper has been before in trying to compel Cooper and Miller to testify has rejected the reporters’ argument that no crime was committed in the face of evidence presented by Fitzgerald. Mind you, this was finally settled in the Supreme Court.
Fourth, Wilson/Plame listed her employer on political contribution forms as Brewster Jennings & Associates, a company that we now know was a CIA front company that had to be shut down after Novak outed Plame. It boggles the mind to think that Plame’s status with the CIA wasn’t classified while the real purpose of the company she listed as her employer was.
When you put these things together the argument that her identity wasn’t classified by the CIA simply falls apart. Now Rove etc. may not have committed a crime as far as Plame’s status under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act but to suggest that the CIA didn’t have a vested interest in keeping her identity confidential is laughable given what we know.
Frameone…
That’s a well thought-out response. I completely reject the first point, for reasons that should be obvious by reading the thread…not everything in a paragraph labelled SECRET is classified, and we don’t know WHAT the paragraph said about her. Maybe it mentioned Joe Wilson too…are we allowed to talk about him?
Point two is interesting but proves nothing. Point three contains information I haven’t looked at much and can’t refute.
Point four is the most compelling…I’m not sure why she listed it on a form, or when she did it. If she was still using that company, it might be good evidence that her employment status at CIA was classified. Not proof, but decent evidence.
Of course, it only takes the word of a current authority at the CIA to say so, and I haven’t heard them do so (and calling for an inquiry does not rise to that level.)
frameone, your third point fails if you read the opinions of the courts, particularly the Court of Appeals. Cooper and Miller were not arguing that no crime was committed, but rather that they have a reporter’s privilege and can’t be compelled to testify. Keep in mind, the issue was their refusal to cooperate with a good faith grand jury subpoena. It is wholly irrelevant whether or not the focus of the grand jury’s investigation was or was not a crime. Even if the judge didn’t think a crime had been committed, that would not be grounds to quash the subpoena. Certainly the fact that the judge refused to quash the subpoena is not an indication of the merits of the underlying criminal investigation.
As for your fourth argument, I think it is potentially the strongest if the company was paper-only (and there has been contradictory reports as to its actual status). However, if the front company was a real operating entity, I don’t know if simply listing the front company as your employer makes you a classified operative of the CIA. Is every secretary and janitor of the front company a covert agent of the CIA?
“I don t know if simply listing the front company as your employer makes you a classified operative of the CIA. Is every secretary and janitor of the front company a covert agent of the CIA?”
And yet I bet if they were it is not something the CIA would want known. Right? Heck, I bet even if they weren’t a covert agent the CIA wouldn’t want rumors to spread about secretaries or janitors at a front company it set up. Don’t you agree?
But that raises another point. Why are you equating Plame’s job with the job of a secretary or a janitor? Why is it so hard for conservatives to accept that a woman could be a covert agent? Or maybe I should put it this way, why is it so easy for the right wing to dismiss Plame’s years of service to her country with glib suggestions that she worked a “desk job” or was no more covert than a “secretary.” What’s up with that?
“I completely reject the first point, for reasons that should be obvious by reading the thread& not everything in a paragraph labelled SECRET is classified, and we don t know WHAT the paragraph said about her.”
You’re being deliberately obtuse on this point and I can only guess why. If a paragraph is labelled “secret’ the presumption should be that everything in it is classified until one can confirm otherwise. That doesn’t mean one couldn’t mention Plame’s name or Wilson’s name or whoever else’s name is in the paragraph or anything else can be reasonably assumed to be public knowledge.
But if its also mention that “Valerie Wilson works for the CIA,” for a reasonable person familiar with security matters a bell would go off about this bit of information. A person familiar with security matters would know that the CIA keeps the identities of some of its employees classified so the presumption would be that this may not be public information. A reasonable person would then assume that information about Wilson’s job at the CIA is not something that should be bandied about without first confirming whether it’s safe.
Even if don’t know what was in the paragraph we can reasonably assume that it didn’t just say something totally innocuous like “Joseph Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson.” Right? Why would it say something so innocuous? If it did mention that the two were married does that mean the CIA has to go out an whack everyone that was at their wedding? No. You have to go out of your way to argue that as a reasonable assumption.
You don’t on the other hand, have to go very far at all to reach the conclusion that if the paragraph mention Valerie Wilson, it probably mentioned that she worked for the CIA (otherwise why bring her up at all?) and the this information might be classified and should not be discussed without further confirmation.
Frameone…
If a paragraph is labelled secret” the presumption should be that everything in it is classified until one can confirm otherwise…we can reasonably assume that it didn t just say something totally innocuous like Joseph Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson. Right? Why would it say something so innocuous?
These are documents written by people, for people. They are rarely bulleted lists of classified nuggets. Just look at a typical paragraph…there are usually a few key sentences, with additional supporting info and introduction. It’s true that in this case, she was probably mentioned in the context of the CIA. What has not been shown, because the actual text of the paragraph is classified, is whether the information given about her was classified, and whether or not the info that Rove discussed was classified. I don’t know why you fail to see this.
Your “assume classified until you know otherwise” is a good rule of thumb, but one often knows otherwise immediately upon reading the document. I mean, people who deal with this stuff see binders and binders full of classified documents, page after page after page, just like reading magazines or books. That’s an awful lot of subjects, predicates, and adjectives to treat as classified. In actual fact, most of it is NOT classified, and this is usually obvious upon reading.
“In actual fact, most of it is NOT classified, and this is usually obvious upon reading.”
But that’s exactly my point. In a paragraph of boielrplate there are going to be things that are obviously not classified and those things that obviously are classified and the stuff that falls into the middle zone. Professionals probably know what’s what immediately. If so, I can only assume that if something is in the middle aera, anyone who handles sensitive and classified info would also presume that it was classified until further information can be obtained. Wilson/Plame’s job, her security status and her involvement in the Wilson’s trip (as it would reveal the extent of her influence in the agency), it seems to me, would all fall in the middle zone no matter what context it is brought up in. That doesn’t strike me as too far off the mark.
If we can assume this then it is reasonable to assume that anyone who saw the memo and didn’t already know for certain what Plame’s security status was should have kept their mouth shut about it until they could confirm how to proceed. If Ari Fleischer passed the doc to Rove or Libby and none of them called the CIA to check on Plame’s identity before they let it slip in conversation, then all three, it would seem to me, are in serious violation not only of common sense but what I would assume to be standard protocols.
Here’s my point: Whatever Rove and others learned about Plame and whenever they learned it, they should have checked with the CIA before they repeated it or confirmed it. These guys have all signed security clearances after that state this what they should do. It’s as simple as this:
Novak: I hear that Valerie Wilson works at the CIA and suggested Wilson for the job.
Rove: I can’t comment on that Bob until I look into the matter more closely.
Instead, we know Rove said, “I heard that too.”
Also, we know that the State Department document included this little gem:
“The description of Wilson’s wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered “a footnote” in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.
It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.”
Let me see if I can get this straight. The information about Wilson’s wife makes it to the press but not the related matter of the State Department’s previous, thorough debunking of the Niger claim? That’s interesting given that Rove’s whole motivation, he says, was to set the record straight. Or had the administration already retracted the “16 words” in the SOTU when this all went down?
Frameone
“The name Valerie Wilson was not classified. ”
You indicated no one was disputing this point. Au contraire. The angry, mysterious, now departed Unit Security Officer Legion, and estimable Senor Jadegold, have in effect so claimed. I begged them to continue the dialogue Friday, but they dropped it for some reason.
But, since the ONLY thing we know about that document is that it mentioned Val’s name and we now know that is not classified, as you and I agree, then how can we draw ANY conclusions from same document?
Let me help you with the answer to my semi-rhetorical question: WE CAN’T.
Dugger, Earning His $10-a-Post the Hard Way, Without Talking Points
Dugger, this is getting silly. Read the op-ed in USA Today by Wilson’s neighbor. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-24-wilson-neighbor_x.htm
He knew his neighbor’s name. Her freaking name isn’t the issue here no matter what you or anyone else might think. When her neighbor asked her, so what’s your name, she said “Valerie Wilson.” When he asked what she did for a living, she said “I’m a consultant.” Because her name isn’t classified. Her job was.
It now appears that you’re back to the argument that all we know is her name was mentioned. But the original Washington Post article says that it also identified her as Joseph Wilson’s wife. Like I said before, it’s highly, highly unlikely that this bit of information was thrown in without some other context: like the fact that she worked at the CIA. Why else would they mention her name? But we know more than this.
