Powered by TypePad

« Libby Sentencing | Main | Harry Potter Divination »

June 05, 2007

Comments

DouglasS

cyclo: "I like reading your poor [boris's] argumentation. It is entertaining to me"

I'm not sure it's a good thing you said that. He might stop. And then if I need a laugh I might have to resort to something on cable.

DouglasS

lurker: "boris has been correct all along"

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

I'm starting to think you're a parody. I've been tricked like this before. You're one of the best.

lurker9876

dumbasS, Your assertion. Not a fact.

boris has proved the facts over time and I believe him. boris has been correct all along.

Now repeating boris' question:

"Still no answer ??? Even Cychotroll gets one thing right (by accident).

Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

boris: My point EXACTLY !!!

Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???"

DouglasS

cecil: "Dunno how thoughtful you have to be to see 'Africa' and not read it as 'Niger.' "

Dunno how thoughtful you have to be to see that 'Niger' is part of 'Africa,' and that UK specifically decided to say the latter instead of the former for the explicit purpose of protecting a source, as I explained in detail here.

Simple question. If the 16 words weren't about Niger, why did Wilsons' op-ed prompt Tenet to retract the 16 words?

If the 16 words were about anything other than Niger, the White House could have and should have simply said this: 'Wilson, you're a very nice man, but your op-ed has nothing to do with the 16 words; the president had not been referring to Niger; he was talking about Gabon, South Africa, Namibia, Congo and/or Somalia, but not Niger.'

Then Wilson would have been forced to say this: "never mind."

Anyone who claims the 16 words were not about Niger needs to explain why the White House retracted the 16 words, instead of simply saying that the president had not been referring to Niger.

Another simple question: we're still waiting for you to explain why you tried to get away with pretending that there were only three signs of forgery, when in fact there were a bunch more.

boris

Your turn DumbasS ...

Anyone who claims V Wilson was covert or had nothing to do with the mission needs to why the CIA kept bringing her up ...

Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

boris: My point EXACTLY !!!

Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???

lurker9876

Actually, it was Hadley that requested it be retracted, I believe. I've read that it was because they thought it was true at the time of SOTU. But they were under intense pressure. They made a mistake retracting it. Later they found it to be true and confirmed by many sources.

I have not kept track of the number of signs of forgery. I am not interested in that part. Why worry about whether there were 3 signs or many more? What's the point?

Now ask boris' question:

"

Still no answer ???

Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

boris: My point EXACTLY !!!

Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???"

DouglasS

cecil: "Hopefully you see the problem in giving someone classified information without telling them it's classified."

The problem in giving someone classified information without telling them it's classified is that you've provided them with a loophole under IIPA. This doesn't mean that they haven't violated their SF-312 agreement.

"read the statute"

The statute you're citing is IIPA. You're telling us, correctly, that IIPA provides a loophole in a case where you give someone classified information without telling them it's classified. Trouble is, government employess don't just have to worry about IIPA. They also have to conform to the rules they accepted when they signed SF-312. The four (at least) leakers all signed an SF-312 that says this:

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it.

If they weren't sure, they had an obligation to ask first. This is pure common sense.

You're suggesting that as long as someone is not prosecutable under IIPA, we can therefore conclude they've done nothing wrong. That's absurd. SF-312 creates obligations that are broader than what IIPA calls for.

DouglasS

lady: "I guess Doug or whoever is unaware of Armitage's statement that Joe Wilson had been calling everybody about his trip because he was pissed off at being called a low level guy and then goes on to out Val big time."

That writing is a bit vague. Who "goes on to out Val big time?" Wilson, or Armitage? The transcript indicates the latter, but you might be suggesting the former. Are you?

Are you're citing this transcript (pdf) just to tell us that Armitage is one of the four (known) government employees who outed Plame? Maybe you didn't notice that I've already acknowledged this, many times.

boris

Well DumbasS since you are an idiot I'll keep this simple ...

if I am uncertain ...

Is not the same as "unless you're certain ..."

And "If you are unsure ..."

Is not the same as "If you aren't sure ..."

Receiveing information directly from CIA officials it is certainly not uncertain that one can assume proper laws regarding classified information are being observed and protocols for "need to know".

But then you are such a goddamn idiot you don't actually understand any of this do you?

boris

Speaking of "need to know: DumbasS ...

Anyone who claims Valerie Wilson was covert or had nothing to do with the mission needs to explain why the CIA kept bringing her up ...

Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

boris: My point EXACTLY !!!

Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???

DouglasS

hit: "Harlow should have gone up the chain of command. Unless he got a confirmation from Novak that he would not identify Plame -- he should have got someone with more pull involved."

20/20 hindsight. Harlow made the incorrect assumption that Novak was not a traitor.

By the way, please tell us how you know that Harlow did not get, indeed, "a confirmation from Novak that he would not identify Plame." My speculation is that Novak said something which Harlow interpreted as that confirmation.

"When the NYT was going to publish the SWIFT information, Bush called the editor to the WH. Bush truly believed revealing that info would be harmful to national security -- so he did EVERYTHING he could to prevent it from being reported."

Right. Harlow should have gotten Bush involved. Please consider this: I think it's very likely that Novak told Harlow that Novak had already received some kind of disclosure from Rove. This put Harlow on notice that Novak was in a position to run over him. It would be very savvy for Novak to play it this way. Novak has been at this game for a long time, and he is surely very, very good at it.

"If someone in the CIA, knowing Novak had the goods on Val, and thinking Val's exposure would do great harm, that someone should do EVERYTHING they could to prevent it from being reported."

That "someone" was facing the dilemma of suspecting that the White House had already made a decision to hand Plame over to Novak. Expecting Harlow to lie down in front of a freight train is expecting a bit too much.

"Maybe the CIA feels that Harlow saying please is EVERYTHING they could have done?"

CIA obviously did not do ""EVERYTHING," but they thought they did enough. A reasonable person could think that it was enough to make a clear statement to Novak. Harlow did make a clear statement. Novak admitted that.

boris

A reasonable person could think ...

That's your problem right there DumbasS!

You can't because you aren't.

By the time Harlow is calling Novak the leak is over. Already water under the bridge.

Besides the whole bit "Couldn't tell Novak she was covert because it was classified!"

WTF ???

Joke right ?

DouglasS

cecil: "Might try applying a bit of that sauce to your own silliness."

I said "saying it doesn't make it so." You're suggesting I don't back up my claims with proof. But I do.

"So we're back to Armitage? (Who was, contra Fitz, 'the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter.')"

As far as we know, that's correct. So?

boris

Your turn DumbasS ...

Anyone who claims Valerie Wilson was covert or had nothing to do with the mission needs to explain why the CIA kept bringing her up ...

Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

boris: My point EXACTLY !!!

Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???

DouglasS

boris: "Ever had a security clearance? Mine was top secret for crypto on a SAC base."

Did you sign an SF-312? Did you read it and understand it? Maybe some of the words in the following sentence were too big for you to comprehend:

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it.

"There is no reason to be unsure."

The reason to be unsure is this: the employment status of many CIA employees is classified information. That's a sufficient basis for a reasonable person to understand that they should assume nothing.

"One assumes the CIA is following protocol wrt classified information."

That's like saying that "one assumes" that people never make mistakes. Trouble is, they do. People who are supposed to follow protocol sometimes fail to do so. Bad things happen when people 'assume' things. That's why SF-312 says assume nothing.

Simple question: why did Libby tell Miller to hide his identity?

" 'check if unsure' not 'check unless sure' "

As Specter likes to say, there's no hair there.

boris

'check if unsure' not 'check unless sure'

If you don't get the distinction it's because you are DumbasS. One can be lucky, one can be unlucky, one can be neither. Same distinction DumbasS.

That's why SF-312 says assume nothing.

No it does not. That what DumbasS says it says.

DouglasS

boris: "My point EXACTLY !!!"

You're responding to cylco, who said this:

There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

Obviously what cyclo is saying is that there was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all, to anyone outside the government.

boris, you're suggesting that CIA and/or INR should not have revealed Plame's identity to the White House. That's ludicrous. Some very powerful people were insistently asking to become fully informed on every aspect of Wilson's trip. Plame indeed had a minor role in Wilson's trip. It would have been fraudulent, silly, unnecessary and insubordinate to crop her out of the picture.

"If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???"

You've activated that macro, in this thread, roughly 18 times now. I'd say you're doing an excellent impression of a monkey, but I don't want to be unfair to monkeys. Of course you're paying no attention whatsoever to the thorough answer I provided here.

DouglasS

boris: "Miller admitted as much"

You're amazing. You made this claim, here:

The reporters Libby talked with about Wilson's wife already knew about her

I proved that your claim is false, at least with regard to Miller. I pointed out, here, that Miller said this:

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A.

(Emphasis added.) Now you're saying "Miller admitted as much." In other words, you're claiming that Miller said the opposite of what she actually said.

Welcome to topsy-turvy boris-world, where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

boris

people were trying to please him by reporting every possible detail they could think of

Reporting every possible detail is not an answer to the question. Rather it is a DumbasS non-answer.

Specifically if she was not involved in a meaningful way in the mission then that detail is as irrelevant as the insignificant size of her role. No "need to know" that detail. Requirments of law still apply. Proper disclosure to authorized personel REQUIRES classified designation.

So why on multiple occasions without prompting or request did Harlow and Grenier offer that detail in violation of law and need to know protocol? In such fashion that the default assumption would be not classified.

Two possible responses so far ...

(1) The CIA officials tremble in the presence of Libby and Cathie Martin and spill their guts about everything they know ...

(2) The CIA officials considerd Plame's role significant enough to use as a lame ass excuse for sending a blundering assclown to Niger and did not consider Plame classified.

Unless you got something better looks like (2) wins. So once again ...

Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

boris: My point EXACTLY !!!

Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???

boris

Miller has been all over the map, and in jail. Miller has admitted she had other sources but could not remember who they were in her GJ testimony.

In her subsequent reconstruction (under duress) of a meeting she did not remember based on cryptic notes she now "believes" her note referencing "the bureau" in hindsight referred to the CIA.

Her words and actions indicate she would not testify to the grand jury until Fitz agreed to limit his questions about sources to just Libby. Based on those words and actions the June meeting between Libby and Miller hardly qualifies as a known leak.

The Miller counts were dropped at trial for lack of credible evidence.

OTOH, the leak from Armitage to Woodward is rememberd and admitted by both and on tape.

clarice

Douglas, has anyone told you you're a tiresome ignoramus? If not, let me be the first.
At trial Miller admitted that written in her notebook before she spoke to Libby was Wilson's name and phone no with the proper extension number; variations on Plame's name all of which she indicated were not from the conversation with Libby.

With Wilson buzzing around with Keller and her previous contacts in DoS and CIA (she coauthored a book on bio weapons and dealt with the WMD people in that connection) it iis hardly surprising that she had some knowledge about Plame well before she met with Libby and her notes confirm this.
BTW whatever she said "Bureau" is never a synonym for the CIA.If Libby said Plame worked for the Bureau, he evidenced far less knowledge or revealed less than Armitage did earlier to Woodward.

DouglasS

boris: "Cooper claimed Libby said 'heard that too or words to that effect'. "

True. This is what Cooper said:

I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger.  Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."

Cooper went on to say (in the same transcript) that he interpreted this as a confirmation. In other words, this was a leak: an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. SF-312 makes this clear:

confirmation of its accuracy [that is, the accuracy of classified information that was disclosed previously] is also an unauthorized disclosure
boris

So what you idiot? Coop already knew. Not a leak then is it.

"Heard that too" is not confirmation of anything except "heard that too"

X: hey did you hear on the internet that DumbasS is a pedophile ???

Y: Yeah I heard that too ...

Guess it's confirmed, DumbasS is a pedophile.

DouglasS

boris: "Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops 'It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!'
If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???"

I think I'm finally catching on to what you're really trying to say here. It goes like this: the CIA was supposed to realize that the White House was full of traitorous boobs who couldn't be trusted with classified information, and who would gladly out a covert agent at the drop of a hat, if they thought they could hide it and get away with it, and if they thought there was some chance of political gain as a result. So the CIA had a duty to try to withhold classified information from the White House.

Makes a lot of sense, now that I stop to think about it.

boris

Good one DumbasS!

Make up even more sh!t to spew with your vomitous drivel. Can hardly wait to skip over it all!

BTW passing information that was not designated classified is not unauthorized disclosure.

boris

Miller and Mitchell worked the CIA intel beat heavy. Mitchell claimed all the reporters in that clique knew who Valerie was.

Miller had Wilson and Valerie/Victoria Flame/Plame earlier in the notebook she used to reconstruct her memory of the Libby meet.

DumbasS ... she already knew. Not a leak.

Maybeex

DouglasS:True. This is what Cooper said:

I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."

Cooper went on to say (in the same transcript) that he interpreted this as a confirmation.

Whatever Libby said, it was more effective than what Harlow said. Novak went to print, Cooper didn't.

DouglasS

cecil: "It's the 'they leaked for revenge' theory that doesn't make any sense . . . and hey, whaddya know, that also checks, because it never happened."

Really? What "never happened?" Are you claiming the White House didn't leak Plame's identity? Are you claiming that the White House was not engaged in a systematic effort to discredit Wilson? Libby essentially admitted as much. Are you claiming that purpose of the leak was not to discredit Wilson? What other purpose could there have been?

As far as "revenge," Fitz claimed that the White House engaged in "a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson" (pdf). Are you claiming that the White House was doing something other than this, by outing Plame?

DouglasS

boris: "So what truth did Libby have to cover up by claiming Russert told him about Wilson's wife after admitting up front that he first heard from Cheney?"

Libby didn't just say "Russert told him." He said "Russert told him" and it sounded new. In other words, he claimed to have forgotten that Cheney had already told him. In other words, he was essentially claiming that Plame was not important to him or Cheney. He implied that Cheney mentioned Plame in passing, and then Libby promptly forgot about it. And heard it "as if for the first time" from Russert, later.

The purpose of all this was to cover up "what truth?" The purpose of all this was to cover up the following truth: that Plame was in fact a very important matter at OVP during this period, and lots of people were talking about her on a regular basis.

DouglasS

boris: "If she was not covert and did initiate the mission, it is perfectly reasonable for Libby to pass on that relevant information from the CIA to the public."

If "it is perfectly reasonable for Libby to pass on that relevant information from the CIA to the public," then why did Libby ask Miller to hide his identity?

boris

All of which even if it were true is neither illegal or embarassing.

Facts in evidence indicate that was not true. Not disproven, but the absence of evidence in this case is sufficient to cast doubt on any claim of "very important matter at OVP during this period". If it were there would be notes and doucmentation. Later when Lying Joe's oped appeared, so did notes and documentation. See? Cause and effect.

boris

then why did Libby ask Miller to hide his identity?

Selection of description is fairly typical for release to the press.

But then I don't actually know, just "heard that too". Everything that I don't know for certain does not prove your idiotic delusions DumbasS. It's just more examples of trying to use your own lack of imagination as some kind of moonbat "evidence" when it's really just you being your DumbasS self.

boris

then why did Libby ask Miller to hide his identity?

Selection of description is fairly typical for release to the press.

But then I don't actually know, just "heard that too". Everything that I don't know for certain does not prove your idiotic delusions DumbasS. It's just more examples of trying to use your own lack of imagination as some kind of moonbat "evidence" when it's really just you being your DumbasS self.

DouglasS

boris: "Relevant law"

Not exactly.

Let's review. cylco had said this:

The CIA has every right to transmit secret information to people who have duly sworn oaths not to reveal secret information

You responded by citing IIPA, which says this:

The term "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented

The text you cite does not indicate that CIA is obliged to make sure that all classified material is "clearly marked" (although that's obviously a good idea). Likewise, the text you cite does not indicate that all material that is not "clearly marked" is automatically declassified (that's obviously an absurd proposition).

The text you cite is only defining "classified information" within the context of IIPA. The text you cite only indicates this: if the material is not "clearly marked," then IIPA does not apply.

Let's make this really simple for you. The text you cite does not indicate that there's a free pass to leak any and all information that happens to not be "clearly marked." The text you cite only indicates that if the material is not "clearly marked," then IIPA does not apply.

Let's assume for a moment that CIA conveyed material that was not "clearly marked," and then the White House leaked this material. Based on the text you cite, you can argue that IIPA does not apply. Nevertheless, this fact remains: the White House leaked classified material, in violation of SF-312.

DouglasS

boris: "It's not plausibe that all those CIA and State Dept officials were unaware of the laws regarding classified information."

It's not plausible that all those CIA and State Dept officials were unaware of SF-312, which stipulates that if you're not sure, you must ask first. In other words, they reasonably assumed that the White House was not filled with traitorous boobs who would leak Plame's employment status without lifting a finger to ask if that was OK.

boris

Sorry DumbasS that was completely incoherent.

The definition of classified provided by Cecil is very clear on this point. Your poast was very muddled. I'm sticking with the law because your DumbasS assertions are utterly inane.

Forget SF-312. There is nothing "uncertain" about information directly released by CIA officials without classified designation.

It aint. If they screwed up, the unauthorized disclosure is theirs alone.

DouglasS

boris: "she really did get him the gig"

According the material recently released by Bond (pdf, p. 210), she wasn't "involved in the decisionmaking." Bond has been forced to backpedal: "[we] never claimed that Mrs. Wilson made the decision to send him …"

You insist on repeatedly demonstrating that you are completely impervious to facts.

boris

SF-312, which stipulates that if you're not sure

No it does not.

Repeating your stupid DumbasS assertions over and over does not make them any less stupid. In fact it just makes them stupider and stupider.

The classification of information released directly by CIA officials wihtout classified designation is not by default designated "uncertain".

The classification of information released directly by CIA officials wihtout classified designation is by default designated "unclassified".

