Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CIA over-reacted, she just had a desk job

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
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 04:48 AM
Original message
CIA over-reacted, she just had a desk job
the latest pooh-poohing by repugs regarding Plame outing goes like this:

CIA over-reacted to the outing, Plame wasn't really a covert operative, the CIA never "downgraded" her rating - she has a desk job.

My head :nuke: on that one.

Whether or not Plame's rating should have been downgraded is not the issue. At the time of the "outing" she was still listed as a covert operative. Whether or not she has a desk job is also not the issue - she was still listed as a covert operative.

It is entirely possible the reason for not changing her classification is because she was still considered a covert operative and only doing a "desk job" in between assignments. Blowing her cover has now rendered her useless for future covert assignments.

And who knows what her "desk job" involved - it's possible it was connected to a covert assignment.

We also don't know the details of her past assignments - in blowing her cover it may have also blown on going investigations and put other agents in danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. How about " the law says covert in last 5 years", she was at
the desk 6 years. So no big deal. God are these people stupid. It must be fun to be a Republican, you never have to think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radfringe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. 5 years - 6 years
doesn't matter - she was covert and we don't know how this outing may have effected on going operations.

it's my understanding she was involved with WMD investigations - to my mind - her outing may have seriously damaged current investigations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThePhilosopher04 Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. What better "cover" for a CIA agent than a "desk job"...
If the CIA says she was covert, she was covert. I'm sure there's a lot more to this than any of us will ever begin to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 04:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Outing her...
Edited on Mon Jul-18-05 04:59 AM by Tandalayo_Scheisskop
Exposed her HUMINT networks, around the world, putting people she associated with immediately under the spotlight of suspicion, investigation, interrogation and retaliation.

We may never know if people died from this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. and her 20+ yrs of work, and all those contacts...
is just "nothing," expendable, wholly irrelevant to the discussion. because it's hard to think being a conservative. it's those fumes that distract and muddy thinking with one's head up their ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Son of California Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. the Repubs are going to throw everything at the wall
and see what sticks.

They may never find a way to make this seem like not a big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. I ask those using that line...
if the front company that was revealed, with her outing, also had a desk job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is why the CIA
is in charge of the CIA and not some political hack. Overstepping your bounds much karl?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ok_cpu Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. But, at the same time
they'll try to have you believe that from her "desk" she had enough juice to hand pick the person who was to investigate the first of the top reasons given for our going to war in Iraq.

Boggles the mind, no?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. I'd love to see that asked on a talk show when the "desk job" argument
comes up.

I won't hold my breath, though, as you can probably guess from my sig line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magnolia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
10. Fitzgerald...
...has been working on this case for two years, costing millions of dollars...would he do this if he wasn't sure she was covert? No prosecutor is going to work on a case if there's no crime. That's why it's hard to try a murder case if there's no body. If this wasn't a case of a covert agent being outed, then there's no case and they would have figured that out the first day. Apparently the first witness, who was CIA, reported she was covert. If they hadn't, there wouldn't have been a second witness or a case at all.

Covert agents work on assigments. When one assignment is over they take a desk job until there next assignment comes up.

Keeping them undercover isn't just for their safety, but for the safety of all their contacts worldwide and their associates who are still out in the field.

The front company that Plame worked at took millions of dollars and many years to develope. When she was outed, that company and everyone who worked their was outed too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
11. The issue is the NOC
The company she worked for, which was a front, still had people in the field working for it, and they were all exposed, that's my understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Then why are they playing such a desperate defense?!
Keep the arguments simple so those defending the WH can understand.

We're on the offense here and th WH is LOSING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
14. Please explain why Plame's suggestion to boss re Wilson's trip is relevant
Why do those on right point to the apparent suggestion by Plame that Wilson go to Niger as some kind of reason for discounting Wilson findings? I may be missing something there...

Why did Rove suggest that Cooper not get too far out on Wilson because Plame suggested to her superiors that he go? What possible bearing does that have?

It seems an important question...if we don't believe it has bearing on the integrity of Wilson's trip, then the only reason Rove had to bring her up at all would be to out the agent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
15. This republican argument explains why:
1. After conducting an investigation, the CIA formally requested that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation;

2. After the Justice Department investigation had begun gathering evidence, Attorney General Ashcroft found it neccessary to recuse himself;

3. A special prosecutor was appointed;

4. The special prosecutor's investigation has gone on for many months; and

5. Judge Tatel's concurring opinion in the Court of Appeals decision in the Cooper/Miller case referred to:
a. "criminal leaks,"
b. "the crime,"
c. "the plot against Wilson,"
d. the leak at issue being "harmful to national security," and
e. identifying the leakers is "essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust."


I find it odd that no one in the CIA, the Justice Department, the Attorney General's office, the special prosecutor's office, the District Court overseeing the grand jury, or the Court of Appeals would bother to check to see whether the status of Valerie Plame fell within the statute. It must be "hard work" to check something like that.
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, 09:00 AM
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