From the original Washington Post piece we know this:
“The material in the memo about Wilson’s wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson’s intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.”
If that isn’t enough to convince you that information about Wilson’s job at the CIA accompanied the mention of her name then I don’t what will. It is entirely reasonable to assume that, given what’s been reported, that Wilson’s name only came up in the memo within context of her job at the CIA and her presumed role in recommending Wilson for the job. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable or unwarranted about such an assumption given what’s been reported. It is entirely unreasonable and unwarranted to argue, as you do, that her name and marital status were mentioned for the hell of it. I ask you again, do you really think the INR analyst just added, “Oh and by the way, Joseph Wilson has a wife named Valerie.” and left it at that? Doubtful. Highly doubtful.
So let’s recap. The name “Valerie Wilson” was not classified. But the information “Valerie Wilson works on WMD issues for the CIA” was or, at the very least, should have been assumed to be classified by anyone reading that paragraph without further confirmation one way or the other. It isn’t that hard to understand.
You said “highly, highly unlikely” and frankly that is nothing more than rank speculation. And that is Ok as long as you realize it is nothing more than that: speculation. And I know zero about the memo except what Wapo said about it (same as you, I expect) and they said it didn’t say Val was covert. And it isn’t hard to understand that the info Val Wilson works on WMD issues for the CIA is sensitive and/or classified. Now, if we could establish who originally leaked that info, if indeed it was leaked, and if it were a crime, there would be a story here. Part of your problem is that you are jumping to conclusions based on what you feel about Rove and the evil Bush admin (same as my rightie amigos did on the Vince Foster story – being convinced of the murderous nature of the Clinton’s they found it easy to piece together inconsistencies in the Foster data into a murder plot). BTW, is your concern with the generic problem of security violations or Republicans in power?
Dugger
Frameone: Dugger knows the issue; he’s just playing a game because he was embarrassed over his ‘they don’t classify paragraphs in documents and I have 27 years in….’-nonsense.
“Dugger knows the issues.”
Indeed, only someone who knows exactly what’s going on and exactly what’s at stake could so play so righteously and stubbornly dumb.
“I m glad you now agree”
Now?
And I note that you went round about Galveston to say you are only concerned about Republican security violations. So that what Sandy Berger did, Leahy did and other Democratic senate leakers – is not a problem w/you? Somehow their “damage” is not important. No, we should be more concerned about jumping to conclusions on Rove.
But thats OK in this arena. Like I say, if I were posting on the “Hillary Had Vince Offed Blog”, I should expect some strong bias. You admit you are out to get Republicans and can’t see beyond that.
Dugger, There’s a Bigger, More Complex World Out There
Dugger -
Please. My speculation, and indeed it is speculation, is not at all based on my feelings about Rove. Reasonable speculation based on known facts is neither inappropriate nor evidence of blind partisanship. I would imagine that when Fitzgerald started this case, he, as a good investigator, engaged in his own reasonable speculation based on known facts to discern the best way to proceed. For instance, based on the known fact that in is original column Bob Novak wrote “two senior administration officials told me,” it is neither unreasonable nor partisan to speculate that the best place to start an investigation is by talking to everyone who might fit the bill of “senior administration” officials.
Similarly, when the Washington Post reports that a memo which mentions Valerie Wilson and her husband’s trip to Niger was in the hands of senior administration officials on Air Force One (Powell and possibly Ari Fleischer) is it neither unreasonable or partisan to speculate that someone in the administration knew about Wilson’s job at the CIA in the days before Novak contacted Rove and Libby. Indeed, according to the Washington Post article this wouldn’t be specualtion, it’s a fact. But yes, it is speculation to suggest that this information found its way to Rove and Libby before either of them spoke with Novak or Cooper (which we now know they did). But is it unreasonable? Is the mere suggestion evidence of blind partisan hatred? Hardly. You know as well as I do that Rove is at the heart, if not the heart, of the Bush administration’s political machine. Wilson’s original op-ed piece represented a huge political embarrassment and threat. It isn’t unreasonable to think that information on Wilson’s trip was circulating among senior administration officials looking for a way to respond.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m glad that you’ve finally stated the obvious: That it isn’t hard to understand that the information that Valerie Wilson works for the CIA on WMD issues is sensitive and/or classified. I’m glad you now agree that this kind of information may could be classified.