DouglasS

clarice: "The myopia of the political elite"

Clarice! So nice of you to stop by. Speaking of myopia, I was hoping you would tell us why you said this:

The NYT's Risen published the Comey story in 2004

As I pointed out earlier, you're making things up, as usual.

DouglasS

cecil: "The OVP talking points were presented at trial. … a pretty good indicator of how they 'plotted' to respond to Wilson. Note 'Plame' is absent from any of the documents"

Duh. Of course the "talking points" didn't mention Plame. That's because the "talking points" were about talking publicly. They weren't dumb enough to leak the classified information publicly. They knew they had to do that secretly, and they did.

And while it's true that " 'Plame' is absent" from the "talking points," she is pointedly not absent from Cheney's clipping of Wilson's article, on which we see this handwritten note, in Cheney's handwriting (pdf):

did his wife send him on a junket

When you said " 'Plame' is absent from any of the documents," you weren't trying to mislead anyone, right?

DouglasS

cecil: "his trip report was so earth-shaking the CIA briefers decided not to bother the VP with it"

Wait a minute. Stop the presses. Didn't his report prove the yellowcake allegations were true? Weren't those three magic words ("expanding commercial relations") indeed considered "earth-shaking" evidence to support the yellowcake allegations? It seems to me that's exactly the claim that we've been hearing for several years now.

The problem with the Bushist narrative is that it requires the simultaneous acceptance of so many contradictory realities. A skill particular to wingnuts.

clarice

Did I say that story by Risen was written in 2004?That is a typo, not a lie, doug(Jeff?). The event took place in 2004. Risen wrote about it in 2006.

Does that substantially alter the substance of what I said earlier? Indict me.

clarice

I also misspelled Ashcroft--well it was very late for me-stil, I suppose those two typos mean--ta dum-30 months and a quarter million dollar fine..

DouglasS

boris: "Well answering a reasonable question by stating that CIA officials 'have every right' to violate classified information laws and need to know protocols is not actually elevating anything."

As I have explained, you're making a false claim. Your "classified information laws" is a reference to IIPA. It is not a violation of IIPA for CIA to convey documents that are not "clearly marked" as classified. IIPA simply stipulates that IIPA does not apply, in that situation.

As far as "need to know:" when top management asks an emphatic question, that falls under "need to know." Folks who claim otherwise should probably have their resumes ready.

DouglasS

boris: " 'if you are unsure ...' is not the same as 'if you aren't sure ...' "

Are you sure? Really? "Unsure" is not a synonym for "not sure?" Are you going to wait a couple of days and then plead the typo defense, like Clarice did, or are you going to stick with this?

You're descending further and further into pure, unadulterated nonsense. That fits right in with war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

DouglasS

clarice: "she [Miller] had some knowledge about Plame well before she met with Libby and her notes confirm this."

The issue is not whether or not she had "some knowledge about Plame." The issue is whether or not she knew Plame worked for CIA. Are you claiming someone else told Miller this before Libby told Miller this?

Cecil Turner

Repeating your stupid DumbasS assertions over and over does not make them any less stupid. In fact it just makes them stupider and stupider.

Yeah, if we really needed more confirmation this was jukeboxgrad (as if the "number of examples" . . . ":zero"; "too cowardly to address"; "I proved . . ." and other patented juke-isms weren't enough), the repetitive nonsense posts at the end of the thread are dispositive.

Juke, Africa‡Niger, the SF312 does not override the statute, and the sky is not orange. Feel free to "prove" such nonsense as many times as you wish. But get a new handle, because this one is blown.

lurker9876


clarice: "she [Miller] had some knowledge about Plame well before she met with Libby and her notes confirm this."

The issue is not whether or not she had "some knowledge about Plame." The issue is whether or not she knew Plame worked for CIA. Are you claiming someone else told Miller this before Libby told Miller this?

It's apparent that Judy knew that Plame worked for CIA. She and other journalists were in the middle of the brouhaha. Surely, many of them knew about Plame and that she worked for CIA. Judy has not revealed who exactly told her but it was not Libby.

Cecil is correct that SF312 does not override the statute and boris is right that it is CIA's responsibility to mark classified data as classified. This is as per IIPA. You did not read Toensing's opening statement and her opening statements do not make her a hack. She is not a hack.

Unmarked classified data is not a disclosure or a leak; therefore, not a IIPA violation or the two criminal statutes.

Juke/dumbasS/jeff/doug/cyclo/looking for a way out, it gets more obvious that none of you have ever had security clearance.

DouglasS

cecil: "more confirmation"

We obviously need no further confirmation that you're a serial fibber. You're still indulging in your classic behavior of inventing your own facts, and then failing to take responsibility, when caught.

We're still waiting for you to explain why you tried to get away with creating the impression (here) that the forged documents had only three "telltale signs of forgery." That's false, as I pointed out (here).

Your claim is not just a falsehood; it's a highly material falsehood. The fact that CIA spent over a year treating an obvious forgery, on a crucial subject, as genuine, is one the central clues that Bush deliberately misled us into war, and it's a major unsolved mystery. It's directly connected to the fact that Bushists repeatedly promote the false idea that we had no detailed information about the documents until 10/02. That's no accident. It's also directly connected to the fact that no righty blogger or columnist, as far as I can tell, has ever even mentioned that we had complete, detailed verbatim text in 2/02. That's no accident, either.

It's also directly connected to the fact that no righty blogger or columnist, as far as I can tell, has ever cited what Robb-Silberman said: the verbatim text included the errors which reveal the forgery (and of course in your false claim you completely gloss over this highly material fact), which means that CIA could have, should have, and probably did, detect the forgery in 2/02. That's no accident, either.

All these deceptions, including yours, have the purpose of deliberately obscuring facts that are crucially important and highly damaging to Bush.

Meanwhile, even though I've pointed out your falsehood several times, you've said nothing. Instead, you've busied yourself floating lots of other deceptions, and pursuing your obsession with my identity, which couldn't be less relevant to the facts under discussion.

How many times do you need to be reminded that you lied? Or are you going to wait a couple of days and pull some kind of "typo" defense, like Clarice just did? It won't work, because you clearly devoted more than a trivial amount of effort to structuring your deception, which very explicitly promotes the idea that there are only three "telltale signs of forgery." And of course you were careful about cherry-picking the three items that best served your deception.

Yes, you pointed to the source document, but you counted on the fact that most people here don't bother with their own investigating and thinking, and you counted on the fact that the document is long, detailed, and confusing, and it takes a close look, including a fair amount of scrolling, reading, and consideration, to realize that the actual number of "telltale signs of forgery" is materially higher than three. It would probably take most casual observers at least 5-10 minutes to figure this out, and you realize that most people are not putting that kind of time into investigating every single claim that scrolls by in a thread like this.

It's no surprise that you repeatedly distort a wide variety of highly material facts, since you worship a gang of crooks who have implemented that technique on a massive scale.

DouglasS

lurker: "you did not read Toensing's opening statement"

As has been pointed out, your impairment in separating assertion, opinion and fact is way off the scale, even for this joint. And that's saying a lot.

You're a mental slave who has no capacity beyond regurgitating talking points. You fit in perfectly here.

boris

Really? "Unsure" is not a synonym for "not sure?"

That is correct DumbasS.

The term used is "uncertain" but same deal ... "uncertain" is not a synonym for "not certain".

Just as "unlucky" is not a synonym for "not lucky". One can be lucky, one can be unlucky, one can be neither.

The problem with your formulation is ...

Since the term used is "uncertain" that's the one you need to prove. Prove Libby was "uncertain". You can't.

So you want to claim by default he was "not certain". Not how it works DumbasS.

The classification of information released directly by CIA officials without classified designation is not by default designated "uncertain".

The classification of information released directly by CIA officials without classified designation is by default designated "unclassified".

lurker9876

"As has been pointed out, your impairment in separating assertion, opinion and fact is way off the scale, even for this joint. And that's saying a lot.

You're a mental slave who has no capacity beyond regurgitating talking points. You fit in perfectly here."

How nice. I do a great job separating assertion, opinion, and fact. You have been way off the scale, even for this joint and that's saying alot. Everyone has been disproving you the whole time.

boris has been right all along.

lurker9876

According to Toensing's opening statement:

The following factors must be present for a government employee to violate the Act:

1. The United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States;

2. The person disclosing the identity knows that the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;

3. The person disclosing the indetity knows that the information so identifies the covert agent.

4. The covert agent whose identity was disclosed is an employee of an intelligence agency.

5. The covert agent whose identity was disclosed has a relationship with such agency that is classified.

6. At the time of disclosure, the covert agent whose identity was disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five years of the disclosure, and

7. The disclosure was intentional.

In a prosecution, all these factors, which are called elements of the offense, must be proven beyond a reasonable dout. Two of these factors were particularly important in drafting the law: 1) the definition of "covert agent", including the requirement of serving outside the country; and 2) the law's requirement that the government take "affirmative" measures to conceal the agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.

Nope. No violation of IIPA.

boris

Italiacto!

DouglasS

may: "I posted his article to provide his exact wording"

Your comment is awfully hard to read (it shows up in all italics, even on Windows; earlier you encouraged me to use italics; I didn't mention that this is yet another reason why I avoid them, generally), but I'll respond to this one point, for now.

Yes, in one place (here), you "posted his article to provide his exact wording." Trouble is, in another place (here), you paraphrased him in a fraudulent manner, by trying to put these words in his mouth:

he has said her job was known a little around town

That's not a fair paraphrase, as I pointed out here.

This is the sort of thing that folks like boris, cecil and lurker do all the time. You just seem to do this occasionally. But you are following in their footsteps by refusing to take responsibility for your false statement.

boris

refusing to take responsibility

Not your blog DumbasS.

lurker9876

No, we do not. We clearly showed that you did not quote something in full and lost your argument. You have refused to take responsibility for false statement. Boris, cecil, may, and I do take responsibility in showing facts to you. You continue to lose your arguments. Your insulting comments are turning many people off.

DouglasS

boris: " 'uncertain' is not a synonym for 'not certain' "

How Clintonesque of you. This is highly entertaining. Please consider the following text (let's call it A):

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it.

Now please consider this (let's call it B):

I understand that if I am not certain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it.

You're claiming that A and B are materially different, and they make the difference between proper behavior on the part of Libby et al, as compared with improper behavior on the part of Libby et al.

Really? Please think carefully about your answer, while I go get some more popcorn.

The total and utter collapse of your 'reasoning' is simply a microcosm of what's happening to the GOP overall.

Cecil Turner

Your insulting comments are turning many people off.

Juke has been banned from so many sites it's comical . . . hence the cycling pseudonym game. I suspect the main goal is to turn people off. The long ad hom diatribes at the end are part of the schtick, and I don't bother reading them any more.

Recommend not feeding this particular troll, unless you feel the need to bash a bit.

lurker9876

Thank you, cecil. And the main goal for Juke is to win his absurd arguments that are not based on facts.

boris

DouglasS wants to determine what all the words mean. No way, that little postmodern trick (control the language = control reality) is too well known here DumbasS.

The word "job" can take meaning from context.

Val's job known about town was "intelligence analyst".

Val's unknown job at the CIA was "WMD proliferation".

Your other language aruments are also stupid. A and B are materially different. Your apparent lack of understanding is not a valid argument otherwise.

Lucky = good luck

Unlucky = bad luck

Neither = not lucky and not unlucky

Therefore "unlucky" is not the same as "not lucky"

See? your logic is exposed as stupid and this is the 3rd time, which proves you are incapable of understanding it. IOW a dumbass DumbasS.

Maybeex

DouglasS- was it too much work for you to scroll down to the post I posted 3 minutes (and 4 comments) later to get to Kristof's actual quote? I paraphrased and then provided the actual article. Any you keep harping on my responsibility.
How weird.

boris

Since DumbasS is incapable of following a simple analogy (yet pontificates at others lack of responsibility in word usage), this series example from wikipedia shows the problem with the DumbasS either/or claims regarding certainty/uncertainty ...

Nihilism
Agnosticism

Uncertainty

Probability
Estimation
Belief
Justified true belief

Certainty

Determinism

The language has a fair number of options between certainty and uncertainty. Do you get it now? (probably not).

boris

With the DumbasS condescendingly mocking arguments on "uncertainty" conslusively shown to be not only false but outrageously preposterous one wonders if DumbasS will "take responsibility" for trashing the discussion with bogus drek and "apologize" for all the smarmy pontifications about word usage here?

Any bets?

DouglasS

boris: "the language has a fair number of options between certainty and uncertainty"

Naturally. But understanding the plain language of SF-312 doesn't require getting into a discussion about such things as nihilism and determinism. Unless you're boris, and you've said something deeply absurd, and you're too much of a moral midget to admit it.

The fact remains that "not certain" and "uncertain" are plainly synonyms. The prefix "un" connotes negation, just like the word "not." Good luck convincing anyone that these two ways of connoting negation are not interchangeable, or that one implies a different degree of negation than the other. That's essentially what you're claiming, and it's utter nonsense.

Here's an idea: try looking up "un" (as a prefix) in a dictionary. The typical definition is this: "not." Here's an example:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law … Main Entry: un- Function: prefix 1 : not 2 : contrary to

Here's another example:

un- … used to add the meaning "not," "lacking," or "the opposite of" to adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and nouns  unrealistic unhappily unfasten unfairness

(from Cambridge Dictionary of American English)

Another example here. And so on.

Anyway, now that we know you live on a planet where "uncertain" means something other than "not certain," it's interesting to note some other features of your planet:

"unable" means something other than "not able"
"unacceptable" means something other than "not acceptable"
"unafraid" means something other than "not afraid"
"unarmed" means something other than "not armed"
(obviously there are many, many other examples)

And of course, "uncertain" means something other than "not certain." So we deeply appreciate your inadvertent gift of humor, where you said precisely that:

'uncertain' is not a synonym for 'not certain'

You can't make this stuff up.

"smarmy pontifications about word usage"

This smarmy pontification of mine is about something bigger than "word usage." It's about being able to notice when someone is so committed to hiding the truth that they twist the language beyond recognition.

As someone once said, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. In other words, this is a serious matter.

boris

Pound sand DumbasS.

The plain language of SF-312 specifically uses "uncertain". Too bad. Prove Libby was uncertain or frak off.

The existence of other mutually exclusive terms was not disputed.

The FACT that certain/uncertain are not mutually exclusive has been established beyond dispute.

You are a class A bonehead and until you take responsibility for your smarmy pontifications about word usage and trashing the discussion with bogus drek you'll get nothing more than well deserved insults.

DumbasS.

boris

From one of your own DumbasS links comes refutation you apparently lack the comprenhension to understand ...

to do the opposite of, reverse
... uninstall ...

Here's the clue you apparently need to get it ...

You can install the new software.

You can UNinstall the old software.

Or you can do NEITHER. You are not logically bound to perform one or the other.

Get it yet? (probably not)

clarice

Pls note what I posted on the Andrea thread--10 prominent law professors have filed with Walton a memo saying the argument on the appointments clause is meritorious --If ts or Sunny Day or Cboldt read this and can get the filing, it would be interesting to see who besides Dershowitz and Bork signed that memo.

boris

Cecil Turner

Hi, my name is jukeboxgrad,
my life is really rather sad,
I hang out here at Daily Kos
my signature: I'm quite verbose.

"Liar liar," "cowardly,"
is my favorite litany.
But all the while I sing that hymn,
I have to mask my pseudonym.

When shown impossibility:
in statute writ or time gyration,
laws are "technicality";
intel: "flimsy speculation."

I used to sock puppet a lot,
but then I found, I just get caught;
every point a fallacy;
(ad hominem primarily).

I "prove" the specious every day,
like Africa means Niger, say;
I try to help the masses see
The wisdom of St Valerie.

I praise St Joseph to the skies,
and read his gospel every day;
I "speak the truth" to right-wing-lies,
and don't let facts get in my way.

Through all of this I cannot see,
why very few will play with me;
they just tell me "go away,"
when all I want to do is stay.

Perhaps I'll give up noxious dreck,
and try to be a pleasant guest.
Nay! Tie a porkchop 'round my neck,
And flog this nonsense as my best.

clarice

Excellent, Cecil..

boris

Certainly excellent in no uncertain terms.

Cecil Turner

Easy crowd.

clarice

*THWACK*

DouglasS

boris: "The FACT that certain/uncertain are not mutually exclusive has been established beyond dispute."

You're mixing up two separate ideas. I can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest. Both, maybe. They're not "mutually exclusive."

It's reasonable to talk about degrees of certainty (and that's what you're getting at with your comment about "mutually exclusive"). What's not reasonable is to claim that "uncertain" and "not certain" have different meanings. They don't. Trouble is, you claimed they do:

'uncertain' is not a synonym for 'not certain'

That's nothing but funny. The prefix "un-," by definition, means "not."

'Uncertain' (the word in SF-312), has a very simple meaning: 'not completely sure.' If Libby was not completely sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified, that means Libby violated SF-312. It's that simple. (Likewise for Armitage, Rove, and Fleischer.)

I can't prove that Libby wasn't completely sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified. Likewise, you can't prove that he was completely sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified. We're both speculating about this. However, the facts tend to point in my direction. If he was completely sure, that would probably indicate the existence of an affirmative statement that gave him reason to be sure. For example, imagine that CIA plainly said to him "she's not classified."

Trouble is, if Libby had ever heard such a statement, he would have been screaming about it long ago. This silence on his part tends to create the impression that there was never any such statement. In other words, I think the burden is on you to show that he had some reason to be sure her employment status was unclassified. It's not good enough to say (as you indeed seem to be saying) that he decided to simply assume that her employment status was unclassified, because he was relying on the idea that ostensibly CIA failed to affirmatively inform him, one way or another. That's good enough, potentially, to get him out from under IIPA, but it's not good enough to get him out from under SF-312.

Here's another very strong circumstantial indication that he was not sure her employment status was unclassified. He asked Miller to hide his identity. He had no reason to do so, except if he wanted to avoid being held accountable for what he was telling her. And he would have no reason to want to avoid being held accountable for what he was telling her if he was sure that Plame's employment status was unclassified.

Earlier, lurker made a big deal about Miller's words which supposedly explain why Libby was hiding. Lurker quoted Miller saying this:

Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson

Lurker claimed that this answered the question, but in fact it answers nothing. The question remains, and the question is why. Why would Libby "not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson," if the attack was legitimate, and necessary, and earned, and based on truth and fact, and done for proper reasons, and done without compromising classified information? Answer: there would be no reason.

The reason "Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson" is this: Libby knew that everything about the attack was improper. They had no basis to attack Wilson in a legitimate manner, because Wilson was right: the Niger allegation was false, and based on phony documents. So they did everything they could to secretly smear him, using whatever raw materials they could get their hands on. This included lies, as well as classified information. These materials were used to build a narrative about how Plame gives good junket. This narrative was both irrelevant and false, but it successfully distracted and confused lots of people.

Someone upthread (I forget who) tried to brush aside this question (the question of why Libby hid) by pointing out that lots of people do what Libby did (insist on speaking off-the-record). That's true. But there's always a reason, and the reason can be either legitimate or not. In this instance, there's no conceivable reason that is both plausible and legitimate.

Anyway, you're promoting the following idea: when in doubt, the proper policy is to err in the direction of having a big mouth. It's highly entertaining to find the Party of National Security promoting this novel idea. It's an idea that's contrary to SF-312, and also contrary to common sense.

What's even more contrary to common sense, if that's possible, is to claim that "un-" means something other than "not."

boris

The prefix "un-," by definition, means "not."

Don't be stupid DumbasS. "Uninstall" does not mean "not install". "Unlucky" does not mean "not lucky". So your rule has obvious exceptions, therefore it's not a universal rule. From Cecil's excellent post ...

(2) Making a statement in which "all" is implied but "some" is true (pp 27-38)

Your "by definition" is nonsense.

to claim that "un-" means something other than "not."

Sometimes it simply means "not". Sometimes it goes beyond "not" as in unlucky is beyond not lucky. The lucky gambler wins money. The luckless gambler breaks even. The unlucky gambler loses money.

(where NOT lucky = luckless + unlucky)

Your claim that UN always = NOT is disproven. Your lack of honesty or comprehension or both prevents you from taking responsibility for smarmy pontifications about word usage and trashing the discussion with bogus drek.

boris

Let the degrees of certainty set = { certain, believed, likely, uncertain }

The set of NOT CERTAIN = { believed, likely, uncertain }

The set of UNCERTAIN = { uncertain }

The set of NOT CERTAIN is NOT EQUAL TO the set of UNCERTAIN.

DouglasS

may: "I paraphrased and then provided the actual article"

You have a ways to go before your credibility is as bad some of the other characters here, but you're picking up speed in your race to the bottom.

Let's review. You posted a fraudulent paraphrase of Kristof (here). A few minutes later, you posted a long passage of his (here). A careful reader could have read that passage and figured out that your prior paraphrase was fraudulent. However, you said nothing about this. In other words, you said nothing like 'oops, I see now that what he actually said isn't what I claimed he said.'

At this point, a generous person could have assumed that you simply had made a careless mistake. However, you quickly made clear that such generosity would be unwarranted.

I challenged your fraudulent paraphrase (here). You responded (here) by pretending that your paraphrase wasn't fraudulent. So I challenged you again (here). You responded with this evasive statement: "I posted his article to provide his exact wording." Now you have responded again with this evasive statement: "I paraphrased and then provided the actual article."

"Any you keep harping on my responsibility."

Indeed, because you're irresponsible. You still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that your paraphrase was wrong. The fact that you later posted correct material doesn't mean you're entitled to pretend that your earlier incorrect material wasn't incorrect.

I went to the trouble of documenting this because it's a very typical example of what goes on here constantly: not just rampant misinformation, but folks having an aggressively, shamelessly irresponsible attitude about their entitlement to spread rampant misinformation.

I'm not suggesting that this should stop: on the contrary. Being able to see clearly how the GOP behaves at the bottom is very instructive when it comes to understanding the way the GOP behaves at the top.

boris

Another Illustration ...

  • Humans Cause Global Warming ... CERTAINLY TRUE
  • Humans Cause Global Warming ... WIDELY BELIEVED
  • Humans Cause Global Warming ... VERY LIKELY TRUE
  • Humans Cause Global Warming ... UNCERTAIN AT THIS TIME

One can take the position that “Humans Cause Global Warming is VERY LIKELY TRUE” without being UNCERTAIN yet still be NOT CERTAIN.

boris

You still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that ...

Hilarious self parody DumbasS. You still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you are a clueless moron without a shred of responsibility, decency or honesty.

Pound sand.

DouglasS

boris: "hymn"

It's been a long time since I inspired poetry, so I have to say I'm kind of touched. I also have to say that last time around the quality was much better, but don't take it personally.

"here"

If you're interested in promoting that material, I can't think of any reason to discourage you. However, you might as well pick from a much longer list, with an obvious search like this: http://www.google.com/search?q=jukeboxgrad.

Who knows; somewhere in there you might even find inspiration for more poetry.

Anyway, it's clear that you've got lots of time on your hands. Here's an idea: use some of it to explain why you told a nasty lie.

boris

Ha, is that all you got DumbasS?

Pathetic.

Cecil Turner

Note further classic Juke-isms: doesn't actually deny being Juke (that'd be a lie, after all) . . . just pretends it isn't proven. But simultaneously takes credit for verse that mentions only Juke's handle.

Here's an idea: use some of it to explain why you told a nasty lie.

We've done the "liar liar" thing 'round here before. But I enjoy making you look silly, so . . .

As the addenda to the SSCI noted:

Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.
More importantly, the CIA only had "verbatim text" of one document. Peter Eisner claims it was this document, but the quotes in the SSCI (e.g., "500 tons") rather strongly suggests he's mistaken and it was this one. That's the one listed as "document 1: The Presidents letter" in your handy link. Hence when listing the "errors," the three relating to that document aren't cherry-picking, they're the only relevant data. And the only significant one of those that would be apparent from the "verbatim text" is the date of the constitution.

(Note: if Eisner is correct, the only document they had was the "cover letter" listed as Doc 5, so those would be the only pertinent errors. I find that hard to credit, but it's possible . . . and no definitive source I'm aware of cites the actual text received by CIA. But in any event, it's only the one, and you need to "cherry pick" the pertinent data, not lump it all in.)

Now getting to your own truncated quote from Silberman-Robb:

The errors in the original documents, which indicated they were forgeries, also occur in the February 2002 report that provided a "verbatim" text of the agreement, indicating that the original reporting was based on the forged documents. [rest of footnote and emphasis added]
Note the point: not that they "reveal the errors" (though they properly chide the CIA for not even checking) . . . but that it's from the same source.

I find it more than a little humorous that you chide others for "cherry picking" the only pertinent parts of a source (and claim it's a "nasty lie"), but feel no compunction over truncating single sentences to change the meaning and make a bogus point. And again, it's typical Juke.

DouglasS

boris: "Let the degrees of certainty set = { certain, believed, likely, uncertain }"

You're affecting rigor, but it's bogus, because you're using distorted definitions. You're pretending that 'certain' can only mean 'perfectly certain.' Likewise, you're pretending that 'uncertain' can only mean 'totally uncertain.' This way you get to place other words in the middle, and claim they're separate from 'certain' and 'uncertain.' Trouble is, they're not. They're only separate from 'perfectly certain' and 'totally uncertain.'

In other words, 'believed' is not separate from 'certain.' It's just a flavor, or degree, of 'certain,' just like 'perfectly certain' is a flavor of 'certain.' Certainty is a matter of degree, so we have other words, like 'believed' or 'likely,' that we use as qualifiers to express just how certain or uncertain we are.

You're coming up with your own distorted definitions because you're determined to force a particular result. Here's a better idea: accept the plain meaning of the words and accept wherever they lead you.

In a way, what you're doing is this: you're pretending that SF-312 said 'totally uncertain.' Trouble is, it only said 'uncertain.'

"Your claim that UN always = NOT is disproven"

There are exceptions to almost everything. Yes, I imagine it's possible to find exceptions to the rule that un=not (although I think the examples you've shown, i.e., 'unlucky' and 'uninstall,' are quite forced and questionable). However, you haven't proven that "uncertain" is one of those exceptions. You wish that to be so, and you've claimed that to be so, but you haven't proven it to be so. One way to prove it would be to bring an authority more convincing than boris, but you haven't done so. In the absence of a reason to treat it as an exception, it's reasonable to understand that it's not an exception.

Anyway, 'uncertain' is not a complicated word. Look it up. Here are some typical definitions:

not completely confident or sure
not known beyond doubt
not completely certain
not having sure knowledge
not sure
not established beyond doubt
not established or confirmed

These definitions all plainly indicate that 'uncertain' and 'not certain' mean the same thing. So no matter what definition you choose, the outcome is the same: Libby is in trouble with regard to SF-312, because the circumstances seem to indicate that he was not in a position to be 'completely confident' that Plame's employment status was unclassified. (Substitute any of the other definitions and the analysis comes out the same way.)

And it's not just that he was not in a position to be sure. It's that his behavior (i.e. his hiding) shows that he knew he wasn't sure. And the reality might easily be worse: that he was sure her status was classified.

Here's an idea: take a small fraction of the energy you're putting into puerile insults, and make an attempt to answer this simple question that's being universally ducked: if he had nothing to hide, why was he hiding?

This question reliably elicits the deafening sound of crickets. Of course, the silence itself is an answer. It tends to confirm the obvious: Libby was hiding because he had something to hide.

Cecil Turner

In a way, what you're doing is this: you're pretending that SF-312 said 'totally uncertain.' Trouble is, it only said 'uncertain.'

Still stupid, Juke. The statute says it has to be "clearly marked or clearly represented." Dance all around your insisted interpretation of "uncertain," and the SF-312 is still irrelevant to the criminal IIPA prosecution.

Moreover, it's ridiculous: by your standard, one would have to check every single fact ever uttered, because you couldn't be "certain" it wasn't classified.

Maybeex

Moreover, it's ridiculous: by your standard, one would have to check every single fact ever uttered, because you couldn't be "certain" it wasn't classified.

Which is all the more hilarious because JukeboxGrad himself complains about having to scroll a quarter page to get clarification of a quote someone else provided him.

Cecil Turner

Further, Armitage illustrates just how silly this contention is. Here a guy that reads a paragraph from a Top Secret document, picks the info out of a paragraph clearly marked "S" for "Secret," and he concludes the CIA officer's identity can't be the part that's classified:

Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says.

Fitz apparently accepts this at face value (probably because it's correct . . . she shouldn't have been mentioned in the document at all, and it was almost certainly because the INR guy didn't know her identity was classified . . . because she never warned him it was). Contrast that with Libby hearing it in snippets of conversation with no hint it was sensitive. The idea that he could possibly be liable while Armitage was not is ludicrous.

Cecil Turner

Well, I'm to bed. While you're "proving" me a liar in your long upcoming posts Juke, why don't you admit (or deny) your identity? That ought to provide a useful metric on the height of the moral high ground from whence your pronouncements emanate.

cathyf

Here's a different sort of example. Suppose there was a document outlining some nuclear weapons research being proposed for Los Alamos. It has details of secret weapons, and is marked "secret/noforn". It includes a "sales pitch" section which outlines Los Alamos' long history going back to the Manhatten project.

Should a reader of this document be "uncertain" of whether the fact that Richard Feynman worked on the Manhatten Project is classified or not? Of course not.

Armitage's argument is basicly a fact inadvertantly confirmed by Larry Johnson: there are two kinds of CIA employees -- TOP SECRET / CODEWORD employees and UNCLASSIFIED employees. Given a memo labelled "SECRET / NOFORN" that discusses a CIA employee, the sure conclusion that can be drawn is that the employee is UNCLASSIFIED. Because, as Armitage said, TOP SECRET / CODEWORD information can't be found in a SECRET / NOFORN document. There are only TWO kinds of CIA employees, and SECRET / NOFORN isn't one of those kinds.

boris

because you're using distorted definitions. You're pretending that 'certain' can only mean 'perfectly certain.

The distorted "definitions" (wrong word DumbasS) come from wikipedia. Take it up with them.

Perfectly certain? Talk about projection! That's your scam DumbasS. If Libby can't be perfectly certain that 2 CIA officials aren't breaking laws governing classified information he is obliged to check up on the intel in some other way.

But ... If you want to allow degrees of certainty like imperfectly certain instead of resonable belief that CIA officials, whose function is to properly manage information for the administration and the public, are acting proplerly within the law and "need to know" protocols, then FINE HAVE IT YOUR FRAKKIN WAY DUMBASS !

I WILL GRANT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OUR DICSUSSION THAT IMPERFECTLY CERTAIN IS AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO REASONABLE BELIEF.

And yes. Libby is entitled to the default assumption that it is resonable to believe (or your alternative) CIA officials have acted properly in disclosing undesignated, therefore unclassified, information about Wilson's wife. Either way Libby is NOT UNCERTAIN whether you call it imperfect certainty or reasonable belief. Therefore SF312 does not apply.

THERE HAPPY NOW DUMBASS ???

boris

One way to prove it would be to bring an authority more convincing than boris, but you haven't done so.

I think both Cathyf and Cecil Turner qualify on that score. Since you consider me an even more convincing authority than wikipedia I question your judgement but graciously accept the compliment.

Thank you DumbasS ... how sweet of you.

boris

After some rework here is the DumbasS version ...

Let the degrees of certainty set = { perfectly certain, imperfectly certain, uncertain }

The set of CERTAIN = { perfectly certain, imperfectly certain }

The set of NOT CERTAIN = { uncertain }

The set of UNCERTAIN = { uncertain }

The set of NOT CERTAIN is EXACTLY EQUAL TO the set of UNCERTAIN.

I think it's stupid, but I can make it work. I'm that good.

DouglasS

cecil: "just pretends it isn't proven"

The important thing is not whether or not it's proven. The important thing is that it doesn't matter. Here's what matters: the substance of what we write here. Here's what doesn't matter: anything else. That includes things like our age, gender, political affiliation, birth sign, blood type, zip code, eye color, real name, or prior jobs where we learned lots of sexy milspeak.

I realize you're very interested in focusing attention on things that don't matter, because you need to avoid dealing with things that do matter. Like why you lied about the forgeries.

(By the way, "isn't proven" isn't something I 'pretend;' "isn't proven" happens to be a fact.)

"takes credit for verse that mentions only Juke's handle"

I didn't take credit for it. You deserve all the credit, such as it is. I just pointed out that I inspired it. That's clear, because you wrote it in response to my comments here. What handles you choose to include or not include is your problem, not mine. If in your next doggerel I inspire you to choose to mention the tooth fairy, I guess that will be your proof that I'm the tooth fairy.

Now let's discuss something infinitely more relevant and interesting.

The situation with the forged documents is exceptionally confusing. It's a real-life spy story, with many overlapping layers of deception and counter-deception. It's worth taking a minute to understand some of the basic reasons why it's so confusing.

First of all, it's not just one page, or one document. It's a batch of documents, composed of individual documents. These individual documents have various informal names, such as "the letter," "the accord," "the agreement," "the annex," "the presidential letter," "the embassy letter," "the cover letter" and so on. Different sources don't necessarily use those names in a consistent way.

Aside from there being separate documents, there are also separate versions of the documents, that have evolved via various channels. In particular, there are conventional page-image copies, and there's also discussion about what's called "verbatim text," which means that just the textual content is conveyed (and it may or may not have been conveyed faithfully). This adds to the confusion.

Finally, there are a variety of sources of information about the documents. There are official sources, such as SSCI 2004 and Robb-Silberman, and there are various unofficial sources. You alluded to two of the unofficial sources: Eisner of WP, and blogger eriposte of theleftcoaster.com (I think he's by far the best source, light-years ahead of almost anyone else).

It's very interesting to notice that righty bloggers pay very little detailed attention to the forged documents, especially with regard to the matter of the verbatim text, which is both complicated and important. I think that's not an accident.

Anyway, these three dimensions (multiple documents, multiple versions, multiple commentators) understandably add up to a lot of confusion. Also, it's a spy story, and some of the players are intentionally trying to create confusion. Like you, as I will show.

Anyway, I think it's helpful to be aware of these basic factors which make the story fundamentally confusing. However, despite the potential for confusion, it's still possible to get a grip on certain facts. Those facts strongly suggest that CIA was in a position to easily detect the forgery in 2/02. This is despite your attempts to claim otherwise.

One more introductory note. It's very helpful that certain forged Niger documents are available here. However, there's reason to suspect that important pieces are missing. In particular, there's reason to suspect that we're not seeing what CIA saw in 2/02, that is, one or more particular documents that formed the basis for "verbatim text" that we held at that time. As you correctly said: "no definitive source I'm aware of cites the actual text received by CIA."

Now let's take a close look at what you said recently. What you've done is classic cherry-picking: you're jumping around from source-to-source, putting together a patchwork of claims in a manner that's not even remotely coherent or honest.

"As the addenda to the SSCI noted:
'Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.' "

That word ("addenda") is your coy way of sort-of-almost-but-not-really telling us that what you're citing is not bipartisan; rather, it's from an "Additional Views" section authored by Bond, Roberts and Hatch. In other words, it was considered sufficiently partisan that the six other R senators on the committee refused to put their name on it. If they didn't trust it, why should I?

This is a very, very common righty technique of deception: quoting from the R-only sections of SSCI 2004, and pretending (to one degree or another) that they represent a bipartisan finding.

A classic example of Rick Ballard doing this is here. He claims he is quoting "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." Not quite. He's quoting the view of three R senators on that committee (the same section you cited), views which six other R senators declined to endorse (let alone the eight D senators). In other words, he's quoting 18% of the group and pretending it's the view of the full group. Not honest.

You just did essentially the same thing, except your word ("addenda") is a tiny warning to the reader that they should pay attention. And you did provide the URL, so an attentive reader could go figure things out. But most readers aren't attentive.

Now let's look at the text you quoted:

the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports

Let me paraphrase this: 'IAEA examined documents containing errors, but those errors were not present in the CIA reports.' One problem I have: "the CIA reports" is troublingly vague. What "CIA reports?" There are a bunch of different possible answers to that question. They're encouraging us to assume a particular answer, but we've learned that with this gang assumptions are a bad idea.

Also notice how carefully crafted those words are. They leave open all sorts of interesting possibilities, like this one: the CIA reports included lots of incorrect names/dates; they were just a different batch of incorrect names/dates than the ones in the particular set of documents that ended up in the hands of IAEA. In other words, Roberts seems to be working hard to avoid plainly saying this: the CIA reports contained no hints of forgery. Period.

Anyway, the bigger problem is that R-S seem to contradict Roberts:

The errors in the original documents, which indicated they were forgeries, also occur in the February 2002 report that provided a "verbatim" text of the agreement, indicating that the original reporting was based on the forged documents.

That's obviously the footnote we've both already cited. Let me try to paraphrase it: 'errors which indicated the original documents are forgeries also appear in the verbatim text that is part of the CIA reports.' This seems directly at odds with what Roberts said. R-S was bipartisan, and it was later, so I'll take R-S. More on this footnote later.

"the CIA only had 'verbatim text' of one document"

I think this is possible, maybe even probable, but far from proven. You don't provide a source for this assertion. How do you know?

"it was this one. That's the one listed as 'document 1: The Presidents letter' "

This gets to the heart of your alibi for your nasty lie. You're telling us that we had verbatim text for only one document (although you cite no proof for this claim), and then you go a step further and tell us you know which document is the one we had (among several different possibilities). Trouble is, your claim that you picked the right document is very, very weak. I won't take the space to list all the reasons, but here are a few.

You're claiming we had verbatim text for one document, the so-called president's letter, consisting of two pages sent (allegedly) from the president of Niger to Saddam. Here's an important thing to understand: the letter is not an agreement. It makes reference to an agreement, a document that is clearly separate:

IT'S MY HONOR TO REFER TO THE AGREEMENT # 3*1-NI 2000, REGARDING THE SUPPLY OF URANIUM, SIGNED IN NIAMEY ON THE 6TH OF JULY 2000 BETWEEN THE GOVERMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NIGER AND THE GOVERMENT OF IRAQ BY THEIR RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES OFFICIAL DELEGATES.

Now let's take a moment to consider something SSCI says about verbatim text (p. 36-37):

Reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake sales agreement between Niger and Iraq first came to the attention of the US. Intelligence Community (IC) on October 15,2001. The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) issued an intelligence report [redacted] from a foreign government service indicating that Niger planned to ship several tons of uranium to Iraq [redacted]. The intelligence report said the uranium sales agreement had been in negotiation between the two countries since at least early 1999, and was approved by the State Court of Niger in late 2000. According to the cable, Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja gave his stamp of approval for the agreement and communicated his decision to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The report also indicated that in October 2000 Nigerien Minister of Foreign Affairs Nassirou Sabo informed one of his ambassadors in Europe that Niger had concluded an accord to provide several tons of uranium to Iraq. …

The second report provided more details about the previously reported Iraq-Niger uranium agreement and provided what was said to be “verbatim text” of the accord.

Notice that key word: "accord." Not "letter." Now, I agree this could be just a sloppy error. But I find ot hard to believe that SSCI could really be that sloppy, for no reason. The president's letter makes explicit reference to a separate document, an "accord," in the original French. The letter and the accord are distinctly separate documents. Even if one was holding the letter alone, the very first sentence makes clear that the "accord" is a separate document.

R-S tells us the exact same thing, that the verbatim text was the agreement/accord:

during meetings on July 5-6, 2000, Niger and Iraq had signed an agreement for the sale of 500 tons of uranium. This report stated that it was providing the "verbatim text" of the agreement

Not verbatim text of a letter that made reference to an agreement. Verbatim text of the agreement.

Similar language appears in the footnote we've been discussing:

the February 2002 report … provided a "verbatim" text of the agreement

Now here's another clue from SSCI. We're being given a lame explanation for why CIA didn't bother to get their hands on the original documents (p. 59):

The CIA told the Committee its analysts did not seek to obtain copies of the documents because they believed that the foreign government service reporting was verbatim text

Paraphrase: 'we saw no need to seek the originals, because we had verbatim text, and that told us everything we needed to know.' Now this is just absurd, if the "verbatim text" consisted exclusively of what you claim: only the relatively secondary two-page presidential letter, and none of the other documents that we eventually received.

"the only pertinent parts of a source"

This is where you try to develop your alibi. You're claiming you weren't cherry-picking; you were just pointing to "the only pertinent parts."

Let's review. This started with you trying to argue that CIA in 2/02 was not really in a position to notice the forgery. You said this:

it's useful to note the telltale signs of forgery on the document the CIA had a "verbatim text" for

Hmm. Later you said this:

no definitive source I'm aware of cites the actual text received by CIA

Exactly. And it's not just that we're not sure we have "the actual text received by CIA." We're not even sure we know which document or documents were "received by CIA." Trouble is, this didn't stop you from pretending you had knowledge you didn't have. You pretended to be sure that the proper document was the president's letter, without even hinting at all the assumptions you were making. You simply said you knew, as if it was a proven fact, "the document the CIA had a 'verbatim text' for." Never mind that both SSCI and R-S offer many clues pointing in a distinctly different direction.

This is an example of you doing what you do very, very often: pretending that you know more than you actually know. This is very easy for you to do, since you know more than most of the people you're addressing. But that's not saying much, around here. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

"getting to your own truncated quote from Silberman-Robb … feel no compunction over truncating single sentences to change the meaning and make a bogus point"

You're suggesting that I truncated something in a dishonest way. That's a weird claim. I've cited that footnote twice. In one place, here, I cited the footnote quite fully, just as fully as you did, and definitely did not truncate the passage you suggest I'm afraid of ("indicating that the original reporting was based on the forged documents").

The fact that I cited the footnote fully, prior to the time that you accused me of truncating it, is sufficient to prove that I wasn't trying to hide those words. So I'm ready to accept your apology for accusing me of doing something that I plainly was not doing.

I did post an earlier comment, here, where I did indeed leave out the words you claim are so important. So what? Here's the full footnote again. Please note, again, that I cited it in this complete form (here) before you cited it in essentially the same complete form (here):

The errors in the original documents, which indicated they were forgeries, also occur in the February 2002 report that provided a “verbatim” text of the agreement, indicating that the original reporting was based on the forged documents.

"Note the point: not that they 'reveal the errors' . . . but that it's from the same source."

What nonsense. They are making two points, closely related to each other, and both points are helpful to my overall argument, which is why I was perfectly happy to cite the full footnote, on one occasion, with no need for any prompting from you or anyone else. On the prior occasion, I was focusing on just one particular point, strictly for the sake of simplicity (which is hard to come by when the subject is the forged documents).

The footnote tells us two things, both of which are very damaging to Bush. How odd that it's buried in a footnote. These are the two things:

A) The original documents contained errors. These errors "indicated they were forgeries." These errors also appear "in the February 2002 report that provided a 'verbatim' text of the agreement." In other words, the " 'verbatim' text of the agreement" contained "in the February 2002 report" was faithful to "the original documents." In other words, if a viewer of the original documents can detect errors that "indicate[d] they were forgeries," then obviously a viewer of the " 'verbatim' text of the agreement" contained "in the February 2002 report" can accomplish the exact same result.

B) Since the "'verbatim' text of the agreement" contained "in the February 2002 report" was faithful to "the original documents," it's safe to conclude that the original reporting was based on the forged documents.

You're noticing that on one occasion I chose to overlook B and focus on A. I did that for the sake of simplicity. You claim I had a sinister motive. That's beyond absurd. First of all, in a later comment, with no prompting from you or anyone else, I freely offered B (i.e., I offered the full footnote). Secondly, B only helps my overall argument. I have nothing to fear in B.

You're suggesting that B is true, but not A. That's nonsense. A and B are linked intimately, and reinforce each other. B cannot be true without A also being true, and vice versa. It's true that the passage is written in such a way as to focus more attention on B, but so what? They buried it in a footnote, so it's no surprise that they would also be slightly coy with regard to emphasis. The idea of B jumps right off the page, while A requires a very tiny investment in reasoning.

Finally, A is the key point I was making, and it obviates the need to figure out exactly which document(s) we held on 2/02. R-S isn't telling us precisely what we held, but they're telling us that what we held "indicated they were forgeries."

Anyway, it's incredibly ironic that you choose to cite Eisner. Unless you want to admit that you're cherry-picking, I guess we have to assume you concur with this statement of his:

In February 2002, the CIA received the verbatim text of one of the documents, filled with errors easily identifiable through a simple Internet search

One more thing. I think it's clear that this complex subplot regarding "verbatim text" is closely tied to other important topics, like Plame. It's interesting to notice how many times ace Plameologist Maguire has ever mentioned the phrase "verbatim text:" zero, as far as I can tell. A bit odd, don't you think?

Cecil Turner

I read just enough of that to note you don't want to admit you're Juke. (And I see above a rather stupid argument about Eisner, who, as I've already noted, seems to've gotten the wrong document.) Later, loser.

boris

Anyone who claims Valerie Wilson was covert or had (almost) nothing to do with the mission needs to explain why the CIA kept bringing her up ...

Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.

boris: My point EXACTLY !!!

Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???

DumbasS claims he answered the question ...

people were trying to please him by reporting every possible detail they could think of

Which is a DumbasS dodge. When reporting every detail the OVP “needs to know” they don’t have to break the law doing it. Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation. Undesignated = unclassified.

As Cychotroll points out, there was no need to know the CIA wife detail. So just for DumbasS ...

EITHER admit CIA isn't violating law or need to know protocol ...
OR explain why they would do so in your long overdue answer.

If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???

DouglasS

cecil: "I see above a rather stupid argument about Eisner, who, as I've already noted, seems to've gotten the wrong document"

It was your idea to drag in Eisner, not mine. We're looking forward to you resolving many mysteries. One of them is why you decided it was important to mention him. I think the answer to that question is obvious, and not particularly helpful to your credibility, but I'll let you provide it yourself. I thnk you should make up your mind: either Eisner is credible or he isn't. Your attitude about this is somewhat schizoprenic.

And it's deeply ironic that you're saying Eisner "seems to've gotten the wrong document," since that's exactly what you did. Except in your case, it's sufficiently clear that you did so in a deliberate attempt to deceive.

cathyf
If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???
Or the other variation, if she was supposed to be covert and did have something to do with the mission, or even if the CIA in June, 2003, thought that she had something to do with the mission, then why didn't they say she was covert when they brought it up? Imagine the conversation:
Well, here's the thing... Wilson's wife is a covert agent, and so whatever response we come up with needs to draw attention away from the wife. Since we have to be so careful, that's why it is taking so long for us to come up with an acceptable response.
See? Not only do you have the CIA telling the OVP what they needed to know, but they did it without improperly disclosing classified information AND at the same time they provided a legitimate excuse for why they were stalling for weeks and weeks while the Wilson-created storm swirled around them and they couldn't effectively respond because the CIA couldn't come up with appropriately redacted declassified info for a response.
Cecil Turner

I think the answer to that question is obvious, and not particularly helpful to your credibility . . .

Hilarious. I mentioned Eisner in interest of completeness, because he has an opposing viewpoint (clearly noted as such), and off you go on another silly tangent.

Juke, every one of your posts is an exercise in deceit. It starts with you misrepresenting your identity and extends into your fallacious argument style primarily characterized by:

  • ad hominem abusive (usually in the form of impugning integrity);
  • shifting the burden of proof (generally to a logically impossible negative, e.g., "why doesn't this prove . . .");
  • voluminous posts comprised of red herrings (and demands opponents "address" them);
  • misrepresenting quotes (and links).
Your style is so distinctive that it's unmistakable despite the pseudonym masking. By the time one chases down your arguments--and fills in the required data you conveniently omit--it is generally unpersuasive drivel packaged in lies. And yes, your identity matters, since once we're aware of who you are, we know from long experience what to expect (and not to fall for your pretense of discussing issues).

Further, your purpose is obviously not to engage or persuade, it's to disrupt (which you do on many non-nutroot sites). Your only lasting impact here is to insult, individually and collectively, and to sow distrust of others (especially newcomers, whom we must at least consider may be you in a new disguise). You can't possibly be unaware of that, or that it's fundamentally dishonest. Contrary to your apparent view, projection of your own dishonesty does not affect anyone else's integrity (except possibly those who choose to associate with you . . . specifically Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and the fellow travelers at DU and DKos).

Why dont you go hang out with your fellow moral midgets? Perhaps you can explain to them the necessity of lying in the pursuit of truth. I'm not quite flexible enough to accept it.

DouglasS

For the moment, I'm suspending my normal practice of FIFO. Instead I'm going to jump around a bit. But I still intend to answer everything, sooner or later, as is my normal practice. Please keep in mind that it's the weekend, and someone I know has a big soccer game today.

Folks here have been willfully ignorant for a long time. A few more hours or days don't mean much.

boris: "When reporting every detail the OVP 'needs to know' they don’t have to break the law doing it. Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation. Undesignated = unclassified."

This is another classic moment when I honestly can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest.

"the law"

The law you're referring to is IIPA, right? I'm asking because I like to avoid making assumptions, as much as possible.

"Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation."

You're claiming that this is required by IIPA, right? I'll assume I'm reading you right.

Yes, according to IIPA, "disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation." That's true. But that doesn't mean that the absence of "proper classified designation" is an indication that someone broke the law. It only means that IIPA does not apply, in that instance.

Imagine that CIA person A conveys to White House official B a certain item of classified information. Let's assume that B has a security clearance. Let's assume that A fails to provide "proper classified designation," in the manner defined by IIPA.

Now let's evaluate A's behavior. It's possible A did something really dumb. It's possible that A committed a firing offense. It's possible that A violated some CIA policy that is not known to the public. But here's what A did not do: break the law. A did not violate IIPA. He also, incidentally, did not violate SF-312.

Please consider the following two statements:

C) IIPA requires that classified information always carry "proper classified designation." Anyone who conveys classified information (even to a person who is authorized to receive it) and omits the "proper classified designation" has broken the law and is subject to prosecution.

D) IIPA makes is a crime to leak (that is, convey to a person not authorized to receive classified information) a certain category of classified information, i.e., information regarding the identity of a certain category of IC employees. However, a person cannot be prosecuted under IIPA if the information had been conveyed to them without "proper classified designation."

C and D are quite different. You're pretending that C is true. Trouble is, it's not. D is true.

"there was no need to know the CIA wife detail"

OVP, with great intensity, asked for a full account of Wilson's trip. That account includes a certain meeting, where Plame introduced Wilson and then left the room. A full account of Wilson's trip logically includes mentioning this meeting, and a full account of the meeting logically includes mentioning this detail: Plame arranged the meeting, introduced Wilson, and left the room.

It would have been fraudulent, silly, unnecessary and insubordinate to airbrush these details out of the picture.

"EITHER admit CIA isn't violating law"

I admit it: "CIA isn't violating law."

Thank you for that entertaining Freudian slip.

"If she was supposed to be covert and had nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???"

Nice job pretending I haven't already answered that, in detail, here. But since you're obviously click-impaired, and scroll-impaired, I'll humor you and say it again.

I don't know anyone who said she "had nothing to do with the mission" (that false claim involves misquoting Wilson, a sub-topic I've addressed elsewhere). She apparently did have something to do with the mission: something very minor. As far as "bringing it up," Cheney was obsessed with Wilson's op-ed, and many people were trying to please him by reporting every possible detail they could think of about Wilson's mission. A few of these details involved Plame. Therefore she was mentioned.

In particular, Cheney's handwritten note, on a clipping of Wilson's op-ed, said this: "did his wife send him on a junket." And Cheney discussed this idea with Libby. So lots of people understood that top management would be very happy to hear any clues that could be used to support the narrative that Cheney was obviously trying to construct. The phony narrative that mental slaves like you swallowed whole, and are still trying to promote, even though almost every day there are new revelations that add more proof to what was known long ago: the narrative is false.

In other words, Cheney's handwritten note indicates that he was interested not just in Wilson, and in Wilson's trip, but that he was especially interested in any detail involving Plame, especially if those details could be inflated into a platform for the phony narrative later secretly issued by OVP: she sent him.

You're blaming CIA for giving Cheney precisely what he asked for. That's like saying you're upset about the damage I did to your fist when I struck it with my nose.

"your long overdue answer"

My answer is not overdue. It was already delivered, and ignored. You (both individually and collectively), on the other hand, continue to duck all sorts of questions that are simple, relevant and fair. Here's one: why did Libby insist that Miller hide his identity?

"long"

Cleaning up a big pile of crap requires a large shovel. Especially when the crappers are deeply obtuse.

boris

The law you're referring to is IIPA, right?

No stupid. The laws wrt disclosure of classified information to authorized recepients.

(1) The term "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

Now answer the question or pound sand DumbasS.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame