Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"If she was not undercover, we would not have a reason to file a criminal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:25 PM
Original message
"If she was not undercover, we would not have a reason to file a criminal
referral," a CIA official said.

this is from Sidney Blumenthal's piece on Salon.....

While there is talk about a five year rule, the CIA at the time of the referral consided Mrs. Wilson an active undercover employee....

So now the hard question who do you believe the RNC talking points or the CIA... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. The CIA's full o' libruls
That's why they were getting blamed for all things 9/11 as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. So THAT'S where the reporter from USAToday got his information.
CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

(more)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

Apparently Mark must have got the RNC talking points on his fax machine and simply put his name on the article before sending it on to the presses. I wonder if he even bothered to write ANYTHING original.

THAT'S how they work--very illuminating.

________
whore (hôr, hr)
n.
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores
1. To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.
2. To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.
3. To compromise one's principles for personal gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. "It appears that Karl Rove is in serious trouble." John W. Dean (Nixon WH)
From the FindLaw website, John Dean (Special councel to Nixon 1970-73)
who's oppinion is not trivial, thinks KKKarl is...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. CIA doesn't want assets, agents, operatives disclosing to neighbors, let
alone THE GD MSN!!!! If this isn't treason, just count the number of CIA spys you know personally,1st hand. ZERO people, ZERO. There's a reason for all that clandestine stuff. Crack and Leaks can kill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. I've seen the 5-year thing brought up on the boards
One -How do they know she hasn't been out of the country on Agency business for the last 5 years? Wouldn't that be classified? Is this another leak? Are they relying on the Vanity Fair article? Would a covert agent tell a magazine - "Oh, and in 2001 I went to South Africa to meet with our agents there." - Sure.

Second - Identifying the name of an undercover agent, even one currently in the U.S., also exposes and identifies their overseas contacts, which also makes it a violation.

Third - this is a really lame justification. It's OK to expose undercover agents - if they're home?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Furthermore, even if it's true
it doesn't matter re: her undercover status.

One of the CIA operative type positions is to work for a US based front company with international "offices". In this field officer position, you manage foreign agents and US operatives, gathering information from many sources and analyzing for trends and common threads.

There is a book called "Inside the CIA" about the basic set up and structure of the agency. The basic job descriptions are also listed and briefly described on the Agency website. Foreign travel is not an indicator of covert status.

Any reporter with access to google should be able to research this information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. i said many months ago that
i never thought i`d be on the cia`s side against the a president of the united states. it is a sad day for america when the president seeks to destroy the very people who ,like it or not,do try to keep us save from the bad guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CATagious Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. David Gregory on tonight's NBC News...
...said that he has been told by Government Officials (or CIA Officials, I don't recall precisely) that Plame was indeed an undercover Operative within 5 years preceding the leak. I believe that puts to rest the claim that a law wasn't broken!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC