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.

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.

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.

Ken G.

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.

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!

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?