Analyst says Wilson outed his wife in 2002

[zendari]

Text

A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 ? more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."


Does this mean Wilson will be charged with treason just as the liberals want?

 

[bdude]

It don't mean squat unless its under oath.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Text

A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 ? more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."


Does this mean Wilson will be charged with treason just as the liberals want?

Was Wilson actually obligated to keep that informed secret? Legally I mean? Classification doesn't apply (AFAIK) the same way to people who just happen to know the information as it does to people who are officially cleared to know it. If I had a clearance, and told you something that was classified, I would almost certainly be breaking the law. If you repeated it to someone else, would YOU be breaking the law (I assume you don't actually have a clearance)?

In any case, very few people involved in this have been charged with much of anything, much less treason. I personally think the hammer should come down on anyone who broke the law regarding classified information, I'm just not sure Wilson qualifies based on this.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Was Wilson actually obligated to keep that informed secret? Legally I mean? Classification doesn't apply (AFAIK) the same way to people who just happen to know the information as it does to people who are officially cleared to know it. If I had a clearance, and told you something that was classified, I would almost certainly be breaking the law. If you repeated it to someone else, would YOU be breaking the law (I assume you don't actually have a clearance)?

In any case, very few people involved in this have been charged with much of anything, much less treason. I personally think the hammer should come down on anyone who broke the law regarding classified information, I'm just not sure Wilson qualifies based on this.

If information is truly clasified, how would someone just "happen" to know it without clearance?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Odd that it took him until now to come forward.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Was Wilson actually obligated to keep that informed secret? Legally I mean? Classification doesn't apply (AFAIK) the same way to people who just happen to know the information as it does to people who are officially cleared to know it. If I had a clearance, and told you something that was classified, I would almost certainly be breaking the law. If you repeated it to someone else, would YOU be breaking the law (I assume you don't actually have a clearance)?

In any case, very few people involved in this have been charged with much of anything, much less treason. I personally think the hammer should come down on anyone who broke the law regarding classified information, I'm just not sure Wilson qualifies based on this.

If information is truly clasified, how would someone just "happen" to know it without clearance?

What difference does that make? I'm just throwing it out there as a point of discussion. Clearly Wilson knew what his wife did...but if he wasn't cleared to officially know, can he be charged with anything?

The only reason I bring it up is that, unlike others being mentioned in regards to legal charges, I have never heard that Wilson would have violated any security clearance agreement he might have made. Even articles suggesting he outed her have never suggested he broke any agreement, surely that is a valid point.

Edit: Also, in reference to your question...Robert Novak clearly knew, and I doubt anyone gave him a clearance. So there you go.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Was Wilson actually obligated to keep that informed secret? Legally I mean? Classification doesn't apply (AFAIK) the same way to people who just happen to know the information as it does to people who are officially cleared to know it. If I had a clearance, and told you something that was classified, I would almost certainly be breaking the law. If you repeated it to someone else, would YOU be breaking the law (I assume you don't actually have a clearance)?

In any case, very few people involved in this have been charged with much of anything, much less treason. I personally think the hammer should come down on anyone who broke the law regarding classified information, I'm just not sure Wilson qualifies based on this.

If information is truly clasified, how would someone just "happen" to know it without clearance?

What difference does that make? I'm just throwing it out there as a point of discussion. Clearly Wilson knew what his wife did...but if he wasn't cleared to officially know, can he be charged with anything?

The only reason I bring it up is that, unlike others being mentioned in regards to legal charges, I have never heard that Wilson would have violated any security clearance agreement he might have made. Even articles suggesting he outed her have never suggested he broke any agreement, surely that is a valid point.

Edit: Also, in reference to your question...Robert Novak clearly knew, and I doubt anyone gave him a clearance. So there you go.

If Wilson was officially cleared to handle that information I would assume he would be under the same rules as Rove and Libby regarding the handling of that information.

If Wilson wasn't officially cleared there's a problem right there as someone who was cleared could have leaked the info to him in the first place. Wasn't that the original problem with Novak and this story?

 

[db]

I believe that the whole point of the investigation is that the Bush team was yet again trying to punish those who disagreed with them, this time by trying to discredit the integrity of Wilson's investigation, and to ruin his wife's career.

But the bigger story, which many people still refuse to acknowledge, is that the Bush team knowlingly lied to America and to the world in order to justify invading another country, resulting in the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Odd that it took him until now to come forward.

Sounds suspiciously like an administration attempt to derail the investigation.

 

[judasmachine]

i don't know the details but if he told a general isn't that one security clearance to another, as the present case is from a clearance to a no clearance reporter?

 

[BDawg]

Bush apologists keep bringing this kind of stuff up. Luckily, the CIA and Fitzgerald disagree.

Too bad Sean Hannity wasn't the special prosecutor.

 

[umbrella39]

Worldnetdaily

/thread

 

[Strk]

And of course it happened at Fox News...

