Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[RetiredGySgt]

Good old Vicky is not holding the information whcih shows wether Plame met the perameters of the law anyway.


I dont recall any judge ever demanding to talk to the person who wrote the law to be able to make a judgement?

Yup, Judges NEVER review the "INTENT" of laws, well not your Liberal judges anyway....

 

[maineman]

I have said as have others that a COURT needs to make a ruling, are you AFRAID of the decision they will make? You and I can argue all we want, doesn't mean a hill of beans. Is it not, though, telling , that NO one was charged with much less convicted of Outing ANYONE? We have your liberal buddies INSISTING that there is tons of proof that not only did Libby out her as a CIA employee ( factually incorrect since all one need do is call the CIA and THEY freely admitted she worked there) but that he SPECIFICALLY stated she was a COVERT asset. Further the claim by the Prosecutor is that even though Libby wouldn't say it, the Vice President ordered it, again with NO factual evidence what so ever.

We have a man tried and convicted on charges that have ZERO to do with the investigation or claims that started the Investigation. No crime was committed EXCEPT, if you believe the Prosecutor ones created by said prosecutor when he could NOT prove any of the allegations were true. No evidence at all that the Vice president did ANY of the things the Prosecutor claims or if there is, why wasn't HE charged? No evidence that Plume was KNOWINGLY outed AS a Covert asset ( or are you now going to argue that just saying she worked for the CIA meets the standard of the law). You, as usual are playing word games in an effort to win "points"

so...just for the record.... you don't have a fucking CLUE what the law says.

Is that correct? and you are too lazy to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and find it to make your case?

have I got that right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so...just for the record.... you don't have a fucking CLUE what the law says.

Is that correct? and you are too lazy to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and find it to make your case?

have I got that right?

Did you stop beating your wife yet?

 

[Care4all]

I truely do not understand the rejections of RSR, Retsgt, and Cocky SOB, on General Hadley's Vetting of Waxman's opening statement in the Congressional Oversight Committees Hearing, with both Democratic and Republican Congressmen present?

What is it that keeps you from accepting the CLEARLY COVERT status of Valerie Plame and WHY aren't you outraged that she was outed by administration officials, even if it was Armitage, he worked for the administration?

What is it about Valeri Plame that makes you hate her so much and hate the service she has given to our Country? What is it about her outing that gives you this feel good feeling? Anything?

Anyway, I digress....

Here is the Waxman statement that was cleared by General Hayden DCI, for him to say at this official meeting.

WAXMAN: And we begin that process today.

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

WAXMAN: Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country.

Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.


This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.

WAXMAN: Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong.

There should be no confusion on this point.

Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably. And we're confident she will uphold it again today.

Well, that concludes the characterizations that the CIA is permitting us to make today. But to these comments, I want to add a personal note.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Was ANYONE charged with outing her?

 

[Truthmatters]

Yup, Judges NEVER review the "INTENT" of laws, well not your Liberal judges anyway....

Then what pray tell was the intent of this law?

Was it to make sure Vicky could make completely bullshit defenses of her political cohorts?

The intent of this law was to protect covert agents.

You want to make it mean its immpossible to determine whos covert and whos not for political purposes.

 

[Care4all]

so...just for the record.... you don't have a fucking CLUE what the law says.

Is that correct? and you are too lazy to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and find it to make your case?

have I got that right?

YOU got it right MM, I have asked him to supply us with this Law that says the court gets to decide on Covert status......gees louise!

All I need is a link to this law of his.... but noooooooooooo.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

YOU got it right MM, I have asked him to supply us with this Law that says the court gets to decide on Covert status......gees louise!

All I need is a link to this law of his.... but noooooooooooo.....

Meanwhile I am waiting for you to provide a SHRED of evidence that Libby outed her and TOLD people she was Covert. I will use your line of reasoning and just assume you LIED because your a partisan hack.

The law is available and Maineman has provide a link. WHY would I provide a link? Quote for me the section that STATES the DCI is the sole arbitor of the Status of an agent under the law.

 

[Care4all]

Good old Vicky is not holding the information whcih shows wether Plame met the perameters of the law anyway.


I dont recall any judge ever demanding to talk to the person who wrote the law to be able to make a judgement?

i said this to rsr about it...and tm she did not write the law, she is not a legislator, our representation wrote the law on the senate floor, the house floor, and in conference.

Victoria Toensing is not a legislator and not a Congressman or a Senator for the united states of America...

She did not debate this law on the floor of the house/senate, she did not make amendments to this law on the House or Senate floor, her opinion in how she wanted the law to be meant has no berring on this law.

For all we know what she wrote did say stationed overseas, but the legislators changed it to be read "served in a foreign country in a covert status"?

This is why I do not pay attention to what Victoria thinks the law means RSR, because she DID NOT create the Law, she was just one among many working on putting together a bill, and by no means what she thought it to mean is what it meant when it left the Conference on it and passed, and signed by our legislators and president.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes it seems some will defend tortured logic to defend political beliefs which harm even them.

I agree Care any logical person would not be trying to argue the angle this guy is.

Hes no dummy and I just dont understand what he thinks he or our country gains by defending the using of our intell people as political pawns.

If my party member had done this I would want them hung high for sullying my parties reputation.

For some reason they refuse to let go of ANYONE even if they are dispicable.

 

[Care4all]

Meanwhile I am waiting for you to provide a SHRED of evidence that Libby outed her and TOLD people she was Covert. I will use your line of reasoning and just assume you LIED because your a partisan hack.

Here's the Link as my support, go for it, read it and all the links provided by the national archive on it. This is my proof, so where is yours?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB215/index.htm

The law is available and Maineman has provide a link. WHY would I provide a link? Quote for me the section that STATES the DCI is the sole arbitor of the Status of an agent under the law.

A subsection of uscode 50 section 421, gives definitions, I believe it is either section 425, or 426, in this section, the word COVERT is defined. There is no swaying or twisting to meet the specific standards of the definition of such, as YOU are trying to do. The definitions section of the Law is meant to CLARIFY THE TERMS and the Law, not meant to add confusion, no?

The Director of the CIA is not the sole person making these type of decisions. In this case Valerie Plame, the agent needing protection, worked covertly for the CIA so he would be the one to verify it.

However, if it were someone in the FBI that is covered under this law, like those involved in Counter Intelligence, then the FBI directore would verify it, and if it were someone in Army intelligence that had the protection and was outed then it would be their boss.

Regardless, ret sgt, Libby was aware that her status was classified, even if she was not covert, he broke his promise to the usa gvt by revealing classified information.

 

[Care4all]

The Document that had her classified with SECRET next to her name, meant just that, her status was classified under cover, that ALONE should have stopped Rove and Libby and Armitage.

They SHOULD NOT KNOW the nature of her undercover status and the details of what she did, it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS TO KNOW THIS, or anyone elses business to know this other than her dept heads...

What Rove and Libby knew was all they should know, that her status was CLASSIFIED.

period! That should have stopped them.

 

[maineman]

Did you stop beating your wife yet?

keep my family members out of your board conversations or I will report you to a moderator.

and then, show me the text of the law which shows that Plame was not covert.

I'll wait.

 

[JeffWartman]

Did you stop beating your wife yet?

keep my family members out of your board conversations or I will report you to a moderator.

I take it you do not understand the context of that famous line.

 

[maineman]

I take it you do not understand the context of that famous line.

of course I do.

 

[CockySOB]

are you guys giving each other cyber hand jobs or cyber blow jobs?

Just throwing some little jabs in your direction by fraternizing with another of your adversaries. I'd ask if you felt left out, but I really couldn't care less.

 

[CockySOB]

YOU got it right MM, I have asked him to supply us with this Law that says the court gets to decide on Covert status......gees louise!

All I need is a link to this law of his.... but noooooooooooo.....

Have you answered my question about your allegation that Plame HAD to be covert in order for Fitzgerald to even begin his investigation? This will be the third time I'll have asked, and probably the third time you'll run for the hills and avoid saying, "no."

 

[maineman]

Have you answered my question about your allegation that Plame HAD to be covert in order for Fitzgerald to even begin his investigation? This will be the third time I'll have asked, and probably the third time you'll run for the hills and avoid saying, "no."

Have YOU answered the question of why the Director of Central Intelligence - even NOW - thinks she WAS covert at the time of the Novack article.... beyond the right's standard answer: "What does HE know about it"?

 

[CockySOB]

Have YOU answered the question of why the Director of Central Intelligence - even NOW - thinks she WAS covert at the time of the Novack article.... beyond the right's standard answer: "What does HE know about it"?

Answered a long, LONG time ago in this very thread.

For someone who got all bent out of shape when I jumped into his "discussion" with RSR, why are you jumping into a conversation between Care and myself? And yes, that's a rhetorical question. I really don't care about your answer, I just wanted to point out your hypocrisy.

 

[maineman]

Why can't the CIA come flat out and say, "sure! we'll provide evidence to a Federal judge that we met the statutory requirements which qualify Plame as a covert intelligence agent per the IIPA."

I am unaware of anyone ASKING the CIA to provide any evidence such as that. Did I miss that, just as I DID, in fact, miss the thread from whence this quote came?