62 comments

  1. David says:

    She was NOT an undercover operative at the time of Novak’s column. She was, indeed, a CIA employee but working in a non-covert position. It’s amazing to see the left actually grow spines, get courage and act patriotic when it suits their political purposes.

  2. juliesme says:

    Ollie North was a decorated Marine who told the truth. The Plume’s are nothing more than political hacks who are registered Democrats and big Clinton supporters. What they did was right out of Clinton’s How to Win at any Cost chapter on politics………and they got rich doing it.

  3. CobbGOPer says:

    Again, folks: No one was ever prosecuted for “outing” Valerie Plame. Why? Because she wasn’t a “NOC” at the time (Non-Official Cover, i.e. “Superspy”). Hadn’t been one for many a year, so long, in fact, that the statute of limitations regarding outing an agent like her had passed.

    Therefore, no one broke the law when she was “outed.” Scooter Libby got convicted of lying to the special prosecutor. He was not convicted, nor was he even prosecuted, for “outing” Valerie Plame.

    She and her husband are Democrat hacks who need to go away.

  4. CobbGOPer says:

    What I mean by statute of limitations:

    According to the law relative to this issue, if the former NOC agent has not been a NOC for however many years (I forget the exact number, like 4 or five years I think), then it is no longer a punishable offense to “out” that agent, as officially they have already been “outed” anyway. Plame worked in a public official capacity with the CIA after her “NOC” days, and anyone with a few research skills could have found her at CIA.

    By the time Richard Armitage (you remember him, right, the guy who actually admitted he was the one who “outed” Plame to Novak?) tolk Novak about her, she had not been a NOC for longer than the statute indicated. Therefore, no crime was committed.

  5. CobbGOPer says:

    Spacey:

    What she “was” at the time of the outing was a public official with the CIA, with no deep undercover or NOC status. Enough time had passed since she lost that NOC status that, regardless of what you think about the “outing” and the motivations behind it, it WAS NOT illegal.

    If it was, Richard Armitage would be sitting in federal prison right now.

  6. John Konop says:

    I wonder if Hillary was President if both sides would not take the opposite side of the argument. This is simple it was wrong bottom line. Your Country should mean more than any PARTY!

    Agents See Dangerous Precedent in Plame’s Outing

    NPR-Among intelligence insiders, there’s concern that nearly four years after the CIA called for an investigation into the leak of Plame’s name to reporters, no one has been charged for what they see as an unpardonable crime: outing an undercover operative.
    Valerie Plame belonged to that secretive circle of spies who spend most of their careers

  7. Mad Dog says:

    Spacey,

    Glad you have the courage to face down the liars with the truth.

    Sadly, only the truth has been trampled more than the Constitution by the “I Hate America” members of the GOP over the past few years.

    The issues with persuing and winning a criminal case under federal law were destroyed by the Bush Administration actors, like “Scooter.”

    Had “Scooter” not committed several acts of perjury, clouding forever the ‘truth’ of the scandal, maybe we would have an impeached President, Vice President, and a Richard Armitage writing jail house books for the GOP conspiracy crowd.

    Keep telling it like it is, SpaceyG.

    Mad Dog

  8. Harry says:

    “Conspiracy crowd”?…. you folks need a life or maybe a mirror. This is more of the Move-On woulda coulda shoulda. What’s your theory on the World Trade Center?

  9. Harry says:

    Here’s a conspiracy, and you didn’t hear it on NPR:

    From Newsmax:

    WASHINGTON – A defiant Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she has no intention of curtailing her fundraising in the Chinese community despite reports that she accepted cash from dozens of questionable donors in Chinatown earlier this year.

    The Los Angeles Times has reported that Clinton had received about 150 donations of between $500 and $2,000 each from dishwashers, street vendors and other low-wage workers. Of the contributions examined, one-third of the donors could not be found and a $1,000 donor denied giving a contribution, according to the report.

