Why would you trust anything from the Times? Aren't they part of THE LIBERAL MEDIA?

Fact is, I don't so I'll wait till tomorrow to find out what really happened.

Anyone that's actually taken the time to read the actual text of the law they were investigating would know that the ONLY indictments coming down in the future would be "making false statements to a grand jury" indictments.

AND, if ANYone committed felony perjury in this investigation, no matter if that law was broken or not.....fuck 'em.

To answer your question matt...yes, they are.

"Anyone that's actually taken the time to read the actual text of the law they were investigating would know that the ONLY indictments coming down in the future would be "making false statements to a grand jury" indictments."

Does this include the members of the CIA who asked for this investigation, sarge?

Yes it does Tom. Just because someone asked for an investigation does not mean that the law was broken. Evidently, those that did ask for the investigation didn't take time to read the law.

What, you think that the CIA, whose Director is appointed by the POTUS, is above playing Washinton politics? Who appointed Tennet again?

Do you see how illogical it is to say "They asked for an investigation, therefore a law was broken"?

Read the law, not all the political talk.

"Do you see how illogical it is to say "They asked for an investigation, therefore a law was broken"?"

Uh, that's not what i was saying sarge. i was reacting to this statement by you:

"Anyone that's actually taken the time to read the actual text of the law they were investigating would know that the ONLY indictments coming down in the future would be "making false statements to a grand jury" indictments."

It seems illogical to ask for an investigation in which it was impossible for the law in question to be broken... especially in light of judicial rulings backing the investigation.

Exactly what part of the law do you think makes it impossible for indictments to be handed down for the original aim of this investigation?

>Rove Not To Be Indicted - Aaron

>>will not be charged on Friday - NYT

So Monday then?

Do I really need to go find the PME article that I've already clearly laid out this law and showed that it's going to be not possible for them to show that the law was violated? Guess so....I'll go try to find it. Well, THAT took a long time. First off, here's the law and here's the pertinent post.

Under subsection (a), Rove et al would've had to:

1) Gotten Plame's name from classified information that showed her to be a covert agent.

2) INTENTIONALLY disclose the information showing she was a covert agent to a 3rd party.

3) Know that the information was disclosing the identity of a covert agent AND that the U.S. was trying to conceal the covert intelligence agent status of the covert agent.

Good luck proving those 3 things. Disclosing that the wife, who works for the CIA, broke anti-nepotism laws by recommending her husband for the job does not qualify under subsection (a).

Under subsection (b), Rove et al would've had to:

1) Gain through classified information Plame's "covert agent" status.

2) INTENTIONALLY disclose her as a covert agent to a 3rd party.

3) Know that the information was disclosing the identity of a covert agent AND that the U.S. was trying to conceal the covert intelligence agent status of the covert agent.

Under subsection (c) Rove et al would've had to:

1) Conduct a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States...good luck.

2) Disclose to a 3rd party any information that identifies Plame as a covert agent.

3) Know that the information identifies a covert agent and that the U.S. is taking steps to conceal the agent's covert status in the intelligence community.

BTW, last I heard, they aren't indicting anyone for violating this "secret-agent" law, but for violating the same law that Martha Stewart violated..."making a false statement to a federal agent"...and potentially a GJ felony purjury law. If they did so, fuck 'em.

Just because someone asked for an investigation does not mean that the law was broken. Evidently, those that did ask for the investigation didn't take time to read the law.

Didn't think UY had anything to say.

Again, Sarge, i never said because they asked for an investigation meant the law was broken, just that it was possible the law was broken.

You're saying the CIA didn't read/know the law before asking for the investigation, thus implying that the law could not have been broken.

This is backed up by you saying anyone who read the law knew that the ONLY indictment would be for perjury, etc...

After reading the law, I think it was possible that indictments could come on the charge of outing an CIA agent, though, it would be hard to prove.

In fact, i think it's possible those charges still could come pending the end the Rove investigation. They did this week interview the Wilson's neighbors this week to find out if they knew she was a CIA agent prior to the Novak story. That doesn't sound like they're investigating anything in relation to the perjury charges, but the original charges.

Even if Rove isn't charged with outing a CIA agent, they were up til this week pursuing that angle, which would lead me to think the prosecuters thought it was possible to hand out indictments on the charge of outing a CIA agent.

"1) Gotten Plame's name from classified information that showed her to be a covert agent."

There is that memo that circulated on airforce one that IDed Plame as a CIA agent.

"2) INTENTIONALLY disclose the information showing she was a covert agent to a 3rd party."

It looks like Rove is one of the sources that Plame/Wilson was a CIA agent.

"3) Know that the information was disclosing the identity of a covert agent AND that the U.S. was trying to conceal the covert intelligence agent status of the covert agent."

If it's shown that Rove got the info from the classified memo and that ID plame as a covert agent, then this can be proven too.

It's not that far-fetched, sarge.

Do i think it will happen? I don't think so, but it IS possible.

"BTW, last I heard, they aren't indicting anyone for violating this "secret-agent" law, but for violating the same law that Martha Stewart violated..."making a false statement to a federal agent"...and potentially a GJ felony purjury law. If they did so, fuck 'em."

Thanks for the third chuckle. You stoop so low as to compare this to Martha.

You really think we believe your last sentence here?

"making a false statement" You mean, lying?

Thanks for the research, and FYI, you're starting to sound like Rush.

Tom, I agree, and if the intent wasn't to out Valarie then what was the purpose?

The story reeks of an "out" with a cover to make it seem accidental. So why lie for two years? Why did W say they (Scooter & Turd Blossom)were clean? To date it looks like Scooter is the fall guy.

Actually, I'm reading the indictment now, and it seems that Rove could be charged with outing a CIA agent.

Libby resigned. I think either McClellan should come forth and say Libby lied to him, or McClellan should step down.

Being self-critical, aka: telling the truth is something this admin. frowns on.

Sarge, Even if an indictment is never handed down, how can you defend the behavior of these guys ? Their petty vendettas were more important to them than national security ! Rove isn't a political advisor as much as he is a character assassin, and his involvement in this matter is pretty much indisputable by now. I remember bringing this up a long time ago and you essentially responded by saying "You can't prove Rove was involved" Since then we've seen you backpedal to "Can't prove his did anything wrong" and then on to "Can;t prove his did anything illegal" Why are we even splitting hairs here? This was just one of many fucked up stunts the guy pulled to ruin political opponents and he finally got caught with a big pile of shit in his hands and many conservatives still can't get their heads around the fact that what Rove did was WRONG. What Libby did was WRONG. Morally and ethically wrong, not to mention that they have been totally disingenuous about it for the last 2 years. Jesus, you guys STILL have your panties in a bunch about Ol' Lying Bill Clinton, but I have yet to see a single right winger condemn this whole fiasco for the cheap political smear that is really is. People like Karl Rove aren't even worthy to take out Valerie Plame's trash. Worthless piece of shit that he is.

Being self-critical, aka: telling the truth is something PME frowns on.

It would be interesting to know how long Bush has known the truth about what happened. Not that he'd ever admit to it.

Good job bringing integrity back to the White House!

I'm curious to see if there is some way they will charge Cheney with outing Plame. To Sarge's point, there is very specific criteria to be met in order to prove such a thing. But, hypothetically, if Cheney knew about Plame's covert status, then had Libby "out" her WITHOUT telling Libby about her covert status, then technically Cheney may not have directly met the criteria, but the effect is the same. That may not mean shit, but then again, who knows? All speculation.

As before, I don't trust these lying, scheming PNAC fucks. I hope they all go down in political flames. They've done enough damage to our country. I'm just waiting until they have proof that that crew played a part in the forging of the "Yellow cake" documents as part of their effort to drum up support for their war in Iraq. We'll see.

Welcome back Androminos. PME just ain't the same without you around.

Thanks TRF. Good to be here with ya'll. I'd been wondering how long it would take before this issue was finally discussed here at PME.

You're saying the CIA didn't read/know the law before asking for the investigation, thus implying that the law could not have been broken.

No, Tom. I'm saying that anyone that actually read s the law instead of paying attention to what reporters want you to think, knows that there will be no indictments for breaking this law. I'm saying that just because an investigation was asked for doesn't mean a crime was committed. Those like me that understood the law know damned well that there wasn't goint ot be an indictment for breaking this law and the only direction to go is to go for the "cover up", the perjury, the obstruction, the making false statements.

It's not that far-fetched, sarge.

Not in Absurdistan. Let's take a walk in the real world shall we. 2 years and they couldn't prove the absurdity that you just brought up. Maybe they'll get a fresh GJ to stick this with...one that's made up of ALL Absurdistanis.

Thanks for the third chuckle. You stoop so low as to compare this to Martha.

Thanks for once again lying about what I said. Look at the particular crime I noted. "making a false statement to a federal agent". Look at the crime that Martha was sent up for..."making a false statement to a federal agent." Nobody but YOU has mentioned a comparison or equation to what Martha did and to what Libby did...it's the CRIME I noted that was the same.

"making a false statement" You mean, lying?

No Mr. Put-words-in-my-mouth. "Making a false statement to a federal agent" is the crime allegedly committed. That's the definition of the crime. "Lying" is much harder to prove because it involves "intent to deceive" and "lying" is not a crime...."making a false statement to a federal agent" IS.

Sarge, Even if an indictment is never handed down, how can you defend the behavior of these guys?

In no way have I ever defended the behaviors of anybody. Y'all, every single one of you, can stop putting those notions out there. I am not defending anybody. As a matter of fact, I've clearly said "Fuck 'em" numerous times "if they've committed a crime". I simply look at the law and look at the evidence that has been provided to us to talk about, whereas you never look at the law and go by what people tell you to go by. Good job at misreperesenting what I do, but I'm not surprised. Now you're gonna misrepresent my arguments the last time too? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've never said Rove was guilty or innocent about anything....and no, I've never defended anyone's actions. I look at the law and what's allegedly happened and decide whether or not it fits the law....and this very law is very specific. What Rove has allegedly done in the past has no relevance to whether or not he broke THIS FUCKING LAW. How hard is that to understand? Look up "morally", "ethically", and "wrong" in the law books and you will not find it. Look at the law instead of following your hatred. Sorry, your hero broke the law and it was proven on live TV. Felony perjury and obstruction of justice.

...but I have yet to see a single right winger condemn this whole fiasco for the cheap political smear that is really is.

OK, I condemn this whole 2 year fiasco for the political smear that it is.

Being self-critical, aka: telling the truth is something PME frowns on.

Lemme know when you're ready to tell the truth instead of lying about what people DO say.

I do believe the law was broken Sarge, but that aside, is that your only barometer for right and wrong? You're fine with what Rove, Libby et al have done as long as no one can prove that the law was broken?

Seriously (I am not being sarcastic)Do you view Rove and Libby as the victims here?

Was Clinton a "victim"? Libs think so. Even though he was the architect of Monicas' lying, not to mention HE held the highest political office in the land. Hypocrites.

Sarge, it's not that absurd. If you read the indictment, it's already established that that Libby leaked the info and that he got her name from classified information. The hardest part is the third part, proving he knowingly outed her.

It is possible that both Libby and Rove could be indicted on this charge.

In no way have I ever defended the behaviors of anybody. Y'all, every single one of you, can stop putting those notions out there. I am not defending anybody. As a matter of fact, I've clearly said "Fuck 'em" numerous times "if they've committed a crime". I simply look at the law and look at the evidence that has been provided to us to talk about, whereas you never look at the law and go by what people tell you to go by. Good job at misreperesenting what I do, but I'm not surprised. Now you're gonna misrepresent my arguments the last time too? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've never said Rove was guilty or innocent about anything....and no, I've never defended anyone's actions. I look at the law and what's allegedly happened and decide whether or not it fits the law....and this very law is very specific. What Rove has allegedly done in the past has no relevance to whether or not he broke THIS FUCKING LAW. How hard is that to understand? Look up "morally", "ethically", and "wrong" in the law books and you will not find it. Look at the law instead of following your hatred. Sorry, your hero broke the law and it was proven on live TV. Felony perjury and obstruction of justice.

""Look up "morally", "ethically", and "wrong" in the law books and you will not find it.""

First two outta' three you won't find in the Bush admin either. Use the microscope for something other than splitting hairs.

"Was Clinton a "victim"? Libs think so. Even though he was the architect of Monicas' lying, not to mention HE held the highest political office in the land. Hypocrites."

The key differnce here is that Clinton lied about a personal affair. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

Clinton's lie was also not material to the original investigation (which was the whitewater scandal, i believe). Libby's lie is directly related.

Libs all admit that Clinton lied and broke the law and he should have done it.

But what the lie was about is the big difference. Libby is accused of obstructing justice in a case concerning the outing of a CIA agent. Clinton is accused of lieing about a personal affair that was not illegal.

It's difference.

"Libs all admit that Clinton lied and broke the law and he should have done it."

This should read "shouldn't" have done it.

"OK, I condemn this whole 2 year fiasco for the political smear that it is."

How do you mean this is a political smear?

First of all, I think Clinton created his own problems by not controlling his own stupid weaknesses, and conservatives jumped on it with both feet because it was their best (only) opportunity to try and bring him down.

I don't think getting blown in the White House and lying about it is as serious as outing a CIA agent though. Not even close.

Was Clinton a "victim"? Libs think so. Even though he was the architect of Monicas' lying, not to mention HE held the highest political office in the land. Hypocrites.

Lisa, you want to think that Libs think so, which justifies your spew. GWB holds the same office and in "my words" to you; "he is's big lying sack of shit."

Clinton lied, does that make him a victim? No. He was a victim to a witchhunt. How many millions were spent finding nothing?

In the last forty years name one wrong doing by a democrat that hasn't been "one-upped" by the GOP, by at least two to three fold. I really don't expect you to name them Lisa, but you may ask someone for help. Leave it to you to use Clinton as a diversion. Remember that Clinton was the liar in his scandal. Thousands of people weren't killed.

Monica was and is responsible for her lies.

Lisa, just to end with a bit of humor and to prove I'm really a fun loving kinda' guy.

Imagine GWB getting elected as president based on his own intelligence. If the task becomes to difficult, replace GWB with WJC.

Was that a tumbleweed i just saw roll by?

For all those who have said outing Plame is not a big deal...

"JOE WILSON, HUSBAND OF THE UNMASKED CIA AGENT VALERIE PLAME, SAYS THERE HAVE BEEN THREATS AGAINST HER – “60 MINUTES” SUNDAY Fri Oct 28 2005 20:56:07 ET

Former CIA Colleagues say the Unmasking of Plame Could Cause Harm to Other Agents

Joe Wilson, whose wife’s unmasking as a CIA agent is at the center of the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation, said today that that his wife, Valerie Plame, has been threatened. Wilson talks to Ed Bradley in his first interview since Fitzgerald announced the indictment of I. Lewis Libby. It will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday Oct. 30 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

“There have been specific threats [against Plame]. Beyond that I just can’t go,” Wilson tells Bradley. Wilson says he and his wife have discussed security for her with “several agencies.”

Former CIA colleagues say that by revealing her identity, harm could be caused to the CIA’s agents and operations. “If a CIA agent is exposed, then everyone coming in contact with that agent is exposed,” says Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA agent who trained with Plame at the top-secret Virginia facility known as “the Farm.” “There is a possibility that there were other agents that would use that same kind of a cover. So they may have been using Brewster Jennings just like her,” said Marcinkowski, referring to the fictional firm the CIA set up as her cover that also came out when journalists, including Robert Novak, disclosed it.

Marcinkowski also points out, “[Plame] is the wife of an ambassador, for example. Now, since this happened…they’ll know there’s a possibility that the wife of a U.S. ambassador is a CIA agent.”

Another friend, once a covert CIA operative, says people who say Plame wasn’t in a sensitive position need to understand how intricate a cover story is, regardless of what an agent is working on. “Cover is…for a clandestine officer, can be different things at different times. We change cover. We modify cover based on how we need it. But that cover is linked together,” she tells Bradley. “If you start to unravel one part of that, you can unravel the whole thing.”

Rep. Rush Holt (D.-NJ), a former intelligence analyst and member of the House Intelligence Committee, agrees. “I think any time the identity of a covert agent is released, there is some damage -- and it’s serious.” Holt says it’s possible agents overseas could be arrested or even killed, but “if there were, and I’d been briefed on it, I couldn’t talk about it,” he tells Bradley. He did say he has been assured the CIA was mitigating the effects of the leak. “They have taken the usual procedures to protect the damage from spreading.”

Those procedures began the moment Valerie Plame learned her cover was blown. Upon finding out about the leak of her name, “she felt like she'd been hit in the stomach. It took her breath away,” said Wilson. Then she methodically went to work, he says, “making lists of what she had to do to ensure that her assets, her projects, her programs and her operations were protected.”

Wilson tells Bradley, contrary to reports that many knew Plame was in the CIA, that only he and three other people knew. “Well, very few people outside the intelligence community [knew she was CIA]. Her parents and her brother, essentially,” says Wilson.

Developing..."

"Sorry, your hero broke the law and it was proven on live TV. Felony perjury and obstruction of justice."

This is just all about the sex. What this guy does in private is none of your business. This is a crusade against him by the VRWC.

"This is just all about the sex."

And Libby is about outing a classified CIA agent who was charged with protecting American citizens, possibly putting her and other agents in danger and comprimising on going intelligence inquiries (the CIA is still assessing the damage done by the leak).

A hush has come over this website. It is the second day after this indictment brought one resignation from the White House and warned Rove and Cheney that they may be next. But there is still no editorial posted in the Opinion section of Pardom My English.

The eloquent liberal bashers who post here must be having a hard time justifying the illegal behavior of their "leaders." And it is no wonder! That indictment was stunning. And Bush can nominate Fitgerald for Attorney General (or Supreme Court) any time and have my full support.

"possibly putting her and other agents in danger and comprimising on going intelligence inquiries (the CIA is still assessing the damage done by the leak)."

I agree. It's really not about perjury for you guys, it's about that.

Perjury is serious and he should be tried, but it's not the thing alot of liberals seem to want it to be.

The chances of Libbey (or anyone else) being indicting for 'outing' Valerie Plame are equal to the chance that Bill Clinton had for being convicted of having oral sex. IE Impossible, no law was even broken.

"A hush has come over this website"

I thought you guys were trying to be a 'Reality based' party. What happened with that?

"The chances of Libbey (or anyone else) being indicting for 'outing' Valerie Plame are equal to the chance that Bill Clinton had for being convicted of having oral sex. IE Impossible, no law was even broken."

First of all MJ, this is about the perjury charges AND what the underlying crime. We DON'T know if a crime was comitted or what exactly Plame's status at the CIA was at the time of the "outing." (what's important here is that Fitzgerald did indeed use the term "out" in his press conference).

Fitzgerald said this indictment and his press conference on it did not address whether plame was a covert agent or not. During the press conference he made it clear that there was a lot he was not coming forward with because the investigation was not over.

He made it clear that he did not charge Libby with the 1982 statute because, as a result of his obstruction of justice, they were not able to make a judgement about libby's intent when outing plame (sarge has correctly asserted that this is the hardest aspect of the crime to prove).

The fact that the Wilson's neighbors were interviewed last week about whether they knew she was an agent, suggests to me that they were and are still pursuing the "outing" angle of the investigation, and that Rove is not in the clear on this.

>>I thought you guys were trying to be a 'Reality based' party.

What so you mean by "trying".

>no law was even broken.

Thats funny.

"(what's important here is that Fitzgerald did indeed use the term "out" in his press conference)."

Yes, fitzgerald did slam libby a bit in his press release, insinuating him with a leak (and insinuating that as illegal) though not charging him of any such thing. I think it was inappropriate on his part.

Plame was not a covert agent, she wasn't oversees, the CIA wasn't attempting to keep her status a secret. Even if she was a covert agent, we still haven't established that anyone mentioned her by name, OR that anyone had made a concious attempt to undermine her cover.

"that Rove is not in the clear on this."

Yes, he is. If he is indicted on it, it won't stick. If he is indicted on something else, it may stick (something like perjury) but for many people (like you) it won't really be about the perjury but the other thing you can't stick to him.

Just like (as you often claim) republican persecution of Clinton was really based on the sex, and really about partisanship (in many, perhaps most, cases you would be right), this is an opportunity for some democrats to show themselves no better, and purely partisan in thier defense of Clinton.

You can stick to the "the CIA is still assessing the damage", but it's completely bogus. She was an analyst. She was a useful asset when her husband was an ambassador and they were stationed over seas.

He is no longer, and she is no longer, neither have been overseas in years. She walks into the office every morning, clear for any observer to see. She was an ANALYST. There is absolutely no point to an analyst being covert. There's simply no damage here.

Does this excuse perjury if Libby is convicted of such? No. But it does excuse 'leaking' of her name because it's not illegal. You may think it amoral to 'out' a freakin analyst, but Democrats often complain about the 'secrecy' of the Bush administration and I've got nothing wrong with such insights in how such stupid choices are made by this administration, like sending Wilson to Niger.

The point is that this will be, for many, about perjury like Capone's life sentance was about tax evasion. Certain people want to 'get' other certain people and don't care how, so long as they get 'got' over something remotely related to pre-war Iraq intel.

That's fine for them. I don't really care. But pay attention to the ones who feel that way and then turn around and blast Ken Star for the exact same thing they're doing right now.

For those people, just like for some republicans during the impeachment trials, it really has nothing to do with anything...except partisanship and spite.

All of a sudden our right wing friends care about the law. It's amazing to see how far they go to defend a rat like Rove, a bastard like Libby. We all have eyes and brains. Some of us have better eyes and brains than others, but this case is so extremly clear.

Joseph C. Wilson writes an article in the New York Times on July 6th 2003 entitled "What I didn't find in Africa" in which he claimed that he found no evidence of Iraqi pursuit of nuclear material. He also criticizes the Bush administration on it's Iraq policy and for using unreliable documents to prove Iraq had WMD. Wilson was one of the guys not afraid to loose his job. He wasn't afraid of revenge by the neo-cons. He is of the same kind as Richard Clarke. True patriots who don't want their country to start a war for all the wrong reasons. I can just see that rat Rove sitting in his office thinking of a plan to hurt Wilson and he finally decides he can hurt him the most, not by hurting him, but the one he loves most, his wife Valerie Plame. Rove is evil and deep down inside them I believe even the rightwingers here now that.

History will prove the Bush admininstration pushed the intelligence agencies into coming up with evidence for a link between Saddam and Al Qaida and for lying about Iraq's WMD. Justice will be done. Just wait and see! It is shame however that many Americans and Iraqi's have to die for the wrongdoings of a few evil people. We could have dealt with Saddam together and we should have done that. The way it happened now makes me really sad.

Point proven, match, set, game.

For all who would doubt my comments, Exhibit A: Poppie.

It's not about perjury, it's about 'getting' the administration incarcerated because of the Iraq war.

Poppie, what the hell are you talking about? Other then insulting your 'right wing friends' the only point of that post I see is to demonstrate not just what an ass you are, but the entire point of my post.

That doesn't excuse perjury (if it happened, I don't know and you know what? Like most people - I don't care. Scooter Libby is nobody). It does explain thier hypocrasy (the ones who claim some sort of moral indignation over the Clinton impeachment) and thier glee, and it gives us due warning will be hearing screeching about the Plame Affair for months to come, even though no indictments will be handed down on that charge.

Poppie you venomous whelp, tie a bandanna around your forehead so it doesn't explode when you read this.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005691.php

You can take the bandanna off after you've concocted a suitable crackpot theory to deny it with and prevent the massive cognitave dissonance that would otherwise consume you.

MJ, you are scum personified.

Lets just say for arguments sake that Rove/Libby whoever did not technically commit a crime.

Does that make it anything but indefensible?

You still think its a good idea for the W administration to expose CIA agents and state secrets to get back at their political enemies?

Plame's status was NOC, she was still officially undercover so to speak.

Your argument is that she wasnt Bond. Great talking point scumbag, "she was only Moneypenny".

I don't get Johnson. Are you sure you've provided the right link? This one is about blaming the Arab League for the invasion of Iraq. I know you're crazy, but not that crazy. Do you actually believe this? By not giving Saddam asylum the members of the Arab League are responsible for the US invasion of Iraq? Great logic. Once again you prove you're just a dumb redneck.

Oh joy, the moonbats are on parade.

First Um Yeah.

"You still think its a good idea for the W administration to expose CIA agents and state secrets to get back at their political enemies?"

No, I think whistleblowers coming out with the truth of how the government operates when people are lying (IE. Wilson saying Cheney sent him) is a good thing. And I think it is a bad thing when agencies like the CIA affect the politics from behind the scene, which is what they were doing.

He's not a 'leak' he's a whistleblower.

And Plame wasn't covert. That wasn't reality, it was a clerical error. You want to base your entire concept of history on a clerical error instead of reality?

Why doesn't that suprise me...

God damn Libby for......telling the truth about lies emanating from CIA operatives and (GASP) 'exposing' the Purloined Letter!!!!

Yah.....ok. Have fun now. Don't spill your juice box.

Now the Dutch Um Yeah, hereafter refered to as Poppie.

Tell me Poppie, do sandwich deli's hire the mentally handicapped to dress up like pickles and hand out coupons in your country too, or are you on the Dutch dole?

Beat that straw man Poppie. You show it what for.

The point is not that the Arab League is responsible for the war.

The point is that Bush DID try dealing with Saddam outside of war, and came VERY close to suceeded in that task (with no war). It didn't pan out, it didn't pan out largely because of the Arab League and the Euro-twits opposition.

Do I beleive it? Well it's not verified. We don't know it for a fact. But I certainly beleive it's possible and even somewhat plausible. And unlike you (I'm sane), I have no reason to disbelieve it.

>>No, I think whistleblowers coming out with the truth of how the government operates when people are lying (IE. Wilson saying Cheney sent him) is a good thing.

First off that did not actually happen. Below is apparently what you were reffering to.

>>Bloomberg reported, “Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. ‘The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office,’ Wilson wrote.” [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]

Lets just say Wilson lied, what does that have to do with Libby and possibly Rove releasing information they knew to be sensitive?

>>And Plame wasn't covert.

She had NOC status. Look it up.

MJ thinks he is smart,sane, and realistic.

Contrary to all available evidence.

Yah...You stick with the typo. I'll stick with reality. Plame was not a covert agent.

>>I'll stick with reality. Plame was not a covert agent.

Hey scumbag, if you believe that well then congrats.

You are batshit insane.

It is funny how you cling to your delusions of adequacy.

Nutjob.

MJ, Plame was an NOC agent for years, the deepest cover an agent can have.

Now, i don't know if she was NOC at the time of the outing -- and it was an outing, make no mistake -- this has yet to find out. The only source I'll listen to this is the CIA or Plame, they are the only ones who know for sure what here status was.

Now, even if there's no criminal intent or if her official status was covert or not, this outing is still a big deal and a breach of national security.

It ended Plame's 18 year career as an undercover agent and potentially jeopordized other agents and leads they are pursuing.

If you saw 60 Minutes last night, you would have seen a CIA agent make the point that these agents risk their lives to find out things like which countries have and can use WMDs -- the biggest threat, along with loose nukes -- to the US. In a political attack, one of these agents was outed BY HER OWN GOVERNMENT.

As the agents said, this is not North Korea undermining us, this is not Iran undermining us, this is our own government undermining these agents.

If it's found out that Rove leaked her name to Novak, he should resign.

Page 2, section "f" of the indictment.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame3.html

Plame's status was as a CIA agent was classified. This indicment lays out a very good case that he leaked her name to the press. If it's shown that Official A gave Novak plame's name, and Official A is Rove (a good possibility), both Rove and Libby would have leaked classified information to the press.

Bush said that any white house officials that are found to leak classified information to the press will be "dealt with appropriately."

Even if Rove is not indicted, he is not in the clear. If Rove is not Official A or if Official is shown not to be the leak to Novak, then Rove will be in the clear.

Tom, Its not as if MJ cares.

I do believe the law was broken Sarge, but that aside, is that your only barometer for right and wrong?

What yoiu "believe" and what the truth is may not coincide, especially when reqading the law.

You're fine with what Rove, Libby et al have done as long as no one can prove that the law was broken?

No, I'm just not joining the witch-hunt until someone can show that a law was broken in the first place. I charge Libby, Rove and everyone else in DC with being politicians.

If you read the indictment, it's already established that that Libby leaked the info and that he got her name from classified information.

First off, an indictment that isn't indicting him for violating the law in question is hardly evidence aof violating the law in question. Secondly, the law is more specific than youi want it to be. He had to get Plame's name from classified documents that identified her AS A COVERT OPERATIVE. If that was so, they'd have indicted him for breaking the law specified. Since they did not, I'd say they don't have that proof.

First two outta' three you won't find in the Bush admin either. Use the microscope for something other than splitting hairs.

Got nothing other than a red herring? ...and a lame ad hominem? Awww...poor Russy couldn't handle reading the law and looking at what's presented without following hatreds?

The key differnce here is that Clinton lied about a personal affair. Libby lied about the outing of a CIA agent.

The key difference is that Clinton lied about a personal affair in a public situation...sexual harrassment laws are a public thing.......and THEN he committed obstruction of justice by tampering with a witness. Let's stop rewriting history shall we?

Clinton's lie was also not material to the original investigation.

No, Clinton's lie and obstruction of justice concerned one of the many sexual harrassment claims against him.

Libby is accused of obstructing justice in a case concerning the outing of a CIA agent.

It's not against the law to out a CIA agent....only a COVERT CIA agent.

How do you mean this is a political smear?

Meaning that one can read the specific law and make the determination of whether or not the law was broken and THEN gone on with the witch-hunt and actually get a charge for that specific law within 2 years.

I don't think getting blown in the White House and lying about it is as serious as outing a CIA agent though. Not even close.

First off, it was about sexual harrassment, the lying to a grand jury, and obstruction of justice for a completely different crime and it's not logical to compare the 2 other than to compare the offenses committed.

Monica was and is responsible for her lies.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it wasn't Monica's lies that got Bill Clinton in trouble. It was Bill Clinton's lies and his obstruction of justice in tampering with a witness to a federal grand jury. DO stop rewriting history.

And Libby is about outing a classified CIA agent...

I DO like the use of the word "classified" that y'all have come to like using. Classified does not equal covert and the law is very specific.

Gee...UY has nothing to say...shocked, I say...shocked.

...and poppie comes in with more invectives. Sorry poppie...I always care about American laws and read them and understand them obetter than you ever could. So take your pathetic "All of a sudden our right wing friends care about the law. " and the rest of your petty bullshit whining and leave it at the door.

...and UY comes in with more nothingness. No UY, your opinion is not worth much.

Ahhh....more lame ad hominems from Timmy...er...poppie.

Now, even if there's no criminal intent or if her official status was covert or not, this outing is still a big deal and a breach of national security.

...and THERE lies the crux of the arguments. IF Plame had actually been a covert agent within 7 years of the "outting", THEN a law would have broken and you wouldn't be using the "classified" agent qualifier and I would be bashing him and everyone involved for vioating the law.

Sarge,

We don't know Plame's official status at the time of the leak. I assume we will find out at the end of the investigation.

But even no indictments are issued on the 1982 statute, Valarie Plame's cover as a CIA agent was blown.

This is a woman who served as an NOC agent. If she had been caught overseas and held as a spy, our government would deny she was working for them and do nothing to help her.

This is a woman who was an expert in WMDs and was trying to assess the threat to our nation WMDs around the globe posed.

Because of Libby and Official A's leak, her career as a covert agent was ended. Her cover at the fictional CIA company blown. Anyone else using that same cover was comprimised.

Plame served this country above and beyond for 18 years, and she was repaid by white house officials outing her in a political attack against her husband.

Bush said any white house staffer who leaked classified information would be dealt with appropriately (one can assume he meant that leaking of classified information was a serious matter and punishment should be doled).

Now sarge, are you going to say these guys did nothing wrong if fitzgerald can't prove intent and if her official status was not covert at the time of the outing?

Are you going to defend them? Do you think Rove should keep his job if it's found he leaked Plame's name to Novak?

Sarge, the law is very specific and very hard to prove. It doesn't mean damage wasn't done by the actions of Libby and Official A. It doesn't mean they should not lose their jobs. It just means they won't go to jail on the 1982 charges.

>>Gee...UY has nothing to say

Sarge you say this no matter what.

In a thread where two of your comrades admit to thinking the extra judicial killing of a black is a great idea all you could say was that "I" say nothing.

Sarge was obviously raised badly.

Remember Sarge is and always shall be a whiny cunt.

Now sarge, are you going to say these guys did nothing wrong if fitzgerald can't prove intent and if her official status was not covert at the time of the outing?

Once again Tom, try to separate "wrong" "fair" and "moral" and "ethical" from the law and what the law says. Even Fitz cannot make a case on something being "wrong"...it's either lawful or not and I defend no actions.

Are you going to defend them? Do you think Rove should keep his job if it's found he leaked Plame's name to Novak?

HAve I EVER defended tham? No, and i will not defend their actions no matter how this comes out. BUT that doesn't mean I will go along with a witch hunt when there's not been a single indictment for the crime involved in the 2 years of investigating this incident. It's a very clear-cut and specific law and one either has clearly violated it or they have not....and it's that way for a reason.

Now, is it "right" or "wrong" for an administration official to defend itself from an incorrect claim? To correct an incorrect answer to a question if that answer is not unlawful? Well, I had to be in the room to see how it was put. Rove's job is up to Rove an dBush, not my opinion. I don't care about Rove and if he resigns, so be it. If Bush forces him to resign, so be it. I don't give a shit about hte man. BTW, that law is very specific for a reason....to stop people from incorrectly being charged with that very specific crime. To make it so that when Sarge says "my cousin works for the CIA and has, in the past, conducted covert operations FOR the CIA" I am in no way in violation of that very specific law.

Once again, UY's opinion of Sarge is not only incorrect, but baseless and petty bullshit, as usual. Keep up the good non-work saying nothing. FYI, if you actually strung 2 sentences together into a coherent logical statement, I'd not say that you "said nothing"....but that remains to be seen from you....only a bunch of ad hominem whining, nothing more. Take a look at what Tom says, how he says it and how he backs it up and contrast it with the bullshit that you try to pass off as a relevant comment. Maybe when you've been a few years out of that unrealistic college life you're currently in, maybe THAN you will be able to make a coherent logical statement. But I doubt it....once an illogical troll, always an illogical troll.

We'll see how this plays out. My prediction, Rove is out of the white house by Thanksgiving.

Sarge, your the guy who lashed out against John Kerry for delivery aid to New Orleans after Katrina. Now you have the gall to write that you'll only bash Libby and Official A if they are convicted of 1982, even though the indictment established that they outed a CIA agent (classified information) in a political attack, breaking their national security agreement, possibley blowing other agents covers, and ending the career of a patriotic american?

You're not going to say this is wrong?

I suppose you're right, what Kerry did is much worse.

"Now, is it "right" or "wrong" for an administration official to defend itself from an incorrect claim?"

When in doing so, white house officials make public classified information, blowing the cover of a CIA agent, possibly blowing the covers of others, yes? Absolutely, yes.

Yes, it's wrong, I mean.

Especially Sarge, when the classified information is really immaterial to the substance of Wilson's claim.

They still could have gone after Wilson and his claim til the cows come home. But they were not allowed to divulge that his wife was a CIA agent.

"...actually get a charge for that specific law within 2 years."

I actually want to address this 2-year thing too. Fitzgerald said the investigation was pretty much done last year. It only dragged on because Miller and Cooper faught testifying up to the supreme court.

THAT'S why the investigation took 2 years. They had most of the investigation done within a year.

Bob Woodward, darling reporter of the left, said on Larry King that "analysts at the CIA' said that the Wilson report "supported the conclusion that there was some deal with Iraq". Dems signed onto this. Then Wilson writes op-eds and goes on shows saying that there was noting going on. A liar. Almost nobody highlights this discrepency. No, he is just the "smeared" loving husband of that super spy-gal Plame. Blechhh! Makes me sick.

Shall we leave out the red herrings? Me pointing out that Kerry did not do what some were giving him credit for has nothing at all to do with this case. DO try to keep on topic.

You're not going to say this is wrong?

I'm saying how about we have a trial before y'all send Libby off to prison. I'm saying the intentional outting of a covert agent is wrong, but that's not what's been shown to have happened here. I'm saying you are not putting the facts out as they were given and you're stretching the truth to slant things towards your viewpoint. They answered a simple question as to how Wilson got sent to Nigeria.

"Did the V-POTUS send Wilson to Nigeria?" "No, the CIA, at the request of his wife who works for the CIA, did so." (against anti-nepotism laws I might add) ...and you call that the political "outting" of a CIA agent, or was it a "classified agent"...let alone a covert CIA agent? That's absurd and flies in the face of the facts. "Outting her" had nothing to do with any claims by Wilson...it was to refute the accusation by a reporter that the V-POTUS sent him there...AND, as presented to us for discussion, that is not against the law.

Is it "wrong"...maybe....maybe they should've just said that "the CIA sent him" and left it for them to dig some more into, but other than heresay and an indictment not for that law and the specificity of the law, we have nothing else to go off of except feelings and hatreds. However, "wrong" has nothing to do with the law and I try to leave moral judgements at the door when discussing the law. Morals are like assholes, everyone has 'em and everyone else's stink.

If the investigation was pretty much over a year ago and they have no indictments for violating the specific law, you think they're gonna dig something new up to prove the 3 things they need to prove in order to prosecute someone according to this law? She was either a covert agent or she was not a covert agent. If not, then NOBODY broke the law. If so, then they have to prove that the law-breaker found out in classified material that Plame was/is a covert agent (it's not enought to find out that she works for the CIA....on a classified piece of paper...she has to be identified as a covert agent in that classified material) and the law-breaker had to dislclose to someone else that she was/is a covert agent AND know not only that the agent was a covert agent but also that the government was taking action to keep that covert agent status, covert. NONE of that has been shown in 2 years of investigations.

The law is very specific for a reason.

"Is it "wrong"...maybe....maybe they should've just said that "the CIA sent him""

Maybe they should have sent him? Absolutely they should have said that. What do you mean MAYBE?

She was a classified CIA agent. There's no maybe about it.

By the way Russ, Hillary Clinton was found to be "making a false statement" to prosecutors in the "travelgate" investigation. The prosecutor declined to go further with it. But he said she did it just the same.

By the way, sarge, Wilson has been consitent in saying the office of the vice president requested his trip to niger. In his NYTimes op-ed and when he appeared on Meet the Press, he said the CIA sent him to niger at the request of the office of the vice president, which is true.

This claim that the white house was just pointing out wilson's lies in outing a CIA agent is false. I believe there is one line taken out of context from a cable news show that those on the right cite when saying Cheney sent him. But if you look at his op-ed, look at what he said of meet the press and has said continually in the press since, what he says is true, he was sent to Niger by the CIA at the request of the office of the vice president.

"By the way Russ, Hillary Clinton was found to be "making a false statement" to prosecutors in the "travelgate" investigation. The prosecutor declined to go further with it. But he said she did it just the same."

Give it up Lisa! You can't possibly believe this has importance. With the millions spent, and this is all you have? This is a lame diversion at best, yet not uncommon behavior for you. What a bunch of pathetic puke. Is this what it means to be a practicing Catholic? Excuse away your lies or the lies of those you look up to?

FYI; Believed to have made a false statement! The neo-cons didn't have much and if they did you can believe they would have used it. Try to stay on topic or your hero will hit you with a red herring, ad hominem.

Good job Tom!

Sarge, try as you will, you are not this stupid! Stop!

Try to see the real harm and the real smear in the crime committed.

She was a classified CIA agent. There's no maybe about it.

Nice qualifier "classified" is. My cousin Chris is a classified CIA agent as well, in a department very similar to Valerie's. And no, I didn't just "out" him.

....and who was it that recommended WILSON to be the one going? Wilson's wife....who works for the CIA. That is not outting a covert agent in violation of the law. As a matter of fact, Wilson denied that his wife had anything to do with sending him altogether.

This claim that the white house was just pointing out wilson's lies in outing a CIA agent is false.

Who said anything about Wilson's lies? How about not mixing things up any more than they already are? I'm talking a point brought up by a reporter and a clarification of that point, nothing more. YEs, Cheney's office wanted the claim to be looked into. No, Cheney had nothing to do with sending Wilson, Wilson's wife gave up his name to the CIA DO, who sent him at the request of Cheney to look into the matter. BUT, if you wanna open up that can of worms, how the fuck am I supposed to believe someone when they say that their wife had nothing to do with their assignment even though their wife had EVERYTHING to do with their assignment? Why should I believe a guy that says and agrees with the fact that, in 1999, that the prime minister of Niger claimed that Iraq had sent envoys to discuss commercial transactions with the country whose 75% major export is uranium, what were they TRYING to buy...and then tries to tell me that the claim that Iraq had sought yellow-cake" is a false claim? Sure sounds like Iraq seeking yellow-cake uranium to me. Why should I believe what he says when British, French, and the CIA still stand by that intelligence? Why should I believe a word he says in his op-ed piece on top of all that?

You DID read the 521 page US Senate intelligence committee report didn't you?

Russ, I'll not take directions from those that throw incorrect labels around.....but DO expound upon the "crime that has been committed." In doing so, you can feel free to look at the law I've provided for you to completely ignore. What? Do you not like people looking at the law when people are charged with violating the law? Shall I go on pure emotion and just start sending people off to jail?

"Monica was and is responsible for her lies." Read the threads of you fan club before responding.

She walked because of a plea bargain. She lied. Did WJC influence her? Yes. He told me to lie, he told me to kill, or he told me to do anything, doesn't relieve her of guilt.

When you speak, red herring, ad hominem, think the next time you pitch Teds name.

Sarge, way to follow the "it's no big deal angle." falling right in line. In case you missed 60 Minutes last night, here's a recap of some of what was said by CIA agents who know plame and her husband about how this affected her and her job:

"Former CIA agent Jim Marcinkowski, now a city attorney in Royal Oak, Michigan, told "60 Minutes" it was "outrageous" that Plame had been exposed.

"CIA people don't like cameras. We don't like publicity. We operate in the background as much as possible. So she's in a very, very uncomfortable spot," said Marcinkowski, who trained with Plame at the CIA.

"Her career has been ended," Marcinkowski said when asked about the damage to Plame, who is the mother of 5-year-old twins."

---

"When he published her name-- it was very easy to unravel everything about her, her entire cover," Wilson said. "You live your cover."

"Asked whether she realized then that her career as a CIA undercover agent was over, Wilson said: "Absolutely. Sure. There was no doubt about it in her mind. And she wondered for what."

---

"The newspaper quoted Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and acquaintance of Plame's who was in her officer training class as saying: "For all intents and purposes out at the CIA, she's like a leper ... she's radioactive."

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20051031/2005-10-31T015431Z_01_KRA106763_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-PLAME-DC.html

And sarge, this one is important in light of your non-"out" of your cousin.

"The day that Mr. Novak's article appeared, my sister-in-law turned to my brother and said, 'Do you think Joe knew?' So, not even my brother or my sister-in-law or any of my immediate family knew," Wilson said."

Wilson claims only he, Plame's parents and brother knew about her status.

If you know your cousin is an agent and have no problem revealing it, maybe he and Plame have difference classifications? Ever think of that?

And Sarge, it's not known for certain that Plame is the person who suggested Wilson, as this report suggests:

From CNN's October 28 breaking-news coverage:

ENSOR: Secondly, the suggestion that's been out there quite a bit -- and there's even some discussion of it in the Senate Intelligence Committee report -- that Valerie Plame suggested her husband be sent to Niger. I have talked to very high intelligence officials who say that just isn't true. That it was senior officers above her who had the idea of sending Ambassador Wilson, knowing that he'd been in Niger before and was an experienced hand in Africa, a former ambassador on that continent. And they thought he'd be good. They then went to her and said, "Well, what do you think?" She responded with an email that said, "Yes, he'd be good for the following reasons." That was in response to higher-ups at the CIA who suggested that Joe Wilson be sent.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510280009

You choose to not believe Wilson, yet you will believe the current White House admin? The GJ prosecutors statement regarding the indictment was clear. He wasn't able to prove the "out" due to the gauntlet of lies.

Sarge; you have turned this every way imaginable so your neo-con friends will look good. You have twisted what Wilson said, and what Tom said about Wilson. True to form, before this is over, you will say; "I didn't SAY!"

Well, here's the bottom line. Anyone defending Libby and Official A's actions by trying to lesson the gravity of what they did... well, go ahead. I think when this is all said and done, people will see outing Plame was serious, had national security implications and ruined her career. Libby and Rove (if Rove is official A) could still be charged with the 1982 crime, if not, their leaking plame's name breaks their national security agreement, and both will be out of the white house.

>>My cousin Chris is a classified CIA agent as well, in a department very similar to Valerie's.

You are probably lying.

But anyway:

NOC?

Who is he married to?

>>how he says it and how he backs it up

Want me to provide a link to thread?

Or is this more of your nutless tap dancing bullshit?

"people will see outing Plame was serious, had national security implications and ruined her career."

Well then people are wrong.

It did not have national security ramifications, Plame was an analyst. As an analyst, being 'outed' didn't ruin her career, however getting her husband on the payroll so he could launch a tyrade of lies on his political media crusade didn't help.

Joe Wilson has been proven to be lying almost pathologically. The Senate Intelligence Commitee found that he completely mis-represented his own reports when he (wilson) leaked that CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO THE PRESS.

This all started with a boatload of lies coming from Wilson.

And her 'outing' is of no consequence to anything.

"She was a classified CIA agent. There's no maybe about it."

It was a clerical error. She was an analyst who never had her status changed but no longer functioned in that role.

We just spent millions of dollars on a 2 year investigation, what did it find? Mr. Youveneverheardofmebeforebut may have committed perjury during the course of the investigation.

This goes nowhere, fast.

>>so he could launch a tyrade of lies on his political media crusade didn't help.

Uh, you know the stuff about the WMD and Yellow Cake being shit? That was true.

When Wilson accused W and creww of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat". That was true.

Remember where you claimed "(IE. Wilson saying Cheney sent him)". That was not true.

Notice a pattern?

Remember you voted for Bush and got Cheney,Rove and Libby as well. What the fuck would you know about honesty?

>>It was a clerical error.

Id kinda like to see this.

Put up or shut up.

You're such an idiot.

You're such an idiot.

Posted by MJohnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 31, 2005 06:57 PM

That is it?

Thats all?

Pretty much.

No indictments. Nothing too it.

Did the prosecutor find that Plame was covert? no.

Did he find that anyone leaked her name? No.

Did he charge anyone with a crime? No.

Was Wilson on TV again today, calling for Rove's resignation even though he hasn't been proven to have done -anything-....and LYING about the report in Niger again? Yup...

MJ is a textbook example of someone who is astonishingly full of shit.

Put despite all of MJ's lies he says others are LYING, in CAPS no less. Which of coruse makes it 100% true.

Are you denying that the Senate found that Wilson was a liar, and that today he repeated yet again what the senate found him to be lying about Um Yeah?

"Did he find that anyone leaked her name? No."

Um, actually yes.

"Did he charge anyone with a crime? No."

Um, actually yes.

"Did the prosecutor find that Plame was covert? no."

Um, actually he didn't say one way or the other. I suspect he will once the investigation is over.

Again, keep trying to dimish this.

>>Are you denying that the Senate found that Wilson was a liar

Are you talking about the report that came out a while ago?

Wow, retard Rusty comes back with mindless Catholic bashing, all while breaking his weak spine defending his I-Slam Al Qaeda heroes.

You were gone, forgotten and not missed at all.

What's it like to know even your mother hates you?

Tom, I'm not even going to bother stipulating. If you want a discussion about what happened, I'll discuss it when the investigation is over then. But I'm not going to argue 'he probably will do that later'.

Um Yeah, I'm talking about the Senate Intelligence Comittee report that shows Joe Wilson, from the get-go, has been lying through his teeth in all manner of ways.

Tom

Wilson also leaked classified information to the press, by the way.

So if you're hell bent on saying technicalities -that in the end only have the ramification of shedding light in convuluted and possibly seedy dealings - are a danger to National Security, Wilson himself should be charged as well as Rove. Though with Rove, you won't get a conviction...There is no technical lawbreaking, just (assuming much stipulation) technical immorality. With Wilson we have bonafide law breaking to which he has not been charged.

Why don't I hear you saying Wilson has endangered national security?

OK, MJ, here’s what we know:

Patrick Fitzgerald: Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. (TS: Wilson and Plame’s parents and brother were the only ones who knew).

Patrick Fitzgerald: It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Patrick Fitzgerald: Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

According to the indictment, Libby told Judith Miller and Matt Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA.

According to an email disclosed by Newsweek, Rove told Matt Cooper that wilson’s wife apparently works for the CIA on WMD issues.

According to the indictment, Official A discussed Plame with Robert Novak before his column outing her.

Official A is not named in the indicment because the indictment avoids mentioning other people still under investigation.

Rove is the only other known person under investigation by Fitzgerald.

This is all fact. Going off these facts, MJ, it looks like Rove and Libby (Libby for certain) leaked classified information that led to the outing of a CIA agent.

Bush said anyone who leaked classified information would be dealth with appropriately.

Libby resigned. Looking at the facts of the case so far, I don’t see how Rove stays in the white house past thanksgiving. Both he and Libby outed a CIA agent who’s status is classified, and whose outing could have endangered other spies and operations.

MJ, do you disagree with this?

MJ, show me how Wilson endangered national security, and I'll tell you if I think he did or not.

>>I'm talking about the Senate Intelligence Comittee report that shows Joe Wilson

I read that, everything that wasnt redacted.

Care to show exactly where it says he was lying?

I could not find it.

Dunno why I even bother responding to your direct questions when you refuse to extend the same courtesy to me.

BTW,

Wilson never claimed that Cheney himself sent him to Niger. He correctly claimed that the office of the VP asked the CIA to investigate the Niger claim and that the CIA chose Wilson to go.

This is from the NYTimes' op-ed that started it all:

Wilson never claimed Cheney himself sent Wilson's to Iraq. He correctly stated that the VP's office asked the CIA to send someone and that the CIA chose Wilson. Below is from Wilson's NYTime's op-ed that started this all:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Oh, and Rove's on his way out. From Drudge Report:

FLASH: Lott Questions Whether Rove Should Stay At White House...Trent Lott became the first Republican Senator to question whether Karl Rove should stay at the White House as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, interview on MSNBC 'HARDBALL'... Developing...

Don't buy it about Rove. We'll see.

>>Don't buy it about Rove

No one cares.

>We'll see.

We shall.