Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I am. Even if it is true she was moved back to a permanent station in the U.S. in 1997 -- unproven -- that doesn't remotely suggest she didn't still make "OUTSIDE" trips as part of her job. Your BushCo talking point, while dutifully parroted, is speculative at best (isn't that what you keep attacking everyone else for?) based on the little information you have.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Please tell me you are not this dense. You posted the answer yourself and had it right in front of you, yet you're still oblivious. Let me help you out, because it's apparent you need it:
A covert agent is defined as someone whose identity is classified AND who has served OUTSIDE the United States within the last five years.
She's been in the US since 1997, 6 years before she was outed by Novak.
Still laughing TC?
Further, they just mentioned that very BushCo talking point on the NBC News. NBC reported that officials dismissed that excuse, affirming Plame was, in fact, still considered to be working in a covert role. I assume there will be linkable documentation available soon, offering more detail than NBC's on-air report. Based on the evidence we already have, however, I think we can consider that specific excuse as about to disintegrate ... just like the rest of your official progaganda.
Originally posted by: totalcommandpwned.
But you can drop the act now. The Dems have hung themselves on this one. Just like I thought, they spoke too soon, and Karl Rove really isn't that far implicated in this afterall.
Rove won again. Be happy dude.
Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake ? a form of lightly processed ore ? by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq ? and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors ? they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government ? and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program ? all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
Originally posted by: conjur
What facts? Some State Dept lackey's opinion is now fact? I guess you just like to conveniently ignore the article from Larry Johnson, of the CIA, who was a classmate of Valerie and knew her. I believe you'll find that link in this thread or the other Rovian threads up here.
I'm still here and will be here to respond to those who actually want to have a reasonable discussion dealing in the facts. There's no running involved whatsoever. I just think it's ridiculous to reply to those who want to blantantly ignore the facts around the issue or, as in your case, do little more than attempt to foment a pissing match.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Run, Chicken, run! ROFLMAO!Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Your blurb from above "The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act." is wrong. The time frame alone has no bearing. It's only when it's used as a consideration in conjunction with an agent being outside the US that it's valid. I keep telling you this and you continue to get it wrong by repeating back that same incorrect blurb.Originally posted by: totalcommand
FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
I don't think you have any real honest intent to discuss this anyway, just like Bowfinger. So consider this my last reply to you as well.
Originally posted by: conjur
On ABC's Good Morning Amerca, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were RIDICULING Rove and laughing at the new reports that Novak leaked Plame's name TO Rove!
Now they're showing a clip from the The Daily Show.
Rove: "I don't know her name. I didn't leak her name"
Then Stewart ridiculing Rove.
This was great! They were all laughing at Rove!
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
On ABC's Good Morning Amerca, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were RIDICULING Rove and laughing at the new reports that Novak leaked Plame's name TO Rove!
Now they're showing a clip from the The Daily Show.
Rove: "I don't know her name. I didn't leak her name"
Then Stewart ridiculing Rove.
This was great! They were all laughing at Rove!
What a simple life you lead.
I guess that discussion point is now settled.Plame wasn?t undercover when outed
Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak?s column first identified her. ?My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,? he said.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/
I guess that discussion point is now settled.Plame wasn?t undercover when outed
Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak?s column first identified her. ?My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,? he said.
That's not the point but thanks for diverting.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/
I guess that discussion point is now settled.Plame wasn?t undercover when outed
Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak?s column first identified her. ?My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,? he said.
FINALLY watching the MSM "get it" and see the light is really quite enjoyable!Originally posted by: Genx87
What a simple life you lead.Originally posted by: conjur
On ABC's Good Morning Amerca, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were RIDICULING Rove and laughing at the new reports that Novak leaked Plame's name TO Rove!
Now they're showing a clip from the The Daily Show.
Rove: "I don't know her name. I didn't leak her name"
Then Stewart ridiculing Rove.
This was great! They were all laughing at Rove!
If they've been outed as well, then who are they?Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/
I guess that discussion point is now settled.Plame wasn?t undercover when outed
Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak?s column first identified her. ?My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,? he said.
Well, there are others that she dealt with regularly that WERE and they've been outed as well. Besides she was covert within the last five years.
So whether or not Plame was a covert agent is not an issue or point of discussion?Originally posted by: conjur
That's not the point but thanks for diverting.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/
I guess that discussion point is now settled.Plame wasn?t undercover when outed
Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak?s column first identified her. ?My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,? he said.