    “I represent New York and New York is a symbol of the success of immigrants coming to America,” the senator told reporters Saturday after addressing supporters at the Oak Park Elementary School in Des Moines.

  10. David says:

    Dazzling response, Spacey. Couldn’t think of any other type of response like challenging me on the facts of my statement? That’s right, facts. She wasn’t covert. Period. Otherwise the independent counsel would have charged someone with that particular offense instead of the perjury BS charges.

  11. CobbGOPer says:

    Exactly, as David said and Mr. Konop should read:

    SHE WAS NOT COVERT WHEN SHE WAS “OUTED,” AND HAD NOT BEEN FOR SOME 4-5 YEARS.

    And according to the statute covering the “outing” of former covert agents, there is criminality ONLY if the agent is currently covert, or was covert within something like 3 years of the alleged “outing.”

    If Mr. Richer isn’t familiar with the law, then perhaps he and the other agents so “concerned” about Mrs. Plame and the situation should pick up a copy of the statute. Then they’ll know this wasn’t some conspiracy.

  12. CobbGOPer says:

    Obviously, we know a little bit more about the LAW than Mr. Richer apparently does.

    And by the way, why the rush to beleive everything that comes out of Mr. Richer’s mouth? If he had the opposite opinion of Mrs. Plame and the situation, you’d be calling him a Bush lackey who probably fed fake Iraqi nuclear info to the White House, right? You people are pathetic losers with no vision of where to take this country, except to the gutter.

  13. JRM2016 says:

    We have plowed this ground before but let me briefly summarize it again for those who might actually not know the story and drink the DNC Kool-Aid on this.

    Robert Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and employment in a 2003 article largely discrediting her husband’s position that intelligence related to Iraq was incorrect.

    Valerie Plame got her husband sent to Africa on a “fact finding mission” that consisted of talking to a few flunkies on various embassy staffs.

    The leaking of Plame’s identity to the press, was she a covert agent or otherwise classified as a NOC (as discussed earlier in this thread), would be a criminal offense. And so a special prosecutor was appointed to determine the identity of the leaker and whether or not the leak was a violation of the law.

    Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to handle the investigation and potential prosecution in the Plame leak case. He discovered in the initial stages of his investigation that a) Valerie Plame was not a classified employee at CIA and therefore leaking her identity was not a crime and b) that Richard Armitage had leaked the information to Novak.

    Despite knowing this early on, Fitzgerald carried on for three years with a fishing expedition trying to find some criminality associated with the Plame case, specifically targeting Karl Rove. When his attempt to find anything remotely criminal about the Plame case had come to absolutely nothing, Fitzgerald decided to pursue a perjury and obstruction of justice case against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff.

    The entire case, all 5 counts were built around this claim. That Libby knew Plame’s identity from a conversation he had with the Vice President and not a later conversation with journalist Tim Russert. That is it. Libby admitted he had forgotten about his conversation with Cheney.

    So the case wasn’t about the leak. It wasn’t about any criminal act toward Plame at all. Rather it was about Libby forgetting a fact that, if known at the time, would have in no material way affected the investigation.

    In any case, the jury convicted Libby after this protracted witch hunt and he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay $250,000 fine.

    Despite the amicus brief filed by 12 vaunted legal academics of all ideological stripes explaining in painful detail why Libby’s appeal should be granted and while he should be on bail in the interim, the Judge dismissed their arguments with a nasty footnote suggesting the only interest they had in the case was that Libby was a high ranking gov’t official.

    Even the jurors, such as Ann Redington, indicate in statements to the media that perhaps they did not understand the legal standard at issue to convict Libby:

  14. CobbGOPer says:

    “Even if you are right what would of stopped the CIA from using her again in that status?”

    Um, cause her “official” cover at the time of her “outing” was with the CIA. As in, you could look her up in the CIA phonebook. She was a publicly acknolwedged employee of CIA working on non-proliferation issues.

    Check me if I’m wrong, John, but does it make much sense to make someone who is currently a publicly identified employee of CIA an undercover agent? Plenty of undercover agents go the route of normal, non-clandestine employee of CIA when they finish their James Bond days. It never goes the other way around.

  15. JRM2016 says:

    Mr. Konop,

    If you are right and Mr. Richer is correct in his interpretation of the law, then why did Patrick Fitzgerald fail to charge Richard Armitage with a crime?

    The answer is simple: no crime was committed. Anyone can read the law on this and see no crime was committed.

    If Hilary becomes the President, we will have a lot more to worry about than the Plame case. But for giggles lets go through your scenario.

    Hilary Clinton has an unclassified CIA employee whose husband is a sychophantic jerk. The unclassified CIA employee gets said jerk on a “mission” to find out more about North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. In the meantime, President Clinton orders a military strike based on the intelligence on the ground, that conflicts with the reporter said unclassified CIA employee’s husband brings back from North Korea. He writes an article critical of the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration responds by leaking information to the effect that his wife, a CIA employee, got him on the trip and that he really doesn’t know anything about intelligence. As for me, I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation if that happened.

  16. Burdell says:

    What Valerie Plame’s argument boils down to is this:

    “Undercover agents should be allowed to engage in unethical conduct with impunity.”

    This makes a great James Bond film. It makes lousy government.

    As long as CIA agents are paid for with taxpayer money, they are ultimately accountable to the American public for their actions. But if Valerie Plame can hide behind a “covert” position, her action–improperly securing a Government-funded trip for her husband to try and discredit the Bush Administration–escapes public accountability.

    If the president and Congress can’t get away with this, neither should a bureaucrat, no matter how “covert” they are.

    Please note I agree with those of you who say she wasn’t a covert agent at the time. But what happens next time, when that convenient technicality doesn’t exist? I say “out” them, and charge them.

    Valerie Plame thinks she should be above the law. Amazingly, she capitalized on distrust of the Bush Administration, and prevailed, and even managed to bring down a few political enemies in the process.

  17. AlanR says:

    Mr. Konop — based on CobbGOPer’s posts over the year or so I’ve been following PP, and the record of the CIA over the last 30 years, its a no brainer.

    CobbGOPer all the way. He obviously knows more than Richer. And what’s more, the probability of Cobb and David and others being right are far greater.

    Think about what a sterling job our intelligence community has done for our country for the last 30 years. They didn’t see the fall of communism, they sure didn’t see the threat of Islamic terrorism, they guessed wrong on Central America (Viva Ollie!), you get the idea.

    So, yeah, I think Cobb knows more than Richer. And I hope you don’t bet on football. You’ll lose your shirt.

  18. Bill Simon says:

    If it is no “big deal” about Plame being identified publicly as a CIA officer, then let’s publish ALL of the identities and names of all just like her.

    Or…would that be a “risk” to our “national security?”

  19. Bill Simon says:

    Harry,

    I think you’re in the lead for the BIGGEST suck-up of the Bush Administration.

    Your statement of: “I know the Wilson/Plame crew are fakers and stunt artists.” smacks of nothing but ignorance of the con artists in the Bush Administration and the hypocritical accusation of everyone who is not on their side.

    I’ll bet you still think that anyone who doesn’t suck-up to Bush is “anti-American.”

  20. GodHatesTrash says:

    Thank goodness none of you morons never worked around any national security projects.

    A secret clearance is exactly what it says it is – you are cleared to have access to secret information, information that is not supposed to be shared with anyone except other people with clearances WHO HAS A NEED TO KNOW. For instance, if I worked on the stealth bomber project, and you worked on a special SONAR project, we have no reason to discuss each others projects, even if we both know the other is cleared.

    Rove, Armitage, Liddy all violated their own security clearances by discussing anything to do with security clearances with anyone who did not have a need to know. At a bare minimum, their security clearances should have been revoked.

    Bob Novak had no need to know whether or not Valerie Plame had or ever had a secret clearance, or whether or not she worked or ever worked for the CIA. Their only answer – given the fact that their individual clearances forbid them to discuss information that is confidential, OR INFORMATION THAT THEY DON’T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IS CONFIDENTIAL – to his question should have been – no comment.

    LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS, MORONS. Cheney, et. al were playing fast and loose with national security. End of discussion.

  21. Harry says:

    Bill,

    I don’t think that anyone who doesn’t suck-up to Bush is anti-American, but the Plame game was what it is: a political attempt to “get” Bush from beginning to end.

  22. John Konop says:

    Harry

    Is Bush more important than the Constitution? If Hillary becomes President do you want her to have that much power? You love Bush more than your own COUNTRY!

  23. JRM2016 says:

    OK, could one of you guys on the other side of the argument tell me why you aren’t writing Patrick Fitzgerald and asking him why he didn’t charge/indict anyone else for anything?

    Show me the law, statute or regulation that was violated. It would be impressive to see a PPer outsmart P. Fitzgerald.

  24. John Konop says:

    JRM206

    The truth is Cheney and Bush had the right to declassify information anytime. Since Cheney and Bush did not testified we do not understand the chain of events. All we know is the guy who got convicted got a pardon from the guy who may have been involved.

    Bush said he would fire all involved and it did not happen.

    I am no expert about the law but I do know right from wrong. And this was a clear abuse of power.

    I for one spoke out against Clinton for his

  25. Mad Dog says:

    For all the Jail House Lawyers on this blog:

    How come with all your vast experience in prosecuting federal crimes, you can’t even research THIS case enough to know the statue?

  26. GodHatesTrash says:

    Honor is something these rednecks always blow hard and long about. But they have none, and they know it.

  27. David says:

    jm, Wilson and Plame outed Plame’s identity long before Armitage and Novak ever did. It was an “open secret” that she was a CIA employee. It was treated with a wink and a nod. The book you refer to is a very interesting read, by the way.

  28. John Konop says:

    David,

    Do you have any facts? Show me a real source, because the CIA claims otherwise.

    We all know the CIA and NIA report warned Bush not to attack Iraq. And if he did Bush should do the following.

    1) !) Not enough troops short around 50%!

    2) That dismantling the infrastructure from military to public works would turn them into insurgents

    3) Bush needs to understanding issues around sectarian violence in the Middle East

    4) Our coalition is to Weak coalition

    5) Bush should listen to advice of his fathers foreign policy team

    6) That Bush is wrong to think democracy is a form of sprinkle dust that eliminates sectarian violence since 700 AD

    I could go on and on

  29. jm says:

    David: are you referring to the CIA’s book that I linked to, or the book of the same name? I haven’t read the latter. The former is part of the CIA’s memorial.

  30. juliesme says:

    John, are you now some mid-east expert? Where in the world are Sunnis and Shias fighting besides Iraq? The “sectarian” strife in Iraq was created by Al-Quaeda and news oulets such as CNN craving to use the words “civil war”. There is a reason you recieved less than 10% of the vote

  31. David says:

    jm, I am referring to the Book Of Honor. If I’m thinking of the same book, I saw it profiled a couple of years back, I think, on a CSPAN book review. I ordered it and it tells the stories of many of our covert heroes. Truly inspirational stories of CIA warriors.

  32. David says:

    I’ve been inside the CIA HQ and seen the wall with the stars. It’s very humbling and is treated in much the same way as the Vietnam Wall is with everyone reverent and speaking in hushed tones.

  33. Bill Simon says:

    Isn’t it amazing that the son of a former CIA chieftain is responsible for screwing a CIA officer out of her livelihood, all because someone discovered he was lying about sometign he shouldn’t have been lying about?

  34. Mad Dog says:

    jm,

    Sort of hard for a government to cause strife after it’s been toppled.

    Maybe you meant the strife resulted from the lack of government? Or, the loss of central control?

    Or, maybe it’s a natural function of ‘local control?’

    MD

Comments are closed.