The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-12-2005, 12:34 PM   #16
wolf
lobber of scimitars
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phila Burbs
Posts: 20,774
Wait a minute ... did I miss something along the line ... I thought that Plame was named by Bob Novak in a story that ran prior to the Time reporter's conversation ... has Novak named his source?
__________________
wolf eht htiw og

"Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island

High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis
wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 12:54 PM   #17
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
another perspective
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 01:39 PM   #18
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
That's it? The other perspective is that because she sometimes worked out of Langley, she wasn't covert?

I work in DC. I have known 1 person who is covert CIA - fake ID's and all (When you are close friends with someone, they tell you secrets. They are not supposed to, but they do.) I've also known a few people who openly work at the CIA, but don't talk about it much. Covert people go to Langley too.

I have read that Plame's cover was that she was an energy analyst for the private company Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was subsequently acknowledged by the CIA as a front. Why would they go through the trouble of creating a cover for her, if she wasn't undercover? Just because some people knew she was undercover, doesn't mean it was a widely known secret.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 01:49 PM   #19
warch
lurkin old school
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,796
Looks like the leakage happened before Mr. creepy Novak broadcast it, and one of the ooopses is that Rove initially publically stated that he learned about Plame's identity and work from Novak's piece, even though his email to Cooper predates that publication.

What I *think* I understand:
Via the memo, Rove was trying to debunk the idea that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger. (?) (by saying it was directed by Wilson's agency wife who works on wmd) (and therefore derail the idea that Cheney knew about the fakery before it was info used in the State of the Union address.) By doing that, he revealed that Wilson's wife (implied Plame) worked for the agency(implied CIA) and specifically on wmd issues (implied covert). This was viewed by Wilson as payback for his public criticism and statement about the fakery that was getting press at the time.

I wonder if Novak has been off the hook because he drew his info from the work of other writers, unpublished stories that were in the works? Who knows?

Last edited by warch; 07-12-2005 at 01:58 PM.
warch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 01:59 PM   #20
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by warch
What I *think* I understand:
Via the memo, Rove was trying to debunk the idea that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger. (?) (by saying it was directed by Wilson's agency wife who works on wmd) (and therefore derail the idea that Cheney knew about the fakery before it was info used in the State of the Union address.) By doing that, he revealed that Wilson's wife (implied Plame) worked for the agency(implied CIA) and specifically on wmd issues (implied covert). This was viewed by Wilson as payback for his public criticism and statement about the fakery that was getting press at the time.
That actually makes a lot of sense. It's the first time I've heard that theory. It fits all the pieces, and is well within the realm of possibility.

Let me edit this.
Why would Cheney send Wilson to Niger to possibly poke holes in the one piece of evidence that would take us to war?

Last edited by glatt; 07-12-2005 at 02:03 PM.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 02:18 PM   #21
warch
lurkin old school
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,796
here's my amateur guess:

Cheney didnt (and wouldnt), and that's what Rove was trying to correct the press about (and zing Wilson at the same time). It was a pitch to maintain that Cheney knew nothing about any suspicion or question about the veracity of this info before using it on the public. A pitch to show that revelations from Wilsons trip didnt reach the powers- blame the CIA disfunction.

Maybe.

Last edited by warch; 07-12-2005 at 02:21 PM.
warch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 02:41 PM   #22
bluecuracao
in a mood, not cupcake
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by warch
here's my amateur guess:

Cheney didnt (and wouldnt), and that's what Rove was trying to correct the press about (and zing Wilson at the same time). It was a pitch to maintain that Cheney knew nothing about any suspicion or question about the veracity of this info before using it on the public. A pitch to show that revelations from Wilsons trip didnt reach the powers- blame the CIA disfunction.

Maybe.
It's weird that would Rove go that far to "prove" that Cheney didn't authorize the trip, just to zing Wilson and blame the CIA. He could have told Cooper it was someone from the agency, not specifically Wilson's wife...that probably would have been sufficient. How could he not know that what he was doing was a federal offense?

I thought that Wilson reported his findings to the administration BEFORE Dubya's speech. I might have it mixed up.
bluecuracao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 02:59 PM   #23
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
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.
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 03:44 PM   #24
warch
lurkin old school
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,796
Quote:
I thought that Wilson reported his findings to the administration BEFORE Dubya's speech. I might have it mixed up.
Yup. That's the thing. Wilson did and still, the debunked info was used in the State of the Union speech. How is it that this corrrect info, old news, not reach the top dog as Bush claims? Did the administration knowingly select/adapt intel to provide justification and proof that Saddam had to go, now? This is where Cheney's and other neocons unprecedented presence in CIA operations comes into question. This is a big fall for Tenet. This seems to be about selective adaptation or supression of intelligence. Maybe even (badly) planted information.
warch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 03:53 PM   #25
warch
lurkin old school
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,796
And regarding if Plame's covert operations were covert enough...If it damaged or delayed in anyway our national effort to assess the threat of wmds, it strikes me as criminal. It put her out there as a target, and further corupted or threatened all covert contacts/info channels she would have had.
warch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 03:55 PM   #26
bluecuracao
in a mood, not cupcake
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,034
Quote:
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.
bluecuracao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 04:00 PM   #27
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
To fully understand it, you practically have to read the Senate Intelligence Report on the US Intelligence Community's Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq, page 46.

Wilson's report included the fact that "Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had travelled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium."

That section of the report was used to back up the notion "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- the infamous "16 words" in the SotU speech.

Wilson also reported he hadn't found that they actually bought it -- as far as he could tell. They were seeking to buy. At least one vendor met with the Iraqis but refused to sell them anything since Iraq was under sanctions.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 04:13 PM   #28
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 05:20 PM   #29
warch
lurkin old school
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,796
Juan Coletakes a shot:

Quote:
Ambassador Joe Wilson, who once dared Saddam to hang him while wearing a rope around his neck while acting ambassador in Baghdad in fall of 1990, was the first to let the American people know that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's alleged attempt to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger. Wilson went to that country, investigated the structure of the uranium industry (which is mainly in French hands anyway), and concluded it was impossible. Bush and Cheney had believed a set of forged documents manufactured by a former employee of Italian military intelligence. (In the US, the only major public intellectual with close ties to Italian military intelligence is pro-war gadfly Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute)....

But Rove's revenge on Wilson was the ultimate. Plame was undercover as an employee of a phony energy company. She was actually investigating illegal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. When Rove blew her cover to the US press, everyone who had ever been seen with her in Africa or Asia was put in extreme danger. It is said that some of her contacts may have been killed. Imagine the setback to the US struggle against weapons of mass destruction proliferation that this represents. Rove marched us off to Iraq, where there weren't any. But he disrupted a major effort by the CIA to fight WMD that really did exist....

Rove can only have thought it would discredit Wilson to associate his mission with the CIA if he viewed the CIA as the enemy. This is the Richard Perle line. If Wilson was sent to Niger on the recommendation of a CIA operative, then he was not an objective ex-ambassador but a CIA plant of some sort, attempting to undermine the Bush administration and the military occupation of Iraq.

This theory is that of a crackpot. The actions are those of a traitor.
warch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2005, 05:51 PM   #30
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
The CIA says she was covert. Any attempts to say that maybe she wasn't covert enough are silly. A Grand Jury was set up to indict the person who outed a covert CIA agent, because a covert CIA agent was outed.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.