Was Karl Rove the source of the Plame leak. . .

pretty weak - I know this is the new GOP stance on this issue, that she wasn't undercover and thus wasn't worthy of protection - but damn - the party of national security should be the one taking a stand - The republicans of the early 1970's are what forced Nixon out - they wouldn't stand for his corruption - but the republicans of today can't or won't do the same


Ex-Intel Officers Speak on Plame's Behalf
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_plame_1

Wed Jul 20, 7:10 PM ET

Eleven former intelligence officers are speaking up on behalf of CIA officer Valerie Plame, saying leaking her identity may have damaged national security and threatens the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering.

In a statement to congressional leaders, the former officers said the Republican National Committee has circulated talking points focusing on the idea that Plame was not working undercover and deserved no protection.

There are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who work at a desk in the Washington, D.C., area every day who are undercover as Plame was when her identity was leaked, the 11 former officers said in a three-page statement.
....
"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the 11 said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

 

In what way was her reputation and honor attacked?

 

By people who suggest that because she was at Langley she couldn't have been doing anything that secretive or important. Or when people suggest that she who is an expert in WMD's involved with a fake company that has business connections in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle east weren't as important as getting back Wilson.

To demean the work she and all the other agents doing monitoring Saudi Arabia, and the middle east attacks both her reputation and honor.

 

first she's outed. then, when busted, they claim that she wasn't worthy of being outed in the first place. whatever her official status was is one matter, but the fact remains that she was treasonously exposed.

 

The major reason Rove/Libby leaked her identity was to imply that she had an agenda... that she was willing to use her position, as a CIA operative, to get her husband, Wilson, in a position to "embarrass" the Bush Administration over the Niger/yellowcake/Saddam supposed connection.


You can't see how a false accusation of that kind would harm her reputation and her honor? It's pretty straight forward, giddy.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

I'm sorry but if everyone who is not described as "undercover" is demeaned then a lot of us are in trouble. Is it demeaning to hint at political motives? Are CIA employees above political motive? No one is.

 

Some are arguing that to have her "undercover" status removed or revealed is demeaning. That is just silly. It is okay to not be "undercover." I know that most here are anonymous but that is not the same as "undercover."

 

There are two different issues here. To have her cover blown is first and formost damaging to national security.

Secondly pretending that she was using her position to send her husban based on an agenda other than national security demeans her reputation and her honor.

For others to pretend like she wasn't really under cover or her job wasn't that important to national security also demeans her reputation and her honor.

It is ok to not be undercover. It is not ok to have the CIA believe you should be undercover, put you on important information dealing with WMD's, Saudi Arabi, and the Middle East, and then have someone else blow that cover wiping out an entire operation because the non-CIA person wanted to get back at a supposed political rival.

Then later the non-CIA person claims her job at the CIA wasn't really important enough to be undercover in the first place.

 

damn dude. was it patriotic to out her? how did this benefit our national security?

 

911 changed everything.

 

Exactly. Undercover status is determined by the CIA, not some by some guy who wants to use political spin to promote his own agenda.

 

Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak

Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security.

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief — protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine. Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller — who never wrote a story about Plame — has been jailed for refusing to testify.

Bush said last week, "I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well."

Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.

Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel and defense intelligence officer, said Bush's silence sends a bad signal to foreigners who might be thinking of cooperating with the U.S. on intelligence matters.

"This says to them that if you decide to cooperate, someone will give you up, so you don't do it," Lang said. "They are not going to trust you in any way."

Johnson, who said he is a registered Republican, said he wished a GOP lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" Johnson asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722...BiyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

there is no such thing with the neocons as looking out for the public good. they are all about their agenda:

 

Karen Hughes in her book 'Ten Minutes from Normal'

Yes! that Karen Hughes...

 

well these ex-cia officers are obviously just a bunch of partisan bush-hating liberals.

why do ex-cia officers hate america?

 

A Character Test
http://www.newsforreal.com/
By Stephen Rizzo

How do you measure character? That's one of those questions that seems obvious until you start thinking about it. Certainly there are as many ways to measure a person's character as there are situations in which character is tested.

Here's one of those situations.

This little test was given to the two men closest to the two most powerful men in the world, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby. And, by even the most generous standard, they flunked.

Imagine this. The two of them were working with then CIA chief, George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, on a statement Tenet would make taking the blame for letting the "nuclear material from Africa" line stay in the President's State of the Union speech. The press had figured out that the story was full of holes and was pressuring the White House to explain how such dubious information got into the speech.

So Rove and Libby worked out a deal with Tenet; he would take the fall, retire and get a medal in return for getting the Bush and Cheney off the hook. "The hook" being of course, that the statement in Bush's speech was wrong... or in their weasel-worded statement penned for Tenet, "unsubstantiated."

It was wrong and Rove and Libby knew it. Whether they knew it was wrong when VP Cheney insisted it be put in the President's speech or not isn't clear -- yet. But there is no doubt they knew it wrpmg by the first week of July 2003. Otherwise why would such two high-level officials waste their valuable time drafting a cover, a cover they considered serious enough to throw their own CIA chief to the wolves to perfect?

If that were the end of the tale it would be just another one of those "Washington is a snake pit," stories. But there's more. What happened next speaks volumes about the character of the characters at the highest levels of this administration.

At the very time Rove and Libby were crafting their own Niger retraction, former ambassador Joe Wilson unleashed his "What I Didn't Find in Africa" op-ed piece in the New York Times.

Suddenly Rove and Libby had another job – a job that was in direct contradiction to the one they were already working on. Only a schizophrenic or patholognical sociopath could pull this one off. But clearly they had found the right two guys to do it. So, even as they polished the wording of Tenet's retraction/mea culpa explaining why he should never have allowed the bogus Niger yellowcake line into the Presidents' speech, Rove and Libby began the work of vilifying and discrediting the very person who tried to tell them that to begin with, Joe Wilson.

Rove and Libby deceminated the talking points to GOP foot-soldiers: Wilson was a liar. Wilson wasted his time in Niger drinking green tea with diplomats. Wilson got it wrong.

But it wasn't working. Wilson came across on TV as a straight-shooter, and when Tenent issued the retraction Rove and Libby had prepared for him, that only made Wilson's position even more credible.

Then Rove and Libby got wind of the secret State Dept. memo disclosing that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Bingo. "Wilson's wife is fair game." Rove declared to a reporter at the time.

So there you have it – a clear and unambiguous character test. Two guys who not only knew the Niger information was wrong and were actually crafting a retraction, were at the same time feverishly working to discredit the only guy who had the guts to say so when it could have averted a war. And, they were prepared to not only ruin Wilson, but his wife as well. (Not to mention putting field agents and sources of Valerie Plame in jeopardy as well.)

Of course the President knows all this. We know he knows because before Karl and Dick clued him in he said he would fire anyone "involved" with the leak of Plame's identity. After he found out who was "involved" he change his standard to "anyone guilty of a crime," which would mean any firings would come only after a trial and conviction -- a likelihood that, even under the best of circumstances would not take place until well after Bush's term ends three years from now. So, he knows. And we know he knows.

This from the White House George Bush promised would "return integrity and honesty to the Oval Office." Bill Clinton lied about getting a hummer from a floozy. I suppose that's what Bush was referring to.

I wish there were a set of scales on which we could pile the lies Clinton told that would measure not only the number of lies, but their gravity and implications for the nation and the world. And, on the other side of the scale, the lies this administration has told, their number and their gravity.

On one scale we have lying about that hummer. No one dies.

Result: Clinton faces impeachment.

On the other side Bush lies about WMD in Iraq, goes to war, at least 25,000 Iraqis die, 1800 US soldiers, so far. Bush lies about the cost of the new Medicare drug benefits endangering the fiscal health of the entire Medicare system. Bush lies about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake from Niger then orchestrates lies about Wilson. Then the administration lies about how or who blew Wilson's wife's CIA cover.

Result: Tenet gets a metal. Rove gets promoted. Bush gets to appoint at least two new Supreme Court Justices and three more years in the Oval Office.

Something is out of whack

 

they're probabably bush-hating republicans..

so how did you come to the conclusion that they hate america?