Powered by TypePad

« Plame On! | Main | Open Plame Hearing Thread »

March 16, 2007

Comments

PeterUK

"Say what you want about Carter, but the military he presided over wasn't broken nor spread nearly as thin as what we have today."
444 days of hostagesOperation Eagle Claw

"It's hard to imagine anyone -- certainly not anyone in uniform -- who thinks today's military is in "great shape." It is not. Which is why the age limit keeps getting raised,"

The left keep criticising the sending of "The Children" to Iraq,you would rather not have older troops then?
Are you in uniform?

"why criminals are now allowed"

Actually some criminals make extremely good troops,ask the Duke of Wellington

"in, why training state-side is reduced, and why even if the war ended tomorrow, it would take over $200 billion just to repair equipment".

Someone else can answer this one.

"By God, gays aren't even getting kicked out at the usual rates anymore."

The Spartans at Thermopylae were gay or bi-sexual. Hey,Elton John wears a uniform!

lurker

"1) go running to a reporter, eager to share the information,

I re-read your rant looking for the name that was conspicuously absent today. Didn't find it in your rant either. Why is everyone hiding Armitage?"

Because they want to defray the blame from Armitage to the Bush Adm when the Bush Adm did nothing wrong.

lurker

"As you say it's for the best, at least as far as Bush is concerned. But what about the rest of us who aren't Bushbots, you know like 80% of the country?"

80%?

Hah! The majority of the states were red in the last two presidential elections. Certainly NOT 80%!

Specter

The trolls are not coherent tonight. They can't keep their stories straight. I suggest that they have a national convention and then try again. LOL Right Jim E.?

Rick Ballard

Semantichickenlittle - How many subprime ARM loans were in default 4Q '05?

How many subprime ARM loans were in default 4Q '06?

What is the percentage of the total number of all mortgages currently in default?

lurker

Specter, where? Somebody from the unions objected to the Democrats having a national convention in Denver.

Jim E.

It's so insane and factually incorrect to argue that the U.S. military is in "great shape" today, that I don't even know how to respond. So I won't. Well, except for this short comment by noted left-wing America-hater Rich Lowry (Feb 13, 2007):

"Back during the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney promised that "help was on the way" for the U.S. military. It was supposedly overstretched by the deployment of a few thousand peacekeepers to the Balkans.

That President Bush didn't truly begin to deliver the promised help until his presidency was three-quarters over — after a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, after two invasions and occupations of foreign countries — is one of the biggest scandals of his presidency."

Enlightened

Am I reading the trolls wrong today? Aren't they expecting Waxman to proclaim Waxmas in lieu of the failed Fitzmas? Still hoping to land the Rover?

boris

Grenier, Harlow, and everybody else at CIA who had contact with the administration never disclossed covert, much less "classified" status.

They should not have been disclosing it to begin with if ...

(1) Val had nothing to do with sending Joe

(2) She was a classified employee

If it was a mistake for them to disclose "because his CIA wife recommended him" who made that FUBAR?

CIA

Barney Frank

--Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.--

This seems to conclusively confirm that the fact that she worked at CIA was not classified but that revealing what her actual "employment status" or "position", as Rick put it, was.

So we now know that not only did Libby, Rove or any other WH official not reveal anything classified, in violation of any law or Bush's Exec Order, we do know affirmatively that only Armitage did. And even the likes of jerry and Jeff admit that he did that on his own.


Spartacvs

Enlightened :

Spart - Are you dumb too? Fitz said not Illegal. Bush's mouthpiece - or did you miss that?

You miss characterize Fitzgeralds finding that he did not have the evidence to prosecute under the Identities Protection Act as meaning there was no leak and no crime. The President seemed pretty convinced there was a leak, otherwise there need never have been an investigation.

I say again, if this was a legal leak why doesn't the President just come out and say so and put everyone's mind at rest?

lurker

I don't like several of Rick Lowry's writings anyway.

Enlightened

Jim E - Well by golly, if this week in Congress is any indication The New Order of Democrats is fixin to take real good care of our military. Yessir.

Bush bashing is so passe'.

lurker

Because it won't put everyone's mind at rest. You guys just won't believe Bush.

Just like we do not believe Plame today but you believe that Plame is telling the truth.

lurker

And penraker says:

Democrats Alter Oath For Witnesses: Leaves Out God

boris

KEEP YOUR [expletive-deleted][expletive-deleted] MOUTH [expletive-deleted] SHUT???

Tell that to Harlow, Schmall and Grenier.

