once again, if she was covert, a different standard than classified, then why did the CIA confirm her employ to novak?
Interestingly enough, I just read a passage by a superb author of a series of ancient historical mysteries, Steven Saylor, that deals with frogs... falling from the sky. It is from his latest book, The Judgement of Caesar. I find the comparisons fascinating. There is a tremendous sandstorm (Plamegate), which strikes the ship the protagonist is taking to Alexandria. The ship is tossed about, and after the frogs have fallen from the sky (indictments already issued, and those to come), it finds itself in the mist of Pompey's small fleet (Libby and Rove riding in Bush's ship of state), on which he is fleeing to Egypt after the battle of Pharsalus (the Iraq War disaster). The protagonist, Gordianus the Finder (Fitzgerald), is a seeker of the truth, his avocation, if you will. He is taken to Pompey's ship, being someone who has angered Pompey (Bush) in the past (now he's Wilson, perhaps?). Hey, that's as far as I've gotten. If anyone likes this sort of fiction, I can't recommend it highly enough. The first novel in the series is Roman Blood. I had fun doing that, even if no one else enjoyed it. And we all know what became of Pompey. Keep D&D Civil.
We don't know that the CIA did confirm her as an employee. We know that Novak supposedly claims they did. There are plenty of things reported before all the facts come out. Sometimes they don't turn out to be true. Maybe there is additional informaition that confirms that someone with the CIA did do that to Novak. However, their own leaking or not leaking isn't the question here. Certainly if someone leaked her name there they should be investigated. If it is 100% that someone in the CIA did do that, then that one person did something contradictory to what should have been done. The CIA officially as an agency, not one person who may have leaked or spoke out of turn, requested the investigation. If you think you more about the status of their operatives than the CIA itself does then you should go help out FItzgerald. We also know that information about a cover operative would be classified, just as Fitzgerald has said. We know that the documents that were viewed by the Whitehouse prior to her leak clearly marked any information about her top secret. You seem to disregard every piece of concrete evidence that is in record. Her status is confirmed. There is no question about it. It might have made sense for you cling so desperately to the tidbit about Novak's confirmation, but now that all the other facts have come out and her covert status has been confirmed, it is pointless to try and cling to that as the sole reasoning for believing that she wasn't covert. You trying to discount Fitzgerald's words because he used 'classified' rather than covert doesn't in anyway show that she wasn't covert, but would seem to support that she was.
The CIA asked the Justice Department for this investigation. If they didn't feel outing Plame was a criminal act, they wouldn't have asked. Clearly, it would have been in their interest to keep quiet above the whole thing. The fact that they didn't is one of the strongest arguments that this was damaging. That keeps being overlooked. Keep D&D Civil.
I can only think of one person who seems to be overlooking this. I believe most everyone else sees that. I listed it in my initial pieces of evidence about how we know she was covert.
Still working that out. Am now distracted by Reid invoking Rule 21, putting the Senate in closed session to discuss pre-war intelligence, Plamegate, and god knows what else. (have you ever read Saylor?) Keep D&D Civil.
i haven't- where should i start? the rome story sounds interesting, and timely inlight of the HBO series.
Fitzgerald's statement in his indictment after a very thorough two year investigation gathering tons of evidence and testimony trumps your tidbit from Novak. Plame's status is paramount to the entire investigation, obviously. If she wasn't undercover and Fitzgerald knew it, do you think he would really go forward? Or are you waiting for cues from the conservative talking heads to attack him too?
It is fascinating to note that the repub attack machine has not gone on Full Fry Fitzgerald mode. It speaks volumes of how he has conducted the inquiry, and gone out of his way to keep leaks at a minimum. So far he has been honorable, respectful, and thorough.
Nice try. You thought there was no way the liberal media would sit on evidence that would incriminate the white house. They did. In fact, a reporter from the Great Satan New York Times went to jail to protect her Republican source. It is known as fact now that Rove spoke with reporters. McLelan(sp) is tying himself in a pretzel dancing around questions of his past assertion that nobody in the WH was involved. You were wrong.
Roman Blood is the first in the series, although the novels stand very well on their own. I just finished A Mist of Prophecies, during the middle of Pompey and Caesar's civil war, which it takes place in Rome. The protagonist is about 60 by that time, so much will have been missed, but it's a hell of a read. You could do worse than start with it first. Keep D&D Civil.
i agree with your charachterization of fitzgerald. it would be helpful however if you reread his characterization of the "outing" of Victoria Flame, and her purported undercover status.
I'll have to check these out. i wonder if they have them at my fav local mystery bookstore, Murder Ink?. or there's always Amazon Prime!
It coincides well with the document that shows any discussion of her work is so secret and under cover that it can not even be discussed with friendly govts.
You put a great quote from him in the Senate shutdown thread, I'll put it in here to. I'm going to bold bits for emphasis: First of all, I just want to say how impressed I am with this guy. This is the epitome of impartiality and 'just the facts, mam.' These are the words of a man who is not caught up in the political ramifications of what he's doing. When basso quoted this in the other Senate thread, it was in direct opposition to Nancy Reid who said this indictment of Libby was about the administration's use of cooked evidence and bullying opponents. She was wrong, and basso has a point here. This indictment of Libby is only about his lies. But the investigation is not over, and the trial has not begun. This investigation covers a much bigger picture scenario; to understand Libby's motives for lying one must ask why he did what he did, how, etc. It is inevitable that the administration's prewar intelligence and hardball ethics are going be a part of such an investigation. So, indeed, this indictment (Libby's) is only about his lying and nothing else. But the investigation is something much bigger. Further indicments may yet come, and even if they don't we have a trial coming up. Now, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but if in the process of this investigation or the upcoming trial(s), other wrongdoing is uncovered, those may also be prosecuted? If so, the big picture here is important.
Boy, I like that quote so much I'm going to use it some more: Good stuff. This got me thinking, he's right- even if Libby is convicted for lying, even if there are more indictments and white house officials are found guilty of outing a CIA agent or even for lying about the evidence for going to war, many people will still feel that it's justified. Many would perhaps feel that even if the administration cooked up evidence in order to sell the war, that it's still justified in it's noble aim to liberate and spread democracy. I can't look for this criminal process to really change the minds of administration supporters, much as I hope or expect it would. I can only hope for justice. People will feel what they feel, and hold in their own hearts what they think is justified or not. I can only hope and pray for the truth to come out, for lies to be punished, and let justice be done.
unfortunately, i believe you have misread fitzgerald's meaning in the phrase "criminal process" it does not mean a conspiracy to reveal Victoria Flame's identity. rather, fitzgerald is referring to the process by which libby has been indicted, his forthcoming trial, assuming there is one, and any continuing investigation. however, until that investigation bears fruit, it is just that, an investigation. to assume that an investigation necessarily presupposes a crime, is quite simply, false.
I don't understand. Not being snarky, I just don't get it. Oh wait- do you mean that I've interpreted "criminal process" as meaning guilt in the conspiracy charge? I know that's not true, in the legal sense. You know what? You're right. Just because an investigation has taken place, doesn't mean that there's a crime. Let's say, hypothetically, that somebody has been publicly shot and killed by an unseen gun from a long (sniper) distance, and nobody knows who did it- a crime has been committed. There would be an investigation, but even if nobody was convicted, there was still a crime. Now, maybe you can find some interesting "magic bullet" arguments to get around this logic. Perhaps the gun was sitting on a shelf a long distance away, fired spontaneously, hit the victim accidentally, and then the gun disappeared. Less plausible arguments have been upheld in court, if the lawyer is good enough or the defendant powerful enough. I'm arguing that human beings with basic common sense can look at a situation and deduct conclusions from basic facts. The facts tell us that Plame's status was classified. The facts tell us that her name and status were leaked to journalists. From this, one may deduct that a crime was committed. That is, if you're a proponent of common sense One may further look at the context- an administration using faulty evidence to justify warfare is publicly called out on it. The wife of the person in question has her classified status leaked to journalists soon after. Common sense sees a motive, and a previous history of said administration bullying opponents. Now, luckily, our justice system operates higher standards of proof. Libby can and will use the Oliver North "I don't recall" defense and he'll probably walk. But nobody with common sense is going to believe that sh*t. Now, one may accuse that partisanship affects my so-called common sense. I, in turn, would accuse partisan administration supporters of far greater warping of common sense. They're the ones explaining magic bullets, or debating basic facts.
George W. Bush, 10/15/01 "Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity. Second, I want us to set an example of humility. As you work for the federal government there is no excuse for arrogance, and there’s never a reason to show disrespect for others. A new tone in Washington must begin with decency and fairness. I want everyone who represents our government to be known for these values." George W. Bush 10/26/00: “[A] leader must uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which he had been elected. In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but what is right. Not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves. In my administration, we’ll make it clear there is the controlling legal authority of conscience. We will make people proud again, so that Americans who love their country can once again respect their government.”