Originally posted by: conjur
Report Shows Rove May Have Lied to FBI, A Felony
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00227.htm
Report Shows Karl Rove May Have Lied to Federal Agents, a Federal Crime, During Oct 2003 Testimony Into CIA Agent Leak
yeh, i noticed that too. he has an unhealthy obsession with ridiculing others.Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
On ABC's Good Morning Amerca, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were RIDICULING Rove and laughing at the new reports that Novak leaked Plame's name TO Rove!
Now they're showing a clip from the The Daily Show.
Rove: "I don't know her name. I didn't leak her name"
Then Stewart ridiculing Rove.
This was great! They were all laughing at Rove!
What a simple life you lead.
Bad reporting.Originally posted by: conjur
Report Shows Rove May Have Lied to FBI, A Felony
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00227.htm
Report Shows Karl Rove May Have Lied to Federal Agents, a Federal Crime, During Oct 2003 Testimony Into CIA Agent Leak
Novak's article was already "on the wire" on July 11, the same day Rove spoke with Cooper. A little digging into the facts would have saved this reporter from "Scoop" (LOL) from getting his timelines confused and embarrassing himself.But Rove wasn?t truthful with the FBI, what with the recent disclosure of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper?s emails, which reveal Rove as the source for Cooper?s own July 2003 story identifying Plame as a CIA operative, and show that Rove spoke to Cooper nearly a week before Novak?s column was published and, according to previously published news reports, spoke to a half-dozen other reporters about Plame as early as June 2003.
?Iit was, Karl Rove said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized (Wilson?s) trip," Cooper?s July 11, 2003, email to his editor, obtained by Newsweek, says:
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm still here and will be here to respond to those who actually want to have a reasonable discussion dealing in the facts. There's no running involved whatsoever. I just think it's ridiculous to reply to those who want to blantantly ignore the facts around the issue or, as in your case, do little more than attempt to foment a pissing match.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Run, Chicken, run! ROFLMAO!Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Your blurb from above "The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act." is wrong. The time frame alone has no bearing. It's only when it's used as a consideration in conjunction with an agent being outside the US that it's valid. I keep telling you this and you continue to get it wrong by repeating back that same incorrect blurb.Originally posted by: totalcommand
FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
I don't think you have any real honest intent to discuss this anyway, just like Bowfinger. So consider this my last reply to you as well.
Because if she had [worked outside the country] someone would have already "leaked" that information. The leaks on this case are not one-sided.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So whether or not Plame was a covert agent is not an issue or point of discussion?Originally posted by: conjur
That's not the point but thanks for diverting.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/
I guess that discussion point is now settled.Plame wasn?t undercover when outed
Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak?s column first identified her. ?My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,? he said.
If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention.
Said the troll.Originally posted by: moshquerade
yeh, i noticed that too. he has an unhealthy obsession with ridiculing others.Originally posted by: Genx87
What a simple life you lead.Originally posted by: conjur
On ABC's Good Morning Amerca, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were RIDICULING Rove and laughing at the new reports that Novak leaked Plame's name TO Rove!
Now they're showing a clip from the The Daily Show.
Rove: "I don't know her name. I didn't leak her name"
Then Stewart ridiculing Rove.
This was great! They were all laughing at Rove!
So at least you now admit that being out of the US is an important point in the issue and that your little blurb stating she was undercover is really meaningless without that consideration?Originally posted by: totalcommand
Yes lets discuss the facts, not your speculation.
If this is what you call a fact:Because if she had [worked outside the country] someone would have already "leaked" that information. The leaks on this case are not one-sided.
then you need to get something checked. My point is that no one knows whether she was truly covert or not, only the CIA does. You can't say she wasn't, and I can't say she is.
Considering that I've been trying to get that fact through to you previously, at least I'm glad you recognize it now.Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So whether or not Plame was a covert agent is not an issue or point of discussion?Originally posted by: conjur
That's not the point but thanks for diverting.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8577190/
I guess that discussion point is now settled.Plame wasn?t undercover when outed
Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak?s column first identified her. ?My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,? he said.
If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention.
It's "within the last five years buddy" that matters. Not Novak time. Remember, argue the facts.
If Plame wasn't covert according to the law, what Rove knew (or didn't know) wouldn't matter anyway. Plame's status would completely negate that issue.But the bottom line is that Rove probably didn't know she was covert (which is the only thing that matters), unless there's something we don't know.