That this information also appeared in a State Department memo in a paragraph marked secret, would seem to, at the very least, suggest that yes, this specific information about Wilson could have been classified. It isn’t relevant here to argue that, well, it might not have been classified because the baseline, working assumption of anyone who read that paragraph should have been that it was classified without confirmation to the contrary. Again, this is a reasonable assumption, as I have argued above in comments, that has nothing to do with my personal feelings about Rove.
It is also not unreasonable to suggest that the State Department memo may have been the administration’s original source of the information about Wilson’s job with the CIA. At least it’s the only reported source and it’s been reported as something that Fitzgerald is very interested in. So who leaked the info originally? Well, if it was in this memo, it wasn’t leaked at all, it was simply reported BUT reported in a paragraph marked secret. Which brings us back to the operating assumption that Wilson’s CIA job was classified until confirmation otherwise. If someone in the administration was told by the CIA that Wilson’s wife was not covert, then ya, no crime was committed. But the preponderance of the reported evidence suggests, suggests, mind you, otherwise. It is not unreasonable to assume that the CIA referred the case to DOJ and that Fitzgerald is persuing the case because a crime was committed. Not unreasonable at all. To argue otherwise, that no original crime was committed, requires a far less likely line of reasoning involving agency vendettas and an out of control prosecutor. You want to go down that route?
Dug, my friend, I don’t have to feel one way or another about Karl Rove to know for a fact that he was the first one to tell Cooper about Wilson’s job at the CIA. I don’t have to feel one way or another about Rove to know that he lied to Scott McClellan, taking McClellan at his word that Rove told him he was not involved in the leak. I don’t have to feel one way or another about Rove to know that his lawyer said Rove may have learned about Wilson’s wife from a reporter or another administration official whose name he can’t recall. I don’t have to feel one way about Rove to know that Novak, Cooper and Russert may have given tesitimony to GJ that conflicts with Rove. I don’t have to feel one way about Rove to suspect that something isn’t right somewhere given what we know.
Am I concerned with the generic problem of secuirty violations or Republicans in power? I am concerned that the actions of some people in power, who happen to be Republicans, have threatened our national security and that these people have lied about it. Yes, that’s a pretty good summary of my personal feelings. Is this an unreasonable concern given all that we do know?
“I note that you went round about Galveston to say you are only concerned about Republican security violations.”
You’re hopeless. That’s not what I said at all. Focussing attention on the issues and facts of the Wilson episode is utterly irrelevent to my opinion on Berger et al. I note that Berger was fined $10,000 and that the Republicans are free to open congressional hearings (with subpeona powers) anytime they want into any allegation they want. They, afterall, are the ones running the show.
What’s clear, however, is that you’ve reached the dead end of your own arguments about the matter at hand in this thread and so have attempted the old GOP tactic of, what else, changing the subject by attacking my motives. Interestingly enough, precisely the maneuver that, it would seem, lead to the scandal now unfolding around Rove.
“That s not what I said at all.” Well pretty close. You said:
“Am I concerned with the generic problem of secuirty violations or Republicans in power? I am concerned that the actions of some people in power, who happen to be Republicans…”
A simple “yes, I am concerned about all security lapses…” would have sufficed. And then you said Republicans are free to open hearings on Berger. A funny way to put it. Why wouldn’t ALL concerned with national security, including you, want Berger hearings? See, we paranoid right wingers suspect this is all political – part and parcel of the standard “do anything to get Bush and Rs” effort. The investigation is underway and the left is in the media every day talking it up. A fair question is: if national security is the issue and its not a cheap political hit, where were you all on Sandyberger, Sen Leahy etc. Having said that, if Rove committed a crime, he should pay the price. Likewise Berger, Leahy etc. – but please spare the moral outrage. This, for you guys, like the left’s pre-election new-found respect for the military, is all partisan politics.
Defer! Defer to Dugger.
This is going to rapidly get petty isn’t it? I was going to give you one more post about Berger et al before declaring you finally, in the immortal parlance of Donald Rumsfeld, a “deadender” but your sudden feint at the end here towards casting aspersions on liberal support for the military makes your misdirection tactics so painfully obvious I’m afraid there’s simply no where else to go.
Dugger, you’re a deadender. You’ve hit the wall with nothing left but to drag yourself from the wreckage. I think the direction of the last nine posts speaks for itself:
Dugger: Plame/Wilson
frameone: Plame/Wilson
jadegold: Plame/Wilson
frameone: Plame/Wilson
dugger: Plame/Wilson
frameone: Plame/Wilson
dugger:Berger
frameone: uh?
dugger: Berger/Liberals hate the military.
Interesting.
Yes, yes. You are right. I confess, a deadender am I. I thought that was common knowledge.
Nevertheless, the deadender backed you into the corner of admitting your schtick on the Rove thing is all about politics and not at all about national security.
What you here Deadend Dugger. “I’m unpleasant to look at, and my name’s agin me, but I ain’t as bad as I seem.”
Classic.
“Classic” Does this mean I win? I mean I could claim I win because of the 100th post which I believe in is the OW Constitution. Nevertheless, a classy concession makes it a little sweeter. BTW. if you haven’t had your fill of Rovesque villainy, I believe Daily Kos has a thread about him causing 60 Minutes to promulgate the Rather Forgeries. Something like that. See, Rove did that too. And now that I think about it, where was Rove on the night of Chappaquidick? Wonder if there is any truth to the “rumor” that His Exalted Cerebral Pudginess rented SCUBA equipment earlier in the day? Whatever, please don’t let that last part out. I could get in trouble. YkeDa IdgeBRa Orfa UggerDa, you know. Shhh.
Dugger, All in Good Humor Mr R. Sir.
So Sandy Berger’s “crimes” are equivalent to outing a covert CIA agent? Partisan much?
If you think the Democrats are “suddenly” pro-military, maybe you should pay attention to who is cutting your military benefits, and eliminating scores of stateside bases, compromising our homeland security. I don’t remember any troops sent into battle under Clinton, you know, dying.
Whatever the reasons for war, Democrats also attack the correct country-
Beirut, Lebanon embassy attacked? Invade Grenada
OBL (Afghanistan) attacked? Invade Iraq
“So Sandy Berger s crimes are equivalent to outing a covert CIA agent? Partisan much?”
Neo, Neo.
We don’t know if she was covert. Haven’t you been paying attention.
” I don t remember any troops sent into battle under Clinton, you know, dying.”
And because I’m a nice guy, I won’t even point out the silliness of this statement- which I guess is technically correct because you are only stating ‘you don’t remember’ .
Finally, you don’t understand miltary people if you think our value system devolves down to who gives us the most (and of course, Democrats actually ‘give’ nothing – they merely seize it from other producers).
Dugger, Chief of the Sanity Police
Dugger, Dugger, YOU don’t know if she’s covert. This is because YOU refuse to get your head out of the sand. Why did the CIA refer, and Ashcroft accept, the case if she was not a covert agent? Seems to me the case might have ended pretty quick if she wasn’t covert, doesn’t it?
Bill Clinton never sent any soldiers into battle that didn’t return.
No, I guess I don’t understand some military people. I don’t understand how some of you can get fucked up the ass again and again and still think the Republicans are great for the military. Educate me, what makes Republicans great for the military? Is it the meaningless wars? Is it the lack of equipment? What is it?
Neo,
Nice language.
“Bill Clinton never sent any soldiers into battle that didn t return. ”
tch tch tch
I ahve no desire to show you up. Ask others – even on the left. I have no deisre to
“No, I guess I don t understand some military people.”
I agree.
Dugger,
Neo,
Nice previous post, huh.
Dugger
Try it. Bill Clinton never sent any soldiers into battle that didn’t return. Bear in mind that Somalia was Bush I.
Dugger if your still out there trolling. Spin this:
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson’s wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak’s call, he checked Plame’s status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame’s name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_2.html
Frame,
Haven’t spun anything yet. But be careful about spin. Spin might be something like the Clintonian manuever of denying a false related/similar charge to make it look like your denying the real charge. Thats spin. No one has argued as Harlow states that Plame “authorized” her husband’s trip. Suggested it, maybe augued for it – but not, I’m sorry for you and Harlow, “authorized”.
Also, none of us knows what Rove did. Evidently Harlow didn’t speak to him at all. Harlow, was the CIA public affairs guy. Not an agent, not an insider – he was their face to the press. He says, unofficially (meaning he wasn’t speaking for the CIA) that she was an undercover operative. But what he says doesn’t matter. What does the CIA say? Fitzgerald? Instead of the Harlow, the MSNBC commentator? Sorry to extinguish your little campfire, but I am ‘authorized’ to do so.
Dugger of the BD, Dugger of the BD, Dugger of the BDAaaaa
Frameone…
But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
Did Rove tell Novak that she was undercover? Did the memo say that she was undercover?
Holy fuck you guys are too much. What are the clear and simple facts that Harlow testified to:
Novak published Wilson’s name even after the CIA told him he shouldn’t.
Wilson was most assuredly undercover.
As the article states: “Harlow said that after Novak s call, he checked Plame s status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative.”
All of your bullshit about we don’t know Wilson was undercover is now just that: total bullshit. Now that we know definitively that Wilson was undercover it only confirms that Rove should have checked with the CIA before he said anything about her to Novak or Cooper. And let’s also note that Rove’s cover story of “I was just trying to set the record straight” is also, according the CIA itself, total bullshit.
Now we know that in passing off inacurate information about Wilson’s role in her husband’s Niger trip, Rove also revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent in the process. Indeed, revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent was essential to convince Cooper that his bullshit story had any validity whatsoever.
As far as I’m concerned it’s game set match for Rove. Either he negligently revealed the id of an undercover officer or he did it knowingly. Either way he’s violated one of two laws and endangered American security.
As to this line:
‘No one has argued as Harlow states that Plame authorized her husband s trip. Suggested it, maybe augued for it – but not, I m sorry for you and Harlow, authorized .’
You have got to be kidding me.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001
Get a grip. Unofficial Harlow, not the CIA, told him- Novak- he shouldn’t. And it was to Novak. Not Rove. Novak. Not Rove. From this you go to imaging what you think Rove knew and did.
And if you think there is no difference between authorizing something and arguing/advocating for something – you’re badly wrong. Badly wrong. Did I say badly wrong? Oh yes, Media Matters as unbiased source!?????
And quit using that bad language, young man.
Dugger , These Kids These Days
Dugger –
“Rove apparently told Cooper that it was “Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip,” according to a story in Newsweek’s July 18 issue.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html
I suppose you’ll take the Hedley defense here that Cooper may have mistakenly replaced “suggested” with “authorized.” Please. The Republicans have repeated the same charge over and over again.
But wait, now you’re also arguing that as a “CIA spokesman” Harlow was some how not speaking for the CIA???? WTF???
And BTW it doesn’t matter that Harlow didn’t talk to Rove. What matters is that Rove never contacted him or apparently anyone else at the agency before he passed Wilson’s identity on to Cooper. Which, even if a negligent leak, is still an illegal leak of classified information.
The meme that Wilson was not an undercover, covert operative is dead. She was. Plain and simple. And plain and simply, you’re an idiot.
Frame,
I think they have been sloppy with “authorized”. Clearly Val couldn’t and didn’t authorize her own husband to do anything. Everybody involved knows how elementary bureaucracy works.
“But wait, now you re also arguing that as a CIA spokesman Harlow was some how not speaking for the CIA????”
Add “necesarily” and thats exactly what I am saying (neither one us are really privy to what was said, where and when) . Abso-frappin-lutely. Perhaps you are not familair with government “spokesmen” or information officers. They are not action officers, work no programs or missions. They are passer-throughs of information imparted to them by others – in the real know in the agency. So if he’s talking privately with Novak, its his own nickle. Not the CIAs. We have not heard from the real CIA on this (not Larry Johnson, not Val’s old boss, not Harlow). When we do, we’ll know more.
Dugger
Dugger –
Novak has written that he called the CIA to confirm Wilson’s identity.
Harlow testified that Novak called him looking for information on Wilson. These are the facts. So Harlow was speaking in an official capacity for the CIA. He told Novak in the strongest possible language not to use Wilson’s name and he used it anyway. Harlow was definitely speaking for the CIA in an official capacity.
You are once again playing not devil’s advocate but devil’s braindead toady if you are entertaining the idea that Harlow called Novak to voice his personal opinion about how to handle publishing information about Valerie Wilson.