Libby, Rove and Armitage are not obligated to keep secrets of the CIA that the CIA is not even bothering to hide or protect.

Semanticleo

"You mean the ones in your ass?"

"Now Tic is an economist. Gawwwd...unbelievable"

"Im just impressed he can spell "ARM""

I take it back. The WH COULD do worse if idiots such as these were the temporary
occupants; Psychic Blindness, notwithstanding.

Enlightened

The president does not have to stroke the leftwing lunatics to stop them from overdosing on Reckless/Legal/Illegal was/is.

I know you all think your of a higher power and can make ad hoc demands, but uh, no.

lurker

"The President seemed pretty convinced there was a leak, otherwise there need never have been an investigation."

Not really. He wasn't sure there was a leak so allowed the investigation to take place to determine if there was an illegal leak or not. There wasn't after all.

Tom Maguire

Where did the folks in the White House/State Department learn about Valerie Plame? Was was it not marked as classified?

Ah, well - Armitage/Grossman and probably Fleischer saw the infamous INR memo - the memo was classified, but as Armitage said, he has never in 28 years seen a classified agent's name in a memo, so he didn't think Plame could be.

Libby was not told by Cheney, Martin, Grossman, Grenier, or Schmall that Plame was classified. Grenier and Schmall were CIA; Martin learned about Plame from Harlow of CIA, and he said nothing to her either.

Libby claims never to have seen the INR memo, which is highly plausible - he was dealing directly with the CIA after all.

As to Rove, no one knows what he knew or how he knew it, but that's our Karl.

The handy little chart that the Democrats were using to show how reckless the Administration was with Plame's identity showed that Ari leaked to Gregory.

Jim E, you are always welcome to join me on a pony hunt (or should that be pony ride?).

That plus Cooper-Gregory gives me a bit to chew on (but the Hardball transcript won't be until Monday I bet).

clarice feldman

iT'S A CROWDED FIELD TODAY, BUT MY NOMINATION FOR DUMBEST POST OF THE DAY IS THIS ONE__>

"You miss characterize Fitzgeralds finding that he did not have the evidence to prosecute under the Identities Protection Act as meaning there was no leak and no crime"

lurker

ali-cleown, since Bush is an excellent poker player, I'm willing to bet that there will be some really smart poker plays by him in the next few weeks that will catch the Democrats by surprise.

He's surrounded by many excellent poker players, too.

Just wait and see.

PeterUK

""Back during the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney promised that "help was on the way" for the U.S. military. It was supposedly overstretched by the deployment of a few thousand peacekeepers to the Balkans."

Oh yes,the "War of Billy Jeff's Penis" ,
"You can check in gut you can't leave".

Enlightened

Hee Hee. She shoots, she scores!

Clarice is good that way.


verner

OK, I don't think it is true, but let's assume that what Moonbat central says is true--that Val met the criteria for the IIPA, and was not just the run of the mill "classified" type.

The law would not apply because, even though they were passing her identity around like a bad penny--NO ONE AT THE CIA BOTHERED TO TELL ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION--OR EVEN NOVAK WHEN HE WENT CALLING--that she was "covert."

Let's not forget--at the top of waxman's chart were two names--Grenier and Harlow--and the INS memo that was written with info from a state department official who also had no idea that the broad was "covert", or her name whould not have been in it. No one pulled "the wife" out of thin air. The CIA told them.

The most essential point was made by Davis, when he said that if a breech was made, it was the fault of sloppy policies and procedures on the part of the CIA. And I liked the way Toensing drove that home as well.

It was obvious to me that Val had been thoroughly coached by Waxman and his staff. She was extremely careful in her answers--and that "I'm not a lawyer" bit allowed her to use a very loose descript noun (covert) without having any legal implications.

In this hearing, it's more important to pay attention to what wasn't said, than to what was said.


Spartacvs

lurch :

He wasn't sure there was a leak so allowed the investigation to take place to determine if there was an illegal leak or not.

You sure about your insertion of the word illegal in there?

Barney Frank

--It's so insane and factually incorrect to argue that the U.S. military is in "great shape" today, that I don't even know how to respond.--

The military is stretched somewhat thinly and is under stress. It has been similarly stressed several times, previously. Most recently the periods 1917-18, 1942-45, 1950-53, 1965-72. Wars tend to stress the military and overextend its resources.
If you are advocating a large increase in the defense budget Jim then welcome aboard. However I suspect your solution to stress on the military is to purposely lose a war instead. Not quite the party of FDR and Truman anymore is it?

PeterUK

Clarice,
Who,is "miss characterize",is she covert?

lurker

Correct. How the hell would Bush know it was a illegal leak or not?

An investigation does not mean that an illegal leak took place. It was to determine whether an illegal leak took place, and if there was, then indict that person.

There were no illegal leaks, after all.

Semanticleo

"The military is stretched somewhat thinly and is under stress."

Look! A massive breach in the wall of Plausible Denialism. The sky IS falling!

Pofarmer

It's obvious that there were deleterious effects to the US intelligence community caused by the outing. That doesn't matter at all to anyone here?

As opposed to revealing NSA wiretapping and SWIFT?

What a maroon.

clarice feldman

PUK, She says she is but the info is obviously so secret no one told her she was--very hush hush stuff--on the other hand she did stay at the Langley Holiday Inn once.

lurker

The Civil War was stretched pretty thin, btw.

No, it's not plausible denialism. And the sky is not falling unless we're losing the war against Global Jihadism, which happens to be your agenda, ali-cleown.

Rick Ballard

"It's so insane and factually incorrect to argue that the U.S. military is in "great shape" today, that I don't even know how to respond."

Well shut up then. It's not as if any regular cares whether you show up to spout libtard talking points.

Sorry, short pants, I'll take the word of someone who walked the walk for thirty years over someone who in all probability hasn't even been alive that long.

Sue

If only the left would be consistent with their outrage. Not a word from them on the outing of 3 covert operatives on the front pages of the LA Times. Why? Two reasons. They have no reason to suspect the WH was involved in the leaks and they really don't care about covert operatives.

Syl

KevinNYC

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative.

Evidence that it was Harlow's reckless disregard for Plame that 'outed' her! Harlow was by regulation supposed to check her status BEFORE he confirmed her employment at CIA.

If Judith Miller, Cooper, Gregory, Pincus, or anyone else who may have gotten a 'leak' about Val decided to PRINT that fact they would have cleared it with Harlow FIRST just like Novak did. That is procedure for journalists when reporting on CIA employees.

It was the CIA itself who 'outed' her!

lurker

I'll tell you one thing about today's military...the technology that today's military is far superior than what Carter's military had to deal with.

Oooppppsss...were there any Hummers available to Carter's military?

Body armors?

What about newer, faster, and better planes?

Bunker Busters?

Patriot Missiles?

What else?

lurker

Oh, more, better, faster, and precise missile shooting.

radar technology.

satellite communications.

What else?

PeterUK

Clarice,
The only evidence that she been there was the towels were missing,so she is probably a Democrat.

Pofarmer

Cross posted

Valerie Wilson did not have "covert" status as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

I'm really surprised you're prepared to just flatly assert that as a fact

Actually, Val herself asserted this. She was asked if she was covert, and went into the whole general thing, then she was asked if she was covert according to the IIPA, and she said no, she wasn't. So there you go, from the Lips of Val.

And why, oh why, would it be important if her name came out as working at the CIA? How many women work at the CIA? You gonna tell me she was doing "covert" work using her real name?

Man, the left is a bunch of suckers

Sara (Squiggler)

JimE -- the military under Carter was decimated. One of the first things Reagan did was give us back our pride/respect in serving our country and then he spent lots of much needed money to revitalize and restore our defense. Unfortunately, when Clinton arrived those days ended. Clinton who publicly wrote, "I despise the military," virtually ignored the defense needs of this country. So, on the arrival of Bush43, we weren't quite as bad as under the Carter years, but if something hadn't been done right away, we would have been within another couple of years.

I correspond with several active duty families with spouses serving in Iraq. It is never easy to be the one left at home during a long separation, but being in a combat zone today is far different than in, say, Vietnam. Today, guys have email, cell phones, youtube, even hookups in hospital rooms so they can watch their babies being born. We went 3 and 4 months with no contact, no mail and never a phone call.

As to equipment -- we are at war in a very severe environment of heat and sand and equipment needs constant maintenance, upgrade or replacement. We are fielding the best trained and equipped army in the history of the world and if you think differently, you are the one who is insane. And I can guarantee the men and women who are serving are proud of what they are doing and proud of their service to their country. And they are well aware that lefties like you are not and they don't care, they'll protect your sorry ass anyway.

clarice feldman

PUK, reading the trollgrams, isn't it past time we ran our ads for S.C.A.M. on DailyKos and DU?

lurker
Actually, Val herself asserted this. She was asked if she was covert, and went into the whole general thing, then she was asked if she was covert according to the IIPA, and she said no, she wasn't. So there you go, from the Lips of Val.

Great! She disproved Scary Larry!

And how can this wreck her career? She couldn't continue to work for CIA under the circumstances when Wilson blabbermouthed her identity?

Neo

What matters is what her husband found, and what the President said.


There still is this offer of $5 to the first person who can name one thing, anything, that Wilson found on his 2002 trip to Niger that proved “false” President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union statement, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

It has been waiting for someone to claim it for almost 11 months now, but it appears to be the safest five-dollar bill in America.

Your first hurtle, this statement from a letter by Joe Wilson to the Senate Intelligence Committee: "I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur."

He later told the Senate Intelligence Committee when asked how he knew the documents were forgeries (considering the CIA did not have the documents when he went on the trip to Niger) that he had "mispoken."

I believe that this puts this offer in the same category as trying to lick your elbow .. 80% of people who know elbow licking can't be done still try to do it.

Barney Frank

--Look! A massive breach in the wall of Plausible Denialism. The sky IS falling!--
Those are your trousers falling, clown.

The administration has admitted that the military is being stretched. That's why they have sought larger defense budgets. People here including me have also previously admitted it. They are well equipped and moral is good, but the military is simply not large enough, especially considering that the threat from Islam, Russia and China is growing not shrinking.
Poor dumbcluck Cleo seems to think the solution to a military stretched too thin is to confine them to barracks.
However if you are advocating a larger military, more power to you. If you are might I invite you to join up?
Wouldn't want you to be mistaken for a chickenhawk now would we?


Syl

Democrats!

Jihadists don't play your version of politics--all this rhetoric you're practicing on the Bushies won't help with al Qaeda if it ever becomes your turn to deal with them.

al Qaeda plays politics only one way:

kill or be killed.

Semanticleo

eh, re-tread thread up one floor.

lurker

And Sara,

I read that when Carter and Clinton were in the office, none of the military were proud to stand before them at attendance. When Reagan, 41, and now 43, the military were and are PROUD to stand before them at attendance.

maryrose

Val considers herself covert for life. She has an exaggerated sense of her own self-importance as does her husband,Joe. She is in mourning now for her lost career and some of her depression may be returning.Well coached in her responses;but Joe and the CIA did her wrong by not protecting her identity. The administration didn't do anything to harm her in any way but in her frustration she has to strike out at someone. She is the main driver behind the civil suit and was involved in this fiasco from the get-go.

Enlightened

"It's obvious that there were deleterious effects to the US intelligence community caused by the outing. That doesn't matter at all to anyone here?"

Such as?

Semanticleo

"stretched too thin..."

Is gold-leaf thin enough for yuh?

lurker

And...having owned Arabian horse and familiar with some of the Bedouin traditions (e.g., family strains), reading Homer Davenport's book about those Bedouins (Arabs), one of their traditions is that they must swear to Allah the purity of their Arabian horses.

So if they are to swear before a judge, would they swear before Allah?

Oh, imagine when we are placed under Sharia law and the democrats and Republicans must swear before Allah.

PeterUK

Clarice,
Yes indeed.The research department has produce a whole new raft of products,well it is actually a raft,in essence a pair of Birkenstocks which inflate into a catamaran,for when the floods come,only $999.99,get two for $2500.00.

lurker

So, ali-cleown and Jim E., why are you continuing to ask about how stretch-thin or gold-leaf thin our military is today?

The surge so far is working!!

lurker

Just wait and watch the F-22 Raptors. They are slowly coming off the production line. But when they become operational, they are going to be awesome.

However, the Democrats want that program squashed.

PeterUK

Barney,
"If you are might I invite you to join up? "
Sorry,the Geneva Conventions prohibit the use of Dum Dums.

Semanticleo

"The surge so far is working!!"

Holy Moly.

Southside

Our military also has one very important tool that it didn't have before, combat experience. The lessons they have learned in Iraq are invaluable to the future defense against jihad. They have exposure to Muslim culture, thought and the twisted tactics of the terrorists. No amount of training could have given them that.
As far as being stretched thin, alot of that is poor strategic rotation of troops. Apparently the Marine Corps studied the deployments in detail and realized at least a third of the marines had never been sent to Iraq. And there is still alot of dead wood among the flags that can't shake that garrison mentality.

lurker

That all you can say, ali-cleown?

Barney Frank

--Is gold-leaf thin enough for yuh?--

Your new found concern is admirable, Cleo.
And because I have heard you repeatedly make the 'chickenhawk' argument I think you owe it to the too thinly stretched military that you are so deeply concerned about to join up. Don't you?
You can choose a field that is not deployed overseas if your morals (or spine) prevent you from serving on the front.

Please don't tell me your concern was merely partisan pretense and you don't really support the troops. Surely you have the fortitude of some loser like me or Cecil or Soylent or all the others here who have already put our money where your mouth is in the 'gold leaf' military.
Dumbass.

Other Tom

Funny Jim E would deliver his utterly uninformed comments about our armed forces today, of all days. This morning my wife and I were on the flight deck of USS Nimitz for a change-of-command ceremony. Those folks have had two combat deployments to the gulf and are preparing for a third. I would love to see Jim E suggest to a single one of those gung-ho, enthusiastic and bright young people that they are not in great shape and ready to rumble. He won't, of course, because he will never encounter a single one of them, except the ones he sees on NBC news. And if he ever did encounter them he would recognize to keep his lip buttoned.

lurker

And, ali-cleown, no denial about your real agenda?

So you do want us to lose this war and capitulate to Shari'ah law and swear to Allah?

Other Tom

Cleo, have you seen anything to suggest that the surge is not, in fact, having quite productive results? Far more important, please tell us: Do you want it to succeed, or do you want it to fail? A simple "succeed" or "fail" will suffice.

Semanticleo

"Your new found concern is admirable,"

My concern is for the true believers in the military. We need them for the real WoT, not this fantasy concocted by the non-military
idiots you claim to eschew. But then, this is
YOUR signature clusterf--k, isn't it?

PeterUK

Lurker,
"So you do want us to lose this war and capitulate to Shari'ah law and swear to Allah?"
Why doe you presume she hasn't? A latter day species of Tokyo Rose,immune to penicillin.

Other Tom

"..if this was a legal leak why doesn't the President just come out and say so and put everyone's mind at rest?"

My mind is indeed at rest, Sparto. Sorry to hear yours isn't, but in time you'll grow into adulthood.

lurker

Actually, Barney, ali-cleown is implicating that Bush is to blame for the stretch-thin military without regarding that FDR and Truman did end up with a stretch-thin military. Likewise for the Civil War and the American Revolution.

Yup! It's Bush's fault!

Sarcasm on and now off.

Sara (Squiggler)

Lurker -- under Carter the military morale was so low that it was hard to stand proudly at any time. Under Clinton, the gag reflex had to be swallowed back, but they did their duty and stood at attention while figuratively holding their noses and crossing their fingers. They served the office of the Presidency and the Commander-in-Chief even as they had zero respect for the man in that office.

azaghal

Earlier I linked to Toensing's written testimony. Certain of the liberal knuckleheads who waster intelligent people's time here were loudly declaiming that Toensing was simply presenting her own opinion as the final word on the meaning of the IIPA, and condemned her for not going into the legislative history of the act. I suspect that "legislative history" is a phrase these knuckleheads picked up without understanding what it actually means. It turns out that Toensing's testimony--which is quite instructive concerning the actual intent of Congress in passing this act: just what they had in mind--weaves quotations from the Senate Report on the IIPA (otherwise known as "legislative history") into the whole fabric of her presentation.

To make this really easy, I've reproduced below those sections that discuss this legislative history and I've bolded direct quotations. At the end I've included Toensing's suggested further questions, which I found to be particularly apt. Especially notable in her presentation is her discussion of overseas stationing. Her discussion makes it quite clear that overseas stationing applies to both covert CIA employees as well as to non-CIA US citizens who may serve as "agents". All in all, a bravura performance.

Those who supported the concept of the law wanted the statute to pass constitutional muster. If a prosecution violated the First Amendment, it was useless as a deterrent to those who had the specific intent to “out” truly secret officers and agents. In reaction to both the strong lobbying by the media and ACLU, and Congressional concern for the First Amendment, two basic categories of persons subject to prosecution were created: 1) journalists and 2) those having authorized access to classified information, the latter being government personnel with clearances.

Congress wanted to make it nearly impossible to prosecute a journalist for criticizing the CIA because it wanted to “exclude the possibility that casual discussion, political debate, the journalistic pursuit of a story on intelligence, or the disclosure of illegality or impropriety in government will be chilled” by the law. S. Rep. 97-201, at 12. Therefore, any publication identifying a covert agent had to be done “in the course of a pattern of activities” with the specific intent to expose that agent, and “with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States.” Additionally, the journalist had to know the information so identified the covert agent and that “the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal that individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States….”

Covert Agent

Under the term “covert agent,” two types of individuals are covered: an officer and an agent. A person working for the CIA is an “officer.” A person who is an informant or source for the CIA is an “agent.” The media often err in this distinction. To make the legislation simpler, the term “covert agent” was used by the drafters to refer to both officers and agents. The Senate Report, when relevant, distinguishes how the law
applies to each.

Although a “‘covert agent’ is specifically limited to an individual whose identity as an intelligence agency employee ‘is classified information,’” criminality does not turn on whether the information disclosed is classified. Id. at 15. There should only be prosecution
“when the defendant has knowingly disclosed information that, in terms of its specificity, its sensitivity, and the effort expended to maintain its secrecy, is virtually the equivalent of classified information.” Id. In other words, the definition of a covert agent is more than classified and less than classified. It clearly is not synonymous with
classified. As the Committee stated, “The mere fact that an intelligence relationship appears in a document which is classified does not constitute evidence that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship.” Id. at 19.

Significantly, the Senate Report makes clear Congressional desire to limit application of the criminal law to disclosure of selected intelligence officers:

[T]he Committee has carefully considered the definition of “covert agent” and has included only those identities which it has determined to be absolutely necessary to protect for reasons of imminent danger to life or significant interference with vital intelligence activities. Undercover officers and employees overseas may be in special
danger when their identities are revealed….
(Emphasis added).

Id. at 15.

Affirmative Measures

There was great displeasure by certain Senators, especially Chr. Goldwater, that the CIA had been sloppy protecting its own. Indeed, one of the legislation’s seven findings states:

(7) The policies, arrangements and procedures used by the Executive branch to provide for U.S. intelligence officers, agents and sources must be strengthened and fully supported.

S.Rep at 11.

Such concern was the reason the Act required the government to be “taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States” before there could be a prosecution.

Throughout the Senate Report, disappointment is expressed about the Executive branch’s failure to provide adequate cover. As the Committee noted, “[P]art of the bill is designed to improve cover.” “Without effective cover for U.S. intelligence officers abroad…the United States cannot collect the human intelligence” it needs. Id. at 10. (Emphasis added). In this regard, Section 423 of the Act requires the President, “after receiving information from the Director of Central Intelligence,” to submit an annual report to both Intelligence Committees on “measures to protect the identities of covert agents, and on any other matter relevant to the protection of the identities of covert agents.” Has the CIA done so?

Given this concern and mandate, additional basic managerial questions of good intelligence tradecraft come immediately to mind. I am aware that this Committee does not have oversight of the intelligence community so others, perhaps, must ask these questions:

• Could the CIA produce immediately a list of all foreign assigned personnel it has designated covert under the Act?

• Does the CIA make any such list available to selected few individuals who need to check whether to confirm or deny that person’s “intelligence
relationship to the United States,” as required by the Act? (Think CIA spokesman who often confirms or denies to reporters whether certain people work at the Agency.)

• Has the CIA established guidelines for briefers of its Executive branch clients so they do not reveal names of “covert agents” without a caveat not to repeat the name or relationship?

• Has the CIA devised a tracking plan so that five years after a formerly covert employee returns to the United States, he or she knows the Act no
longer applies and, just as importantly, other persons have notice, e.g. a briefer?

JOMJunkie

Isn't it just sad the Richard Armitage can remain silent to this day about the damage he has done to the Bush Administration? What kind of person can sit back and watch lives and reputations be ruined by his actions that have been projected on others. He is truly a low-life.

ghostcat

I made a 3:37PM (PDT) comment on the "Plame On" thread about Val's pay grade at the CIA, then had to run out to do a bunch of errands. That thread is barely breathing now, but there were several follow-up comments, including a question from Rick Ballard.

At the risk of boring everyone else here ...

In bureaucratise, a "first-line supervisor" is an official who oversees non-supervisory personnel, a "manager" is a "supervisor of supervisors", and an "executive" is a "manager of managers". First-line supervisors are typically GS-13's and 14's, managers GS-14's and 15's, and executives (oddly enough) are mostly in the Senior Executive Service (SES). There are several more executive layers above the SES ranks for politically-appointed leaders.

"Senior manager" is not a term-of-art, but in my experience it refers to at least a GS-15 position. At GS-14/6, Val was relatively junior and had probably been in that pay grade for 6 years. If she had been at GS-15 and demoted for some reason, she would likely have been at least GS-14/7.

In any event, she was not a senior manager. More likely a junior manager.


lurker

Ah...I see, ali-cleown, Other Tom is right. Perhaps you NEED to grow into adulthood before understanding that we are in a REAL war against terrorism and that's in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan!!

So your real agenda is that we want to lose this war against Terrorism (Global Jihadism)?

Rick Ballard

Peter,

Don't forget Greenfleece™©(pat. pending).

We're about ready to launch the Indigene Project. We've reached agreement with several governments in Africa, Asia and South America concerning totally "natural" habitats surrounded by Class 3 security. For a relatively modest sum, an ecologically minded individual may purchase a "lifetime carbon offset" which will provide an actuarily sound insurance policy guaranteeing that somewhere in the world, someone is living full time in an environment totally uncontaminated by any contact with modernity.

Think of it! For just a nominal monthly payment the truly environmentally sensitive individual can guarantee a reduction in his carbon footprint to zero! And without any change whatsoever in his habits or energy usage. It's perfect.

ghostcat

Or even a first-line supervisor.

Syl

Clarice

Sue, the standard response to a question about a CIA employee regardles of status has always been "The agency neither confirms not denies the employment of any person."

Hate to be picky (but I am being picky, I know) but that changed as of the time the govt realized it cost too much money to hide the employment status of absolutely everyone who worked for CIA.

Now they look at the status first before they decide to confirm employment or to 'neither confirm nor deny'.

Harlow forgot to look at the status first.

Reckless disregard.

PeterUK

"We need them for the real WoT,"

The plankton keep gabbling this,but don't seem to understand that unless you get terrorists to come out and fight a conventional military is not much use in the WoT.That is the whole point of asymmetrical warfare.The clever move in Iraq is to bring out the enemy.Fight them with the military rather than wait for the next 9/11.

Jim E.

Sara wrote: Clinton "virtually ignored the defense needs of this country. So, on the arrival of Bush43, we weren't quite as bad as under the Carter years, but if something hadn't been done right away, we would have been within another couple of years."

Er, two countries were invaded and occupied with the military that Bush inherited from Clinton. Bush did little in the way of changing things, despite the drastically changed situation after 9/11. See the Lowry quote above. Carter spent more money on the Pentagon as a percent of GDP than Bush requests -- and unlike Carter, Bush is overseeing hot wars.

Even if it remains the undisputed best in the history of the world, the U.S. military is NOT in "great shape." It's been run into the ground. Reagan-era Republicans and military officials like Odom and Webb have been raising alarms for years. And they're not the only ones concerned.

And congratulations, Sara, on waiting until your second reply to accuse me of being anti-troop and anti-military. Stay classy (and delusional)!

ghostcat

One more thing. With her looks and, er, social skills, I have no doubt she had more influence than her pay grade would suggest.

Barney Frank

--My concern is for the true believers in the military.--

Then join up and take the pressure off of them, dumbass.
You state that those who advocate the war in Iraq but avoid service are chickenhawks.
You have now not only admitted your profound concern for our poor stressed out troops but you are advocating that we engage in a WOT.
Having advanced these various thoughts you are now bound by both personal honor (softball for you PUK) and logic to go join the military.
If you don't you are worse than a chickenhawk.
Let me state it plainly. Cleo, if after the arguments you have advanced, you don't join up you are worse, far worse than.........evil, horn-sprouting Dick Cheney.
Dumbass.

PeterUK

Rick,
What about the camps,er sorry,facilities in Utah?

PeterUK

Barney,
Could find her a job in a comfort station in Afghanistan.

clarice feldman

Thanks for the info, Syl. It's been a long time since I had to try to find out such a thing. I suppose soon, it's be an automated service..Type the person's name, if the buzzer sounds the answer is yes..it if doesn't this call will automatically destruct so something..

azaghal

Thanks, ghostcat. That fits right in with her having to go ask permission to invite hubby to go to Niger, and with her own statement that she didn't have the authority to do so on her own. Very true, but she was skirting the truth. Her supervisor would have signed off on the whole scheme, but she was the one who initiated it all. Well, she and the mysterious guy who passed by.

Syl

JimE

It was supposedly overstretched by the deployment of a few thousand peacekeepers to the Balkans.

LOL That just shows how over-hyped 'overstretching' is. If the few thousand peacekeepers 'overstretched' the military, we couldn't have been able to take down two countries.

And if anyone from the Army says we're overstretched, I have news for you. Army ALWAYS says we're overstretched and ALWAYS says we need more troops. That's just the way they look at things.

Oh my, come to think of it, wasn't Shinseki army?

lurker
[T]he Committee has carefully considered the definition of “covert agent” and has included only those identities which it has determined to be absolutely necessary to protect for reasons of imminent danger to life or significant interference with vital intelligence activities. Undercover officers and employees overseas may be in special danger when their identities are revealed…. (Emphasis added).

Was Valerie's live placed in imminent danger in the last five years prior to year 2003?

Does the CIA make any such list available to selected few individuals who need to check whether to confirm or deny that person’s “intelligence relationship to the United States,” as required by the Act? (Think CIA spokesman who often confirms or denies to reporters whether certain people work at the Agency.)

Harlow. He failed his job.

Has the CIA established guidelines for briefers of its Executive branch clients so they do not reveal names of “covert agents” without a caveat not to repeat the name or relationship?

The answer is clearly no. Why? Because many of the WH branch clients were caught off guard on Wilson's Op-ed and tactics. They were trying to figure out who Wilson and Plame were.

Jim E.

Other Tom wrote: "I would love to see Jim E suggest to a single one of those gung-ho, enthusiastic and bright young people that they are not in great shape and ready to rumble."

So unfortunate. I came to regard OT as being relatively sane. Do you sincerely think that my comments on the U.S. military not being in "great shape" referred to how physically fit individual soldiers are? You, like others before you, are just looking for ways to call me anti-soldier.

Is Rich Lowry anti-soldier?

PeterUK

So tell us JimE why do you support military action in the Balkans but not in Iraq?

Other Tom

"military officials like Odom and Webb..."

Get your facts straight, dolt. Jim Webb hasn't been a military official for nineteen years.

Jim E.

Syl,

The line about the military being overstretched due to a few thousand peacekeepers was part of the Bush's campaign speeches in 2000. I agree that Bush was exaggerating, which is known to happen time-to-time in an election campaign.

But just because Bush exaggerated in 2000 in his complaints against the Clinton-era military, doesn't mean there's not actual substance to the same concerns today.

PeterUK

If the military are overstretched pull them out of the Balkans and Germany.

Other Tom

I don't know Rich Lowry, Jim E, and I don't know whether either of you is "anti-soldier." There are no soldiers aboard Nimitz; only sailors and marines. (It's really a good idea to get basic terminology straight before you undertake a debate on this subject.) Anyone with a knowledge of what it takes to fight a war would understand that I was in no way referring simply to the physical fitness of the men and women aboard the Nimitz. I was referring to their proven combat readiness and their undiminished eagerness to carry the fight to the enemy. Take your half-witted blather about being "anti-soldier" to someplace where people think it is a useful topic.

Rick Ballard

Ghostcat,

Thank you for the reply. It certainly confirms my suspicions concerning Val's "importance".

Azaghal,

Great job on assembling that info from Toensing. She sure scares the lefties, doesn't she?

Looking_for_a_way_out

Azgahal,

That seemed like a lot of work. Then the DCI goes ahead and says she was covert. Darn!

Jim E.

OT,

Get your reading glasses on. I very clearly identified Webb as a Reagan-era military official. (Yes, and he obviously served pre-Reagan, too.)

And I'm the dolt because you're the one showing an utter lack of reading comprehension?

Barney Frank

You have lodged the same assertion repeatedly Jim. So what's your solution?

Let me guess, first we lose a war right?

lurker

Other Tom, sounds like those sailors and marines understood why we went to war in Irag against Global Jihadism.

azaghal

Azaghal,

Great job on assembling that info from Toensing. She sure scares the lefties, doesn't she?

Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 16, 2007 at 07:18 PM

Azgahal,

That seemed like a lot of work. Then the DCI goes ahead and says she was covert. Darn!

Posted by: Looking_for_a_way_out | March 16, 2007 at 07:19 PM

Rick, she scares 'em so bad that they're afraid to even read what she says. ?They're like the three monkeys--but evil for them is truth.

lurker

Azgahal,

That seemed like a lot of work. Then the DCI goes ahead and says she was covert. Darn!

Unfortunately, Valerie acknowledged that she was not covert according to IIPA.

Unfortunately, Waxman and Cummings passed on Hayden's "words" as hearsay.


lurker

I understand that Waxman tried to shut Toensing up during her testimony.

lurker

BTW, I don't see anywhere in Toensing's testimony that Rove, etal, may have violated that first Executive Order. Do you?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame