The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert

[gldstwmn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

The new papers show Libby testified he was told about Plame by Cheney "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion" in mid-June—before he talked about her with Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper. Libby's trial has been put off until January 2007, keeping Cheney off the witness stand until after the elections. A spokeswoman for Libby's lawyers declined to comment on Plame's status.

[strandinthewind]

This is sooooo not over yet. I think 9/06 and 10/06 are going to be very interesting.

[SuzeQuze]

I hope that proof of Libby's awareness of Plame's covert status surfaces. It doesn't seem likely at this stage in the game but stranger things have happened. Common sense would dictate that in all likelihood he knew. But that isn't proof. The righties are still insisting that she was not under cover. We'll see if this article changes anything.

[DavidMn]

Knowing the tactics of this administration, they'll probably bully the right people into clamming up.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

This is sooooo not over yet. I think 9/06 and 10/06 are going to be very interesting.

I'll take your word for it.

[irishgrl]

I think its awfully convenient that Libby's trial is set well after the mid term elections. when any revelations wont hurt the administration....or at least they will know what sort of damage control they will have to do if there is a mid term change in power...............

the whole thing makes me SICK. they all deserve a good ride on a rail out of the country, with tar and feathers and dunce caps and kick me signs on their backsides.....

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I think its awfully convenient that Libby's trial is set well after the mid term elections. when any revelations wont hurt the administration....or at least they will know what sort of damage control they will have to do if there is a mid term change in power...............

the whole thing makes me SICK. they all deserve a good ride on a rail out of the country, with tar and feathers and dunce caps and kick me signs on their backsides.....

After the elections? you dont say...

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I think its awfully convenient that Libby's trial is set well after the mid term elections. when any revelations wont hurt the administration....or at least they will know what sort of damage control they will have to do if there is a mid term change in power...............

the whole thing makes me SICK. they all deserve a good ride on a rail out of the country, with tar and feathers and dunce caps and kick me signs on their backsides.....

Someday when this admin and the neocons are out of office everything (well, a lot more than we've seen) will come out. Then we will all be really sick.

Did you hear the latest on the evidence that Bush planned on invading Iraq regardless of WMDs or any other reason? Randi Rhodes reported on it last week. It was reported by the British press, of course not here. There was a meeting between Bush and Blair where they discussed this:

Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo
PM promised to be 'solidly behind' US invasion with or without UN backing

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday February 3, 2006

...
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.
...

from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...700881,00.html

For more interesting reading check out Randi's show notes: http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/todaysshows

[stargazer99]

Yet, still, it'll take nothing short of a blow job to get him impeached.

This is interesting because several months ago, (during Cindy Sheehan's Crawford protests, I believe), Randi was talking with a soldier who'd been in Iraq, about how we were flying planes over Iraq shortly before the ware began, trying to get them to shoot at us.

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Someday when this admin and the neocons are out of office everything (well, a lot more than we've seen) will come out. Then we will all be really sick.

Did you hear the latest on the evidence that Bush planned on invading Iraq regardless of WMDs or any other reason? Randi Rhodes reported on it last week. It was reported by the British press, of course not here. There was a meeting between Bush and Blair where they discussed this:

Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo
PM promised to be 'solidly behind' US invasion with or without UN backing

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday February 3, 2006

...
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.
...

from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...700881,00.html

For more interesting reading check out Randi's show notes: http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/todaysshows

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by stargazer99

Yet, still, it'll take nothing short of a blow job to get him impeached.
...

Hmm, maybe some subliminable messages to Condi can get this done?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Hmm, maybe some subliminable messages to Condi can get this done?

My money is on Jeff Gannon or whatever his real name is.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

My money is on Jeff Gannon or whatever his real name is.

For the life of me, that one is still just unexplainable. To me, the only logical explanation is he was banging or hand been banging or banged by some high up official and used that relationship to get in. Otherwise, why would a person with little to no real experience get that high of clearance in that high of a job. My money is on Rove, though the thought of any sexual act with Rove makes me shudder in horror.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

My money is on Jeff Gannon or whatever his real name is.

Right. James Guckert. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb18.html Lest we forget that genius.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

For the life of me, that one is still just unexplainable. To me, the only logical explanation is he was banging or hand been banging or banged by some high up official and used that relationship to get in. Otherwise, why would a person with little to no real experience get that high of clearance in that high of a job. My money is on Rove, though the thought of any sexual act with Rove makes me shudder in horror.

I'd like to thing Rove is asexual. :shudder:

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I'd like to thing Rove is asexual. :shudder:

or a robot