CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’
CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’
During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”
Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”
Watch it:
Transcript:
CUMMINGS: Ms. Wilson, first of all, thank you for your service. Ms. Wilson, even today your work for the CIA is so highly classified that we’re not permitted to discuss the details, but we can clarify one crucial point — whether you worked undercover for the CIA. You said your position was covert but I’ve heard others say you were not covert. In fact, one of the witnesses who will testify a little bit later, Victoria Toensing, is making that same argument. In an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post on February 18, she says it quite bluntly. She says, “Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years.” I know there are restrictions on what you can say today, but is Ms. Toensing’s statement correct?
WILSON: Congressman, thank you for the opportunity. I know I’m here under oath, and I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan, when he comes back to the Pentagon, he is still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back to a temporary assignment in Washington, they, too, are still covert.
CUMMINGS: Is it possible that Ms. Toensing had more information than you do about your work or had access to secret document that you don’t?
WILSON: I would find that highly unlikely, congressman, because much of that information about my career is still classified.
CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Mr. Waxman told me that Gen. Hayden said clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.” There was no doubt about it. By the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that. In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it, he said, “Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA.” “Ms. Wilson was undercover.” The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that there are people who are still trying to suggest that what seems absolutely clear isn’t really true and that you weren’t covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure there isn’t any ambiguity on this point. Just three more questions, did you hold this covert status at the time of the leak? Did you — the covert status at the time of the leak?
WILSON: Yes I did, congressman. Yes.
CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question. Again, we don’t want classified information, dates, locations, or any other details. During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?
WILSON: Yes I did, congressman.
CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today, you went on secret missions outside the United States. Is that correct?
WILSON: That is correct, congressman.
CUMMINGS: I want to thank you and I hope this committee now has cleared up the issue of covert, whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent, and I yield back.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Eat it trolls.
Traitor, every single one of you.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm…and the wheels continue to come off the Repuke lie machine…
March 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pmCIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’
Settled.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pmScumbag trolls. I hope you get run over by a truck and taste your own blood before you slip off and go to hell where you belong.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pmAmerica finally getting the truth.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pmOops. Damn facts.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pmWill Patrick arrive soon to say that the CIA Director was lying?? More at 11.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:01 pmThat does it for me…
…unlike the situation with Abu Gonzales…
…CIA operatives (especially covert ones)…
…DONOT serve “at the pleasure of the president”…
…So what’s going to be their talking point now?
…”The President of the United States by sheer virtue and magnitude of the office he holds is incapable of committing treason.”…
-Tony Snowjob’s next propaganda briefing statement-
March 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pmSpin? Anyone? Hmm? Didn’t think so.
I’m not expecting any retractions either, because none of the BlindBushBackers has a shred of integrity.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pmLook away, now, there’s nothing to see here. Look away. Who wants to bet that there’s a ton of folks out there that still will claim otherwise. She admitted she’s a Democrat, after all.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pmBetter Dead Than In Bed…, with Chimpy.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pmTP isn’t it Valerie instead of Victoria? Just askin…
March 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm#4- A guy after my own heart.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pmIt appears this is a troll-free zone….Hmmm, why? :D
March 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pmAnd the most important thing to the stupid Fox news is…. Ana’s drugs.
THis story is buried a bit. Morons.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:06 pmFu*k you trolls.
Treason during a time of war is punishable by death.
Anybody still trying to lie about this should be held as complicit in the crime of treason and be put to death. Starting with the trolls here and working our way through the Fox News circuit, then CNN and ABC News.
Traitors committing treason = Republican Party
March 16th, 2007 at 2:06 pmWhen was she covert, and for what country?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:06 pmJake, Exley, JMH, Sexion, MA, RoxerDumbassDumbassRoger you all keep getting:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned
Perhaps take your:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=n00b
asses and find a new hobby.. Politics isn’t your cup of tea.. But when you defend a pile of crap, you’re bound to start smelling bad too.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:08 pmNAIL THESE TRAITORS
OMFG
March 16th, 2007 at 2:08 pmYou are talking to the flock of the freak jesus, god of hate. They have the faith. They believe Plame was not covert because their faith tells them so and you cannot dissuade, by reason, what they choose to believe for no reason at all.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:08 pmI’m not expecting any retractions either, because none of the BlindBushBackers has a shred of integrity.
Comment by DM — March 16, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Damn, I hate to disappoint people, but I will in this case.
I said recently that I Val Plume may or may not have been covert, but I did not know. It appears that she was covert. I was wrong. She was covert.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:09 pmA genuinely troll-proof thread.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:10 pmIsn’t it time to single out all the talking heads like Victoria Toensing and Robert Novak and call them on what they’ve been telling the American public for months now? Why are these people still coming on television and acting like they’re people of character? Isn’t it time for Chris Matthews to play “hardball” with Victoria Toensing?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:10 pmAbby:
I believe Plame was covert — I just want to know when and for what country?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:10 pmDid you catch the part in her testimony when she was asked if Joe was a Dem? “He came from a long line of Republicans in California……but, yes he is a Democrat.” It was interesting watching the wheels turn while she bought herself a couple of seconds with the California Repub recitation.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWhen was she covert, and for what country?
Comment by Jake
Lame, Jake, so terribly lame.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:10 pmYOu think Rove and Bush are watchin TV today??????????????
March 16th, 2007 at 2:11 pmJake, come on, man. She just testified under oath that she was covert and the head of the CIA just testified that she was covert. At this point, to continue to parrot Victoria Toensing’s lies is starting to look like a pathological condition. Doesn’t there come a point for someone like you when you recognize that you’ve been lied to?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:12 pmFu*k you, you senile old fu*k. You are a traitor and need to be brought up on charges. Benedict Arnold had more class than the likes of you. At least he knew when the game was up. You are too stupid to know. Traitor.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:12 pmHe didn’t say who she was covert for. Al Qaeda it seems.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pmNext up: trolls learn that by outing Plame, the Bush gang screwed the pooch for the entire covert anti-WMD team working on Iran.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pmThe United States of America, Jake.
But, maybe those words just don’t mean anything to you any more.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pmVV, what on earth would her husbands party affiliation have to do with whether or not she had covert status. Instead of your lame attempts to obfuscate this issue, I would think a person with any character at all would give up the ghost on this issue at this point.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pmI don’t care if they are dissuaded. They are domestic enemies that are trying to destroy our democracy.
They will be wearing gray while I wear blue.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI certainly HOPE this RUINS that Victoria Toensing BI*CH…
…she’s like Nurse Ratchett on steroids…
…a SUPER-DOOPER DOUBLE DELUXE Bushite ballickin’ TRAITOR…
…with a PhD (Psychotic’hallucinogenic Disinformation) in right wing spin…
March 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWe already knew she was covert for Al Qaeda. Obviously she wasn’t for the CIA or she wouldn’t have sent her idiot husband to Niger, posed for Vanity Fair or donated money to Al Gore.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pmSo Jake and Patrick are going to take it on. These guys must be getting paid.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pmIt appears this is a troll-free zone….Hmmm, why? :D
Comment by Zooey — March 16, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
They’re still trying to work the considerable kinks in the talking points for the Abu Gonzales story Zooey. I’m guessing they’ll claim there’s no way she could have been covert because she was repeatedly seen in public shopping for groceries, going to movies, washing her car, etc…….
March 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pmWell, guys, even assuming she was “covert” for the USA at some point in time (how is that even possible AFTER July 14, 2003?), at least for the purposes of the Identities Protection Act, it is significant WHEN she conducted said secret missions overseas.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pmHow is Faux going to spin this one? Or will they and the rest of the right wing fascist machine find some lost white woman to fill their news in order to avoid this story? Are Americans so dumbed down they will not notice or be concerned?
The sh!t is hitting the fan … we are in for some very interesting times.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pmSo now it is the Bush-appointed CIA director saying Plame was covert, in addition to Bush-appointed U.S. attorney Fitzgerald saying that her status was classified, but Patrick and Jake are still going to take it on. These guys are going to stick with Bush even longer than the family dog.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pmActually Patrick1, it was in Al Qaeda’s best interest for their to be a fabricated reason for the Iraq invasion, since the Iraq War part Deux was their best recruiting tool they never had to pay for.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pmBetter trolls, please! Order up!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:21 pmTop MSM news stories online:
CNN — Plame/Wilson hearing
ABC — Plame/Wilson hearing; Hollywood High; Friendly Fire incident (rotating)
CBS – Plame/Wilson hearing
MSNBC – Airlines grounded due to weather (Plame on sidebar)
FOX – School Bus Terror Alert; Anna Nicole’s drugs; FLA mom has hiccups
It’s better than I thought it would be.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pmIt will be very interesting to see which other republicans will yield to their consciences. (Love the cover of Time w/ Reagan weeping over how the Grand Old Party has betrayed “conservative” values.)
For Bushies, the true believers as it were, the battle at this point continues as usual, though perhaps with growing desperation: save face at any co$t.
Luckily, the American people no longer seem willing to foot the bill.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI liked when Waxman asked Plame if any of the people who “accidentally†blew her cover ever called to apologize to her.
It made me think about O.J. going out to look for the real killers… a big show intended purely for the sake of appearances.
Unlike O.J. though – these dirt bags didn’t even bother… talk about hubris!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pmwow, I can not type today.
I said recently that I Val Plume may or may not have been covert, but I did not know.
should have read
I said recently that Val Plume may or may not have been covert, but I did not know. It appears that she was covert. I was wrong. She was covert. So outing her was illegal.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pmThat’s right VerbalKint — next time, don’t throw down the gauntlet unless you’re ready to joust.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pmJake and Patrick1 still ignore the 400 LB gorilla in the room. Where’s Daryll when his administration so blatently admits they act (legally they claim) in manners that can only be described as revenge for not towing the party line.
C’mon Daryll, what does Jesus think about revenge? What does he think about revenge on those who dare to tell the truth?!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWe already knew she was covert for Al Qaeda. Obviously she wasn’t for the CIA or she wouldn’t have sent her idiot husband to Niger, posed for Vanity Fair or donated money to Al Gore.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 16, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
You make a good point Patrick1!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pmApparently Jake is not watching TV today. Jake, if you click on the image up there, where it says “click to play” you can hear her testify under oath, and you can also hear the Congressman say that the head of the CIA told him there was no doubt she was covert at the time her name was revealed by the traitors calling themselves patriots. Oh, that last part is mine, the general and the congressmen didn’t call those lying traitors what they are.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pmI’m guessing they’ll claim there’s no way she could have been covert because she was repeatedly seen in public shopping for groceries, going to movies, washing her car, etc…….
Comment by Quadrajet
Yeah, just everyday normal stuff nobody notices….unlike the Mission Impossible crap the sheep seem to expect.
Patrick & Jake are being pretty pathetic on this thread.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pmI also don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas” qualifies as being “stationed” there.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pmZooey, I’m afraid your proper use of the semi-colon might scare the $h!t out of these inbred, deer-touching trolls :) – they’re not used to grammar above a 3rd grade level.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pmApparently Fitzgerald didn’t believe she was covert or he didn’t want to indict her husband.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pm“They will be wearing gray while I wear blue.” Comment by Spudge_Boy
Sponge your comment appears to have been cut, “…..and just no red or white with that BLUE – - and don’t ask me to carry a GUN…eeek!”
March 16th, 2007 at 2:28 pmhacker bob:
All we know is that she was “covert” at some point in time. We still don’t know if outing her was illegal. As for her outing being done for revenge, there are other possibilities. For instance, what was the motive behind Clinton’s White House Travel Office firings?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pm“Well, guys, even assuming she was “covert†for the USA at some point in time (how is that even possible AFTER July 14, 2003?), at least for the purposes of the Identities Protection Act, it is significant WHEN she conducted said secret missions overseas.”
The problem, Jake, is that it’s not for you to decide. Nor for Bush, for that matter. Think what kind of chaos would result if all of our elected officials w/ CIA clearance decided to split hairs over who is and who is not “covert”, using their own personalized sense of political expediency as the final benchmark?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI said recently that Val Plume may or may not have been covert, but I did not know. It appears that she was covert. I was wrong. She was covert. So outing her was illegal.
Comment by hacker bob
Good on ya, Robert. :)
March 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pmnext time, don’t throw down the gauntlet unless you’re ready to joust.
Comment by Jake
So do you switch clothes on the way from the Renaissance Fair to the Trekkie Convention or do you schedule them on different days?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pmApparently Fitzgerald didn’t believe she was covert or he didn’t want to indict her husband.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 16, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Patrick1 – do you always speek in riddles?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pmJake: “at least for the purposes of the Identities Protection Act, it is significant WHEN she conducted said secret missions overseas.”
OK, now that’s a legitimate point, Jake. And to address that point, Plame just testified under oath that she had been conducting covert operations overseas within the last 5 years. So the Identities act is operable here.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmComment by Patrick1 Getsa Facial -from the talented “Queen” of the estheticians on the Florida Coast
March 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pm#21 Props to you Bob. ~noted~
March 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmAnd this right here is proof that hacker bob is a true conservative and not a neocon troll. He supports his team until he is given facts proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t have his facts straight and admits to it.
There is somebody I can respect. Conservative or not, somebody that can admit when they are wrong has honor in my book.
Hell, he went back and made sure that we understood exactly what he meant.
Cheers hacker bob.
Be careful, you might get attacked by the neocon trolls now.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI also don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas†qualifies as being “stationed†there.
Comment by Jake
Of course you don’t. You’re an idiot.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmYou are right, chartreuse dog, I am not watching TV but I did click on the image up there, where it says “click to play†— nothing so far PROVES a crime was comitted.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pmZooey, I’m afraid your proper use of the semi-colon might scare the $h!t out of these inbred, deer-touching trolls :) – they’re not used to grammar above a 3rd grade level.
Comment by Patrick1 Getsa Facial
Noted. I’ll try to do better……er, worse. Heh.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pmJake: “For instance, what was the motive behind Clinton’s White House Travel Office firings?”
It appears that Hillary Clinton wanted to remove two Bush cronies and replace them with some friends from Arkansas with whom she had worked on travel arrangements for years. What’s your point? Remember, this little incident was called “TRAVELGATE!!” by our mainstream media. It received media saturation for weeks. If anything, bringing up a phony “scandal” like “TRAVELGATE!” only reminds us of the strange double-standard in our corporate media.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pmI have already carried a weapon (a gun is not what a soldier uses) for this great country and I will do it again to protect it from the likes of you.
I know you would like to paint me as a liberal who wants gun control. On the contrary. I own many.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pmWaxman just blew a gasket. Victoria Toensing testified that Plame was NOT a covert agent. And how did she know that? TOENSING WROTE THE LAW!!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThat’s right VerbalKint — next time, don’t throw down the gauntlet unless you’re ready to joust. Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Listen you stupid cowardly old id*ot. You people not only outed a covert CIA, but one working on nuclear issues involving the middle east. You endangered national security – and you act like a little prick. Pull your head out of your *ss old man, who do YOU work for Al Qaeda or AIPAC, because it surely isn’t the US of A! Unless in your case the A stands for *SSHOLE!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pmJake…are you incapable of reading and understanding English?? Did you not see this exchange between Congressman Cummings in Valerie Plame in the story to which you are commenting?
Do you only believe things in english when spoken by Rush or spewed on the Faux Noise channel? What is with you and your aversion to reality?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmApparently Fitzgerald didn’t believe she was covert or he didn’t want to indict her husband.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 16, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Wrong again, idiot. Fitzgerald said he couldn’t charge the crime because his investigation was obstructed. But like I said elsewhere, trolls can’t comprehend the words “obstruction of justice.’
March 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmAll we know is that she was “covert†at some point in time. We still don’t know if outing her was illegal. As for her outing being done for revenge, there are other possibilities. For instance, what was the motive behind Clinton’s White House Travel Office firings?
Comment by Jake
Hell Jake, now you’re just whining.
But….b…bbb….but CLINTON!!!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmhypatia’s father:
If Bush, or anyone in his Administration, violated the law, I want them prosecuted (or if they are civil officers of the U.S., impeached and then prosecuted). Thing is, I am looking at the elements for said crimes, and YOU have not proven them yet. Regardless of what kind of chaos would result if all of our elected officials w/ CIA clearance decided to split hairs over who is and who is not “covertâ€, if they didn’t break any law, there’s nothing that can be done.
dlet:
I have never been to a Renaissance Fair or a Trekkie Convention — you?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmhacker bob, your stock as a decent human being, and the definition for what a conservative *used* to be went way up with me. The *ssholes like Patrick1 and Jake are cowards and traitors both our nation, and their own political cause. They bring shame on you, and I think you should denounce them, and their st*pid words!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pmJoe Wilson:
“My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”
Furthermore, the witness today clearly asked whether Hayden would call her Covert under the article of the statute and he would not. You can call someone anything you want but she wasn’t covert under the article classification of covert as even Hayden confirmed. Joe Wilson, plames husband also confirmed she wasn’t covert. This “show trial” is simply for political gain as even the special prosecutor has said. He testified that he found no evidence that anyone in the white house knew of Plame’s potential status when the leak got out thus no crime was committed. The only crime was this Libby fool lying under oath. Of course “show trials” are only for our congressmen to get some TV time afterall.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pm“nothing so far PROVES a crime was comitted.”
keep on carrying the repub’s water…
March 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pmP.S. dlet — you will note that I wont call you an “idiot” if you don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas†qualifies as being “stationed†there as well.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pmI have never been to a Renaissance Fair or a Trekkie Convention — you?Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
In your day it would been the Carnival, and you’re the clown – *sswipe!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pmMike Hunt:
Does “conducting secret missions overseas†qualify as being “stationed†there? The Identities Protection Act is very specific.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmSo Jake, you’re saying revenge is ok since someone’s used revenge in the past. Yeah see how that one goes over with Christ.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmIf Bush, or anyone in his Administration, violated the law, I want them prosecuted (or if they are civil officers of the U.S., impeached and then prosecuted). Thing is, I am looking at the elements for said crimes, and YOU have not proven them yet. Regardless of what kind of chaos would result if all of our elected officials w/ CIA clearance decided to split hairs over who is and who is not “covertâ€, if they didn’t break any law, there’s nothing that can be done. Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
If the emails from Cheney’s office hadn’t been deleted because Gonzo gave them a 12 hour heads up to destroy the evidence, your *friends* would all be facing jail time.
They did break the law – just because you’re too st*pid to see it doesn’t change that fact. But it does establish the fact that you’re a complete and utter fool.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmJake, why can’t you Bush apologists simply accept some simple accountability, like the growing number of other republicans who have finally resurrected their own sense of shame?
Have you traded your own conscience for check-list of Clinton’s dirty laundry? You decide what is right, wrong, legal or illegal based on how it matches up on your little list?
Sorry, Jake. America deserves better.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pmP.S. dlet — you will note that I wont call you an “idiot†if you don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas†qualifies as being “stationed†there as well. Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
P.S. Jake – you will note that I will call you an “idiot”, because you still pretend she wasn’t *covert*. St*pid old sh*t in your diapers *sshole!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pmTOENSING WROTE THE LAW!!
Comment by Patrick1 #71
WHICH law Patty?
…the one outlining what constitutes “OUTING a covert agent”…
…or the one outlining “WHO qualifies as a covert agent”?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pmJake and Patrick have lost this battle so completely that it is hard to imagine from what they draw their succor to keep plodding along with the deader-than-a-doorstop talking points.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pmyou will note that I wont call you an “idiot†if you don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas†qualifies as being “stationed†there as well.
Comment by Jake
I never said I didn’t know. Plus I was using all the past information I seen from you to make that statement. It wasn’t just a shoot from the hip accusation. It was well thought out and after much thinking I came to the conclusion that was the most descriptive word I could use.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pmSad…some people will swear that black is white to their grave, even after it’s been proven to be black. Following the lead of their Godly King George of course…
March 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pm“I know you would like to paint me as a liberal who wants gun control. On the contrary. I own many.” Comment by Spudge_Boy
Thank you for your service – Thankfully, we don’t go to the same shooting range…. whew!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pmSorry, it is not “stationed” but “served”:
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
March 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pmIt’s fine if you don’t know, dlet. I still won’t call you names.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pm“My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.â€
Comment by Roger_Roger
Wilson later claimed to the Associated Press what he had meant was something different than the way the comment was received: “In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand. His wife’s ‘ability to do the job she’s been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak’s article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer,’ he said.”
Half-truths Roger. tsk…tsk.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmJoe Wilson:
“My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.â€
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 16, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
He’s correct. The minute that bastard Novak outed her in his column compromising her status, she was no longer a clandestine officer.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmbig papa:
The definition is, of course, included in the same law http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmGo with what Rep. Davis reasserted, and Mr. Leonard affirmed, the President has the absolute power to declassify anything instantly. What’s to say that the President give the Vice President the authority to declassify Mrs. Wilson and her whole operation making all of this mute. It’s ugly but there seems to be this