The NYT's finally has a clear account of Ms. Plame's status:
Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.
I can now stop using the conditional in some of my statement in regards to this matter: clearly someone, somewhere broke the law when the revealed that Ms. Plame was a CIA agent. Someone should be prosecuted.
Now the quesion is: who? And further, where in the info-chain was the info illegally divulged. This may not be just a White House problem, but a CIA problem--i.e., how did the WH leaker get the info in the first place?
I also still want to know the extent of the damage to US intelligence of the leak.
It's like pulling teeth. Steven has finally conceded Ms. Plame was operating under covert circumstances. Of course, this fact had earlier been mentioned by Josh Marshall, the Wash Post, NewsDay, the WH Counsel, several CIA officials, and others.
But I suppose things move a bit slower down South and I should be grateful we're making some, albeit slow, progress.
But I must temper my enthusiasm with the understanding Steven is still trying to deflect attention away from the political implications of this crime. Steven does this by feigning concern about the seriousness and magnitude of the crime; it's an important issue but it ignores the very real fact Dubya's administration considers national security to be part of their political dirty tricks toolbox.
If we are to understand this is a WH willing to expose intelligence people out of petty revenge, is it not also possible this same administration might lie as to justifications for war?
Posted by: JadeGold at October 2, 2024 11:34 AMDo you possibly remember a NYT reporter named Jayson Blair? Do you honestly trust an unsourced comment in this newspaper?
Have you (honestly) read 50 USC s.421?? The crime exists if she was a "covert agent"....and NOTHING in the NYTimes article meets that defintion.
Further, the law requires that the US gov't takes "affirmative measures" to protect the person's identity....and Novak (without contradiction in the NYT) has stated that he confirmed her employment with......the CIA.
There is no crime here. There is, however, a LOT of wishful thinking.
Posted by: Clarence at October 2, 2024 02:17 PMDo you possibly remember a NYT reporter named Jayson Blair? Do you honestly trust an unsourced comment in this newspaper?
Have you (honestly) read 50 USC s.421?? The crime exists if she was a "covert agent"....and NOTHING in the NYTimes article meets that defintion.
Further, the law requires that the US gov't takes "affirmative measures" to protect the person's identity....and Novak (without contradiction in the NYT) has stated that he confirmed her employment with......the CIA.
There is no crime here. There is, however, a LOT of wishful thinking.
Posted by: Clarence at October 2, 2024 02:17 PMDo you possibly remember a NYT reporter named Jayson Blair? Do you honestly trust an unsourced comment in this newspaper?
Have you (honestly) read 50 USC s.421?? The crime exists if she was a "covert agent"....and NOTHING in the NYTimes article meets that defintion.
Further, the law requires that the US gov't takes "affirmative measures" to protect the person's identity....and Novak (without contradiction in the NYT) has stated that he confirmed her employment with......the CIA.
There is no crime here. There is, however, a LOT of wishful thinking.
Posted by: Clarence at October 2, 2024 02:18 PMThere is, however, a LOT of wishful thinking.
Yea, on the right's part.
That sound you hear next will be the collective right's head popping.
Everyone in the first 10 rows, you need to done your plastic outfits.
It's going to get very, very messy.
Posted by: JohnC at October 2, 2024 02:31 PMJohn,
I consider you a thoughtful commenter, so a question: aside from not liking the administration much, upon what do you base your assessment? I agree that it could be very messy, or it might not be. We really don't know (or, at least, I certainly don't)--so what's the exact rationale for your position?
S
Posted by: Steven at October 2, 2024 02:53 PM