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
i don't know the details but if he told a general isn't that one security clearance to another, as the present case is from a clearance to a no clearance reporter?

clearances control the spread of information even inter-agency. across agencies, say
pentagon to CIA, they are even more restrictive because as the intelligence failings
have shown what one agency knows about a source may not be common knowledge
among others departments.

the clearance issue doesnt apply to libby because the charges do not accuse him of
knowingly divulging the name of a protected gov't employee.

 

[Pabster]

The libbies trying to excuse this as "An administration trying to destroy [insert characters here]" forget that this ridiculous investigation is already over 2 years long and NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been charged or indicted in connection with it. Why would the Administration need any "defense" now when the investigation is, for all intents and purposes, over?

 

[maluckey]

If you have no security clearance, you are not restricted as much as someone who has a clearance, as far as what is and isn't a criminal act regarding mishandled information. If a person without a clearance has classified information, someone WITH a clearance had to have leaked it to someone somewhere.........

Plames actual field ACTIVITIES would be oftentimes classified, but not her actual position unless she was in covert status. If they are covert they are most always using an Alias.

 

[Jhhnn]

This whole song and dance is entirely too convenient, as is some of the other disinformation in this thread.

Even if Wilso did speak as claimed, which I doubt, he was speaking with somebody who obviously had top security clearance in the first place. Not quite the same as shopping it around to reporters so that they'd publish it...

The apologists have been grasping at straws, desperately building strawmen for some time now- this is no different.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
This whole song and dance is entirely too convenient, as is some of the other disinformation in this thread.

Even if Wilso did speak as claimed, which I doubt, he was speaking with somebody who obviously had top security clearance in the first place. Not quite the same as shopping it around to reporters so that they'd publish it...

The apologists have been grasping at straws, desperately building strawmen for some time now- this is no different.

You know what, Jhhnn? The funny thing about the GOP's spin-machine right now. It doesn't mean jack sh*t. Spin can't affect an investigation and they know it. Tick tick tick.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
This whole song and dance is entirely too convenient, as is some of the other disinformation in this thread.

Even if Wilso did speak as claimed, which I doubt, he was speaking with somebody who obviously had top security clearance in the first place. Not quite the same as shopping it around to reporters so that they'd publish it...

The apologists have been grasping at straws, desperately building strawmen for some time now- this is no different.

:thumbsup:

 

[techs]

FYI the link is to Worldnetdaily. It's a website that advocates murdering people who perform abortions, killing gay people, etc.
And I have searched the link in the article, the John Bathelor show, and can't find the interview.
Always be suspicious when an article links to a home page and not the actual story they are citing.
Its like someone saying the NY Times had a story on something at some point in the past and just inking to the Times homepage.
Anyone who cites worldnetdaily as a legitmate source deserves to be completey ignored.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: db
I believe that the whole point of the investigation is that the Bush team was yet again trying to punish those who disagreed with them, this time by trying to discredit the integrity of Wilson's investigation, and to ruin his wife's career.

But the bigger story, which many people still refuse to acknowledge, is that the Bush team knowlingly lied to America and to the world in order to justify invading another country, resulting in the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

So true, and we need to find out where the Italian general got his forged documents and why.

 

[dardin211]

Originally posted by: techs
FYI the link is to Worldnetdaily. It's a website that advocates murdering people who perform abortions, killing gay people, etc.
And I have searched the link in the article, the John Bathelor show, and can't find the interview.
Always be suspicious when an article links to a home page and not the actual story they are citing.
Its like someone saying the NY Times had a story on something at some point in the past and just inking to the Times homepage.
Anyone who cites worldnetdaily as a legitmate source deserves to be completey ignored.

:roll:

Fully agree, the source for this is hardly creditable. Just some made up stuff to try and smear Wilson some more.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The libbies trying to excuse this as "An administration trying to destroy [insert characters here]" forget that this ridiculous investigation is already over 2 years long and NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been charged or indicted in connection with it. Why would the Administration need any "defense" now when the investigation is, for all intents and purposes, over?

Yup, the liberals are so desperate now that they are out of power they'd do anything to circumvent justice in their attempts to bring down even a White House aide.

 

[Jhhnn]

Think the investigation is "over", Pabster? You Wish. It's just beginning, and will continue until the whole sordid mess is dragged out into the light, or until Bush leaves office, whichever comes first...

None of this would have been necessary in the first place if the Whitehouse hadn't felt it necessary to smear their detractors, or if the "full cooperation" had been forthcoming, rather than the whole staff lawyering up like mafiosi...

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: zendari

Text

A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 ? more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."


Does this mean Wilson will be charged with treason just as the liberals want?

This is not uncommon. If this weren't a Dim witchhunt, it wouldn't amount to jack! This is the only thing they have and they just want someone to find something bad. They figure that if they get everyone to say something, there must be something they can get. After spending untold millions, you would think they would give up.