It depends on what the meaning of "name" is...

[mrnoodle]

The one source I know who is intimately familiar with this kind of thing did his work during the early 80s, and has been retired for many years, so current policy might be different. But in those days, he was utterly disassociated with anything "official." Completely off the radar -- he couldn't even get married, or join any kind of organization (civic or otherwise), while he was active. Going to Langley would be tantamount to painting a bullseye in neon orange paint in the middle of his back. And other than the occasional mission, he was private-sector all the way. Wasn't even on the official government timecard until after his covert "retirement," and then they justified his pension by hiring him to teach training classes.

Even now, the only info you will get out of him is that he has experience HALO jumping into jungles, and can open a can of peaches from 1000 yards away with a rifle. I'd be surprised if we know him by the name he was born with.

I'm nervous even writing this...glatt can relate, I'm sure. But my point is this: from my very limited knowledge of such things, someone who is truly operating under deep cover has no ties (other than a handler) to CIA proper. If the woman went to Langley regularly, her mission wasn't likely to be the kind the media are alluding to.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

But my point is this: from my very limited knowledge of such things, someone who is truly operating under deep cover has no ties (other than a handler) to CIA proper. If the woman went to Langley regularly, her mission wasn't likely to be the kind the media are alluding to.

If it is no big deal, then why did Rove say adamantly that he did not reveal Valerie Plame by name? And why has the administration considered her outing a leak? All the hoopla is not just coming from the media.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

If it is no big deal, then why did Rove say adamantly that he did not reveal Valerie Plame by name? And why has the administration considered her outing a leak? All the hoopla is not just coming from the media.

Whether or not there were any operational ramifications (as if the CIA handles operational issues within earshot of ANYone in the public eye) is an entirely seperate issue from the obvious political brouhaha. This is part of a political game. Rove may or may not have spoken inappropriately, but my (biased) opinion is that it's another swipe at Bush, and nothing more.

Fact A: Someone talked to Rove for some deep background info. Fact B: The left wants Rove's ass in a sling to tarnish Bush. Fact C: Plame has been outed as a CIA operative (though her level of cover is in dispute). Now we see the media reverse-engineering a case against Rove by cobbling together connections from C back to A. I think it'll backfire, but who knows.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

I'm nervous even writing this...glatt can relate, I'm sure. But my point is this: from my very limited knowledge of such things, someone who is truly operating under deep cover has no ties (other than a handler) to CIA proper. If the woman went to Langley regularly, her mission wasn't likely to be the kind the media are alluding to.

I think you are confusing 'covert' and 'deep cover'. My knowledge is also limited, but anyone who the CIA creates a cover for, deep or not, is covert. This means anyone who reports to the CIA and does not share that fact with anyone outside the agency.

By outing Ms. Plame, the person who did so has forcibly retired her. Much of her value as a covert source is lost. Assuming it would even be safe for her to travel, many of her sources would probably no longer associate with her for fear of retribution.

One estimate of the value to train and replace an infantry soldier can be as high a $250,000. If Ms. Plame was a WMD expert, the question becomes how much will it cost to find and train a replacement to have the same amount of experience.

Having enough CIA WMD experts is sort of critical right now. We already started one war because of faulty WMD intelligence. Losing a qualified analyst because someone was playing politics and couldn't keep his mouth shut hurts us. The question also becomes did he have clearance to know that she was CIA? If not, who told him?

It's ironic that when it comes to issues the public has a right to know, this is a very closed administration. When it comes to information that legitimately should be kept secret, suddenly the loose lips are flapping.

Poor Scott McClellan pretty much destroyed any shred of credibility he had left with the press on this.


From here

Sep 29, 2003
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by richlevy

We already started one war because of faulty WMD intelligence.

I'm not real sure I even buy that anymore. I think we were headed to kick some Iraqi ass with or without WMDs. The "belief" that they were there was just the final selling point. Kind of like when Lumberjim throws in the premium stereo with CD changer instead of the single disc jobbie.