JW do you have a link for that idea that the CIA gave mixed messages about revealing her name? If that is true I agree that it complicates the picture considerably.

Your logic remains consistent. Anyone who does not agree with your position is a hack or some other similar name. You are no better than those you criticize for rolling out so-called partisan commentaries. The truth is, no one knows the truth yet in this case, except you apparently.

For the umpteenth time, I'd like to see some proof for this outside of the writings of right-wing columnists or bloggers.

Hey, how about you answer some of the questions posted above with some substance, instead of resorting to name-calling. Or have you just given up?

Just two things. Novak's own words and the agreement by many (not just rightwing hacks as some here suggest; Cam says aven Andrea Mitchell has admitted as much) that her CIA connection was well known in DC circles. Note also what Novak wrote about a CIA probe of numerous leaks. Could I be wrong about this? Shockingly, yes. I could always be wrong, unlike most people on internet forums. I still think there is much more to this and who the sources for the leak were, and that it will all eventually come out. Among other things, we appear to possibly be looking at multiple sources for the leak, not just one. Why is the NYT reporter still in jail? Whose name is she hiding? And who was Novak's source(s)? Lots of questions here. But I honestly think that if the CIA thought disclosing Plame's name was a big problem, Novak would have gotten the word.

And yet, Novak himself said that the CIA asked him not to use her name, and justified disregarding their request by saying that they weren't "forceful" enough.

OK, to get up to date, we've got:

Bob Novak
Clifford May
"many"
and
CamEdwards says Andrea Mitchell

You're correct, that's a devastating argument you've got there.

....none of it matters, the CIA said her name should not be revelaed and that is that. Doesnt matter what people assume or assumed. Her name shouldnt have been dropped or INFERRED, according to the CIA and theyre the one's who decide.

Have you ever worked for the CIA? Have a close family member who does? I'd dare say I know more about the workings of the CIA than perhaps any other member on this board. Since I worked there (non-covert) and since another family member worked there (covert).

No, senior CIA officials aren't in the habit of getting on the phone to reporters by the very nature of their jobs. Those requests would be sent to the State Department or other Administration officials. Of course, some of those same officials were taking orders from the people who wanted the leak.

As for the whole covert/non-covert thing, you can be a paper-pusher and still be covert. Your job can be non-covert and you still under covert rules because of who you work for or who your family members are. And except for a few very public officials, it's almost NEVER common knowledge that you work for the CIA. Even as a non-covert employee, they teach/ask you to generally say you work for the government (or perhaps the State Department or DOD) rather than the CIA.

but how many people follow that rule, Blackie? I've got two neighbors that work the CIA, and several of my decently good friends have also let me know that they work for the CIA. Two of them are covert, yet I still know (and I'm not a blood relative).

Speed limits save lives. Having covert operatives stay secret save lives.

People still speed, and people still might reveal that they are covert. Doesn't mean that when caught people shouldn't be punished Cam.

Depends on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.

And if the cop is the opposite ;)

SI

So wait, who did Karl Rove leak on?

I know more than you might think, and a nationally known columnist like Novak, a DC insider, would've gotten a call. He is not just a reporter. Period. And Valerie must have been the exception, because a lot of people knew she worked for CIA, and it appears Wilson and wife did not mind that being so.

As I said, you are going to automatically dismiss anything that you don't agree with. You have made that clear over and over. Your opinion is just like mine, an opinion. If I named a dozen leftwing columnists, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and Michael Jackson, you would say that wasn't enough. Your mantra gets old.

Again, its a simple equation:

CIA says Plame was covert > any supporter of Rove says she wasn't

The main issue for me with Novak is the idea that he ran with the story without worry. While I don't agree with him as much as others and think his writing is dry at times, he is a seasoned vet of the national media. I have a hard time believing that the CIA was adament about him not naming Plame, yet he went ahead and did it anyway. He's spiked numerous stories for the Bush II, Clinton and Bush I CIAs over the past few decades and it seems odd that he would knowingly put himself (and his source) in this kind of a situation with the CIA for a statement made in the sixth paragraph of a story that could easily have been cut out or re-worded. For that reason, I have a hard time believeing the CIA was all that insistant on Novak not naming Plame.

So now the argument is that the CIA should very agressively inform reporters of who is a covert agent? By your reasoning the CIA should have said, "Good Lord! Valerie Plame is a covert agent. Don't ever use her name, its a national secret that she works for us. Do you have any other names you'd like to check for covert status?"

In this case what was the CIA to do? They shouldn't be in the business of making national security secrets clear to reporters.

Dola

Another simple equation. A is true, therefore, either B or C must also be true.

A) McClellan said that Rove told him he wasn't involved and told the President the same.

B) Rove lied to McClellan and the President.

C) Rove, McClellan and the President lied to the American public.

by default, if the CIA doesnt expressly say that someone is not covert, when they were covert in the past, their name should not be exposed. Until the CIA says she wasn't covert, I will believe them when they said she is and ASKED for the investigation. Its amazing that this is the avenue that the admins efenders have gone when it is completely immoral for our gov't. to exact retribution on voices of dissent. It reminds me of a communist country. You guys throw that word at me like it is disdainful if I say anything that sounds communal-like, yet now it's ok to have a heavy fist against dissent.

questions normally have question marks involved. they look like this -> ?

as in, what exactly is your question in there?

He said equation, not question?

Question?

Did you misread equation?

Otherwise I have no idea what this is about.

well my eyes are tired from too much ncaa 2006 :(

This thread is like the Al Qaeda thread, where contacts may or may not be connections, yada, yada, yada. There are still many unanswered questions here. The NYT reporter, whose identity is she protecting? If it is Rove, why did she go to jail? And who was Novak's source? Or sources, since he says there were at least two?

The general consensus of the media, including NYT, seems to be at this moment, based on the info available, that probably no crime was committed, because the law regarding this is very specific. I know that will disappoint some people if it turns out to be so, but that seems to be the direction this thing is going. Another clue is that Rove and his lawyer seem to be fully, totally cooperating with the prosecutor.

This thing may still take unexpected turns, and other people may be exposed as sources. At best, we will have to wait until the prosecutor announces his results and until we know all the facts.

As for Bush and Rove, I think that Rove will not be fired unless he is charged with a crime. Bush is loyal to his inner circle, loyal to a fault. And Rove played a major role in giving Bush the presidency.

Additionally, this has become a political circus, thanks to the hysterical hatred of Rove by the left, and Bush will see this as much as a political decision as anything else. He will be loathe to act short of a criminal charge because he will be loathe to cave to the howling from the left.

Which is unfortunate, because Rove is a bad guy who is bad for America imho, even though he most likely did not commit a crime here.

Just out of curiousity, why do you think Rove is a bad person, and why is he bad for America?

This is exactly my take on this. I really wish it was him that had done wrong and I wish there was clear evidence indicating such. Unfortunately there isn't and he will keep on keepin' on...

...im just not ok with immoral behavior by anyone. My friends, my parents, politicians, anyone. I think that a crime was committed because I think that Rove and the inner circle dont do much without knowing what theyre doing so, that MO.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but: proof?

So far your proof is:

Novak
May
"many people"
maybe Andrea Mitchell

Utter tripe. A cursory reading of my posting history indicates otherwise. However, you're not much for research, are you?


The only thing that's been made clear over and over is your inability to substantiate your arguments with verifiable facts.


OK, O'Reilly.

arles is the same way....he wont accept any news, especially articles. He'll only accept as proof of something if the culprit admits to it, which is a very small window to believe anything IMO. In this case Rove admitted to a little of it, so I guess he'll believe a little of it too.

I will continue to disagree. IMHO you casually dismiss anything with which you disagree, and anyway most of the political discussions on internet forums just amount to dueling columnists.

In my opinion, he is a political attack artist who has helped further poison the political atmosphere in America. The political trashing of McCain is a prime example. Of course the Democrats share an equal amount of the blame. Consider now the lynch mob after Rove.

It appears that Rove is one of the main architects of the open border with Mexico, in an attempt to garner more Hispanic votes for the Republicans. In that and other areas, it is my opinion that he places politics above our national security. I think he is the driving force behind a muddled domestic policy that is more about votes than anything else, and that he is the driving force behind foreign policy decisions that are often not well based in fact. Rove is not well liked, including by some, if not many, conservatives.

But this is essentially what we have here: My sources are right and yours are wrong, and no one will accept anyone else's 'proof'. I prefer to wait for what the prosecutor says, but based on what has happened so far, only the far left thinks this is a slam dunk on Rove. I would not put deliberately violating the law past Rove, but, as has been pointed out here, where is the proof, the evidence, that he violated the law in this case? It just isn't there. Not yet. What will be fun to watch will be the eruption of the left if the prosecutor says no crime was committed.

You call what's going on now a lych mob? This is nothing. It's a quiet, polite murmuring compared to what Clinton suffered through back in the day. You give the Democrats too much credit. They are far too disorganized and ineffectual to form any sort of group or mob to lynch or otherwise.

From today's USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...a-wilson_x.htm
So, even if he did say "It's Valerie Plame, and she's covert!!!" (which I don't think was the case) chances are there was no crime committed.

So the CIA doesn't know the law since it was them who said she was a covert operative? Or maybe it is possible her husband didn't put in his book the things she might have done that would have covert because, I don't know, it was covert?

I would say the guy who wrote the law probably knows it better than management at the CIA, yes. As to her status, I'm sure that's easily obtained information for Fitzgerald, but since Mr. Wilson (and at that point his wife as well) weren't concerned about further "outing" I see no reason why they wouldn't reference any overseas assignment in his book. In fact, he would be doing himself a favor by doing so.

Actually, I'd accept it if the special prosecutor came out and said Plame was covert, Rove knew she was undercover and outted her anyway. I would have no issues with that and would hope Rove gets canned if that happened.

What I am not willing to do is leap to conclusions based on an admitted liar like Wilson or unclear comments by Novak and Cooper as to the leak.

I remember reading an excerpt of the law previously, and I don't remember anything about an overseas assignment. Can somebody post a link to the actual text of the law?

I think there's a difference in classification. I remember reading in a different story that the CIA often considers any agent that ever was covert a "covert agent" until they retire - even if they no longer have cover assignments.

The 1982 act, on the other hands, requires that a CIA agent be active overseas at some point during the prior 5 years. So, it seems very plausible that the CIA (because she was covert a decade ago) still classifies her as "covert" but that she is no longer considered covert by the law for outing a CIA agent.

Does the person who wrote the law have her classified file before him and know exactly whether she was performing in a covert ops during those years? I would say the CIA does, and the CIA knowledge > knowledge of any commentator.

I've read this a lot in the few articles I have seen:


Does anyone have the exact quote from Bush (or his press secretary) that this references? I haven't been able to find it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ction_421.html

Here's the definition of Covert in the same document (applicable part in bold):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ion%5F426.html
You need either A or B or C. Since Plame is a US citizen, (C) is thrown out. And since she does not appear to be an agent or informant to the foreign counterintelligence/terrorism part of the FBI or reside outside of the US, part (B) isn't applicable.

So, the only way to classify her as covert is the section in bold. And, since she isn't currently overseas, she needs to have served overseas within the last 5 years.

I'd presume, then, that the CIA might be going by definition (B)(ii).

Thanks! I had seen the first part previously, but not the legal definition of "covert".

Arles beat me to it, but here is a link that is slightly better formatted for easier reading:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...6----000-.html

I'm not sure how you are reading (B)(ii), but it doesn't apply in this case that I know of.

Well, she is a U.S. citizen, so the general heading of (B) would apply. If she was associated with WMD work, then I considered it possible that she might have been in contact with the FBI in that capacity. I don't know whether it's plausible, but it appears to be the only possible definition that would fit.

(B) section (i) doesn't apply as she is not overseas. And, I am not aware of any association Plame has with the FBI for section (ii) to be valid either. And, remember, for B (ii) to apply, Plame would have to be working for the FBI "at the time of the disclosure" - which is doubtful given where she was stationed and what we know now.