E-Mail 'A REAL leak that won't be investigated' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'A REAL leak that won't be investigated' to a friend

Loading ...

29 Responses to "A REAL leak that won’t be investigated"

scmommy says:

November 22, 2005 at 12:31 pm

Now Sis, you know that this cn’t be investigated. It doesn’t fit the correct agenda.
steve says:

November 22, 2005 at 1:24 pm

Plamegate is about revealing the truth concerning the corrupt,greedy and crony filled bush administration. We all hold secrets and when you go to war alot of those secrets get revealed. Why? Life and death. It’s about trust and fear. America being taken over by al Queda is silly. But, having people sneak in and blow you up because they are freightened of you is more likely. Make Peace not war. Peace
PCD says:

November 22, 2005 at 1:51 pm

steve, there were a lot of cronies in the CLinton Administration. One, Jaime Gorelick facilitated the 9/11 attack by imposing stupied, PC, Liberal rules preventing DOJ and DOD sharing information on terrorists.
Kenwg says:

November 22, 2005 at 2:45 pm

“Yeah, Plamegate was really about national security, wasn’t it, Plamegate investigation-pushers?”

Yes, in fact it really was.

This is the same blinkered complaint and comparison we recently saw from the right about “Gulag-gate”. But that comparison, like this one, is totally lacking in substance. Ms. Plame was (despite the oft-repeated neo-con talking points to the contrary) indeed an undercover CIA agent working on a highly confidential project, very important to our national security, who was “outed” by this administration for petty political reasons – ironically to retaliate against her husband who **legitimately** “outed” the administration’s big lie about WMD.

The Canadian and Gulag leaks were, on the other hand, more in a continuing series of exposures of ugly, silly, illegal and/or reckless activities by an administration that is increasingly viewed as incompetent, corrupt, untrustworthy, and even immoral by their own U.S. citizens.

That’s why ther’s, no uproar over these latest leaks.

And it’s the administration’s own fault. They continuously display an incomprehensible insensibility – as do, I have to add, the rest of you neo-con defenders of this witless, Keystone-Cop administration – to what most Americans view as competent, legal, moral and proper behavior by their government.

Like it or not – agree with it or not- the people of the united states have lost faith and turned against this administration. The leaker’s now have the upper hand, because the majority feel that the leaks aren’t what’s hurting America. What’s viewed as damaging to our national security – to say nothing of our world-wide reputation – are the actions of our government that are the subject of the leaks.

Ken G
Kenwg says:

November 22, 2005 at 2:50 pm

Oh, and Jamie Gorlick didn’t “impose” any regulations. She clarified existing law when asked to do so. And those regulations played only a minor role in the lack of communication between domestic and international intelligence agencies. The channels were there to share information = the just weren’t used. The real breakdown was the Bush Administration’s ignoring of intelligence estimates with titles such as “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S” (or sometihing like that…). And, by the way, I don’t think those guidlines, as clarified by Ms. Gorlick, still exist, don’t they? I could be wrong…

Ken G.
PCD says:

November 22, 2005 at 3:05 pm

Ken, thanks for showing us how uninformed you are. Plame was not covert in the 5 previous years to the Novak articale, nor was she overseas on assignment, which are the two criteria in the outing law.

Keep parroting those DU talking points. Maybe some day there will be people stupid enough to believe you.
Kenwg says:

November 22, 2005 at 4:23 pm

PCD,

Tell it to the CIA. They say she WAS indeed undercover. I will accept their authority over any of the many administration apologists who say otherwise; those who continuously “parrot” (as you say) the neo-con talking points tactic that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. It used to work pretty well, but doesn’t seem to work so well any more; people are finally starting to wake up to the tactic.

And please – don’t say that others (including me by obvious inference) are “stupid” for not seeing things your way. Such “Flames” have no place in honest and civil debate. I’m sure you can find a way to discuss an issue without belittling your opposition – unless that’s not your intent? I can accept venting your feelings to the point of saying that a policy or plan (or war, or intent to pull out of said war) is stupid (or whatever) but don’t personalize it.

But if you insist, I’ll be happy to match IQ, education and background with you any time you please. Let’s see – as a true neo-con, I’m sure you’ve read and studied and can discuss intelligently the writings of the founders of the Austrian school of economics, Mises and Hayak, for example, as well of course as their foil, John Maynard Keynes. No? How about the Phiosophes and the relevance of their theories to today? Bentham, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Aquinas, Dante, Montesquieu, and even (gasp) Karl Marx? The “complete” theories of supply-side hero Art Laffer (as opposed to just those aspects the right likes to trumpet)? The parallels between the decline of the Roman Empire and the recent history of the United States? If so, I’d love to have that discussion…

Anyway, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t presume to question my and others’ intelligence. And your sarcastic “thanks”? It just conveys the sour grapes you’re feeling; it certainly doesn’t contribute anything else.

Ken G.
Sister Toldjah says:

November 22, 2005 at 4:32 pm

Kenwg: “Ms. Plame was (despite the oft-repeated neo-con talking points to the contrary) indeed an undercover CIA agent working on a highly confidential project, very important to our national security, who was “outed” by this administration for petty political reasons – ”

Source?

“ironically to retaliate against her husband”

Source?

“who **legitimately** “outed” the administration’s big lie about WMD.”

Not true. A Senate report came out not long after this alleged ‘outing’ that pretty much debunked Wilson’s claims, which put him in the category of “liar” – one you and the rest of the Democrats pushing this bogus investigation will support to the bitter end, unfortunately.

BTW, I just saw you complaining to PCD about terminology. I wouldn’t complain so much about his terminology, seeing as you continue to use the term “neocon” which I know you don’t mean as a compliment.
Baklava says:

November 22, 2005 at 5:40 pm

Sorry this is off-topic ST but I wanted to post accurate info about Gorelick and the “wall”:

This article contains the following text:
Gorelick appropriately points out that the original rules about the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence agencies (a series of procedures designed to restrict the flow of information between the two) were put in place under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. No bombshell there. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act â€“ the law requiring the rules â€“ wasn’t adopted until 1978. Only as Reagan’s presidency began did the Act, and court opinions interpreting it, begin to have real impact.

But the “wall” passed along to the Clinton administration underwent dramatic remodeling three years later.

Remarkably, Gorelick’s defense ignores her own role in raising the “wall” higher than it had been in the prior administrations. One can read her spirited defense without learning that the 1995 memo she authored forbade CIA and FBI agents from freely exchanging information.

The rules she instituted (later made department policy) separated criminal investigations from intelligence gathering. As the memo itself said, these rules went “beyond what is legally required.” In particular, the new rules prohibited any “â€˜proactive’ investigative efforts or technical coverages” of terrorist suspects on U.S. soil. In other words, under the Gorelick memo, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies were prohibited from any undercover work related to terrorist suspects.

We can debate the significance of Gorelick’s rules. Where critics may see an important change, her defenders â€“ like the commissioner herself â€“ will see merely another, unremarkable link in a chain of events. There can be little doubt however, that Gorelick’s actions are part of that chain.
Baklava says:

November 22, 2005 at 5:46 pm

Kenwg wrote, “Oh, and Jamie Gorlick didn’t “impose” any regulations. She clarified existing law when asked to do so.

That isn’t fact and the opinion is off the mark.

As Jamie Gorelick’s memo said, these rules went “beyond what is legally required.”

In other words, she herself was not “clarifying existing law”.
CZ says:

November 22, 2005 at 6:51 pm

WAAAYYY upthread some peacenik noted “revealing the truth concerning the corrupt,greedy and crony filled bush administration”.

I read the following at http://www.wizbangblog.com earlier today and an interesting crony-ology from the Clinton administration was posted.

Enjoy the repost, all you factfinders and whistleblowers (except Monica)

————————————–

Forget indictments for now, how many CONVICTIONS were produced from Whitewater?

1) Webster Hubbell: Bill Clinton friend and political ally; Hillary Clinton Rose Law Firm partner: embezzlement; fraud; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Whither Whitewater?” October 18, 1995)

2) Jim Guy Tucker: fraud; three felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Second-Term Stall” February 11, 1997; Associated Press “Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud” February 20, 1998)

3) William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner; one conspiracy conviction (Associated Press “Whitewater Defendant Pleads Guilty” August 28, 1997)

4) Jim McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: eighteen felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Immunize Hale” May 29, 1996)

5) Susan McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend; former wife of Jim McDougal: four felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Immunize Hale” May 29, 1996)

6) David Hale: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: two felony convictions of conspiracy and mail fraud (Wall Street Journal “The Arkansas Machine Strikes Back” March 19, 1996)

7) Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)

8) Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide; one conviction (Wall Street Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)

9) Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent; fraudulent loans (Wall Steet Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)

10) Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser; one conspiracy felony conviction (Wall Street Journal “Hale Predicts Hillary Conviction” October 21, 1996)

11) Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president; embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign; two misdemeanor convictions (Wall Street Journal “Arkansas Bank Shot” May 4, 1995)

12) John Latham: Madison Bank CEO; bank fraud conviction (Wall Street Journal “Smoke Without Fire” January 12, 1996)

13) John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker; misdemeanor guilty plea; tax fraud (Associated Press “Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud” February 20, 1998)

14) Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of trying to bribe David Hale; is appealing a ten month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “Whitewater Defendants” February 22, 1998)

15) Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of bribery, served fourteen months of a sixteen month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “Whitewater Defendants” February 22, 1998)

AND had Clinton not been President he would have been convicted for obstruction of justice and perjury too, making it 16 convictions.– As as May 1998 2 more had hung juries and there were 6 more indictments.

———————————————————

And don’t forget the cattle futures deal that enriched Hillary. I believe it turned $10,000 into over $100,000. in less than a year.

Could she have done THAT without the help of a “CRONY”?
steve says:

November 22, 2005 at 7:17 pm

Politics in the US is corrupt and irredeemable. Next system. Peace
Pam says:

November 22, 2005 at 7:59 pm

CZ-it was $1000 into $100,000
Baklava says:

November 22, 2005 at 8:48 pm

While everyone else lost money during that timeframe.

Show’s how smart Hillary is! I love you Hillary! /end pukingly disgusting comments
CZ says:

November 22, 2005 at 9:00 pm

Thanks for the correction Pam.

Did you know that politics in the US is corrupt and irredeemable? Who knew? I never knew that high-ranking democrats could possibly be corrupt and extremely wealthy, did you?

Maybe we need a new system. One where the federal government regulates business, eliminates free enterprise, punishes financial success and provides everlasting support for dependent deadbeats.

You know, one that suppresses free speach, the right to assemble, keep and bear arms and watches our every move because the unwashed masses cannot be trusted.

It’s called socialism. It’s known to be totally free of corruption. Sound good to you?
steve says:

November 22, 2005 at 9:52 pm

How about one without an electoral college. Or maybe one where people have voting day off. Perhaps people could register on election day and vote. Free tv time for debates. Peace
CZ says:

November 22, 2005 at 10:57 pm

How about rewriting The Constitution? An ammendment to toss out the electoral college sounds possible. Git ‘er done!

How about a day off? As if we don’t have enough federal holidays as it is where real working people still work and government employees get paid to stay home. Yeah…that’s the ticket!

How about a plan to declare April 15 the national election “day off” ? That way we can register, vote and turn in our tax forms all at the same time.

I like THAT idea. Thanks, Stevie!

BTW, since when do the TV networks charge a fee for national political debate time?

Piece!
Kenwg says:

November 23, 2005 at 12:11 am

SO

You asked for sources – a very cogent and timely request, with all the uncredited and unattributed assertions being tossed around by both sides. Thank you.

Here is what I know (or think I know…). First – the CIA does not comment on the status of its employees, especially its covert or undercover employees; they have not issued any official statement regarding the status of Valerie Plame. Official sources that have directly addressed the status of Ms. Plame are almost non-existent – but there ARE AT LEAST TWO:

1) SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD

At his October 28, 2005, press conference he announced: “…she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_Affair

That’s about as clear and direct – and official – as you can get. Need I go any further? I’s sure for many of you die-hards I have to, so…

2) PRESIDENT BUSH 10/6/03:

“And, you know, there’s a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It’s a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of — this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked — and this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.”
Source: http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-rebuttal

OK, there are TWO pretty-damned official sources saying very clearly that she was covert, and that a crime was committed.

If any more is needed, there’s plenty. Most other material I’ve come up with gets rather murky, especially regarding ultimate sources, but there is still a lot that seems pretty solid.

3) “A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret… The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.”
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html

4) “NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell reported Friday night that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether White House officials blew Plame’s cover in retaliation against Wilson.”
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0927-01.htm
Also http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0927-01.htm

Obviously the CIA was concerned enough that a crime had been committed that they asked the Justice department to investigate. And of course the result of that is item 1, above (Patrick Fitzgerald stating that Ms. Plame WAS UNDERCOVER).

5) CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on the September 29, 2003, edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports:

ENSOR: All I can say is my sources tell me that this is a CIA operative. This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information.
Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150007#20050726

6) LARRY JOHNSON – Retired CIA agent and associate of Valerie Plame.
“I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation. Robert Novak’s compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her “cover” company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.”

“We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department. Some reports, such as one in the Washington Times that Valerie Plame’s supervisor at the CIA, Fred Rustman, said she told friends and family she worked at the CIA and that her cover was light. These claims are not true. Rustman, who supervised Val in one of her earliest assignments, left the CIA in 1990 and did not stay in social contact with Valerie. His knowledge of Val’s cover is dated. He does not know what she has done during the past 15 years.”
Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072205E.shtml

7) And so on. The internet is full of stories similar to the above. Just look.

As to the seriousness of the leak, and more on whether she was undercover and other issues:
http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/nocnoc.html

So, having dealt with Sources, on to some other matters. Regarding the term NEO-CON. I’m just calling it like it is; I don’t intend any denigration, and truly am surprised to hear that anyone thinks the term is somehow derogatory. You don’t think Neo-Conservativism exists as a coherent, identifiable social and political ideology? And that you’re not one? If the term seems derogatory to you, I don’t understand why; But as Al Capp (Li’l Abner author) once said: “If you want to put the shoe on and loudly announce that it fits…” have at it. Would you perhaps prefer if I used the term “reactionary”? I actually think it may be more accurate. By the way, how often do you and your allies refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” party. That, I’m sure, is somehow *intended* to be derogatory, isn’t it?

And the Senate report debunking Clark. I admit there are some problems with Clark’s loose use of facts; appropriately blown out of proportion by those of you on the right (his trip was initiated by Cheney’s questions, after all, and even the CIA says his wife had nothing to do with the decision to send him to Niger, beyond offering his name), but still there for all to see. But nonetheless, the core of his assertions was correct – Bush and friends misused the intelligence, as has been amply demonstrated over and over again. But that’s probably the basis for another long and convoluted argument in itself, so I’ll just leave it there.

And Clinton. Ah, the eternal foil for right-wingers. Whenever the Bushistas want to change the topic, to toss out a red-herring, they bring up their favorite irrelevancy, Bill and Hillary. How tedious, tiresome, weak and predictable. Can’t you please stop trying to discredit anything and anyone on the left by bringing up the Clinton foibles? For every point you make about the Clintons, I can make at least 50 about countless republicans. George Sr. and Jennifer Fitzgerald. George W. and Tammy Phillips and male ex-roommate Victor Ashe. Jeb and Cynthia Henderson. Neil Bush’s extra-marital affairs and his Herpes? Jesus, why even go there… Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, Dan Burton, Trent Lott, Newt and their mistresses. And they had the nerve to scold Bill Clinton. Bill Bennett, gambling and Dominatrixes. Joe Scarborough’s affair with a dead intern. Ken Lay, Haliburton, Tom Delay, and so on. Why even go there? If you want to talk about past scandals instead of the issues of the day, go buy a tabloid and salivate over that if that’s what launches your rocket, but please don’t bring up such irrelevant trash when we’re discussing serious current events.

Thanks

Ken G.
Kenwg says:

November 23, 2005 at 12:16 am

Oh, and let’s not forget “Brownie”. Sheeeit. Please. Don’t talk to me about Bill and Hillary.

Ken G.
Sister Toldjah says:

November 23, 2005 at 12:28 am

All but one of your sources are biased. You should have have stuck with the WaPo and left it at that. I’m impressed with your research capabilities, nevertheless.

Second, please don’t insult my intelligence on the term “neocon” – I have never heard or read many (if any) liberals/leftists/left leaning types use it in a complimentary fashion. It’s used the way some conservatives use the term “liberal” – I think you are well aware of what I mean.

Thirdly, it wasn’t Clark we were discussing but Wilson. His whole trip was about finding out about whether or not the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. The Senate report pretty much put his claims to bed. So no, his “core assertions” were not correct at all.
Kenwg says:

November 23, 2005 at 2:57 am

“All but one of your sources are biased.”

Yes, some of them certainly are. Unfortunately it’s hard to find sources that don’t have a bias one way or the other. The right has Fox, the Weekly Standard, etc, and the left has its list. But I do try to read both sides. By the way, the Standard does have a pretty informative article on the subject, even given its bias. I can argue a few points in the article, but for those interested it’s here http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp?pg=1.

“Second, please don’t insult my intelligence on the term “neocon” – I have never heard or read many (if any) liberals/leftists/left leaning types use it in a complimentary fashion. It’s used the way some conservatives use the term “liberal” – I think you are well aware of what I mean.”

Yes, I do know what you mean, and point conceded. Although I honestly don’t personally use the term as a pejorative. Perhaps I do use the term too freely to describe your average conservative, though. I use Neo-Con mainly to refer to those whose views tend to reflect those of organizations like The Center for The New American Century; whose views on international relations are beyond what I believe most would consider the moderate conservative center. Those whose views mirror those of Paul Wolfowitz and associates, etc. I disagree with those views, but I don’t mean to call those who hold them names, or lump all conservatives into that category.

Do you think the term Neo-Con is inappropriate for those I’ve described? (Wolfowitz, etc).

“Thirdly, it wasn’t Clark we were discussing but Wilson.”

You’re right – I meant Wilson. This is a case of being too busy and having to write faster than I can think. Not an uncommon occurance, especially later in the evening…

Ken G.
PCD says:

November 23, 2005 at 8:12 am

Steve, cut to the chase, why not abolish all elections and install the leftwing whack jobs for life? You’ve done nothing but repeat the pleas of the left that they need to enable vote fraud as an institution. Those are the same proposals implemented in Lithuania where the Russian surrogates tried to stuff the ballot boxes and steal the election when their poisoning of the leader of the opposition didn’t kill him or the opposition.
steve says:

November 23, 2005 at 10:02 am

Another Dick heard from on C-Span this am. Richard Perle is an old,pro-Zionist,warmonger captalist. He is also a liar,either that or his analysis is fatally flawed. US troops need to be gone from Iraq not hidden inside forts. Peace
PCD says:

November 23, 2005 at 11:28 am

steve, proof of the lies or you are convicted once again of bearing false witness.
PCD says:

November 23, 2005 at 11:31 am

Ken, you do have an inflated opinion of yourself. You want to match on file dossiers or you and myself? I do mean at Langley.
steve says:

November 23, 2005 at 1:50 pm

PCD,lies? Those are labels. Perle is a pro-Zionist and a warmonger and a neo-con. He is also an old capitalist. Those are each descriptive labels. Do you disagree with those labels? Peace.
PCD says:

November 23, 2005 at 2:17 pm

steve, there in no crime in Richard Perle for the things you label him for. Your false witness is making crimes out of nothing. Also, your pathetic cries of warmonger are worthless. Try to find something of substance, and not mind altering drugs.
Kenwg says:

November 23, 2005 at 8:39 pm

PCD,
“Ken, you do have an inflated opinion of yourself.”

Undoubtedly true; I admit it.

“You want to match on file dossiers or you and myself? I do mean at Langley.”

Yeah, sure. The details on all that time I spent spying for the Soviets should make good reading…

I actually did spend quite a lot of time aboard Soviet vessels back in the 80’s (and spent a fair amount of time matching shots of Vodka with the Ships’ Captains and, of course, their political officers. Took them out “on the town” occasionally; always made it a point to drive by and point out one of the local gun stores, where a U.S. citizen was actually free to walk into a store and buy a weapon). I even attend a reception at the Soviet Consulate in San Francisco (Where I first met Dianne Feinstein – before she became a senator). So I’m sure they (Langley) actually do have quite a nice “dossier” on me.

Dos Vedania, Comrade!

Ken G.
PCD says:

November 25, 2005 at 5:04 pm

steve, you offer no proof other than your opinion. That is not proof nor fact, just false witness on your part. I thoroughly disagree with you.

Comments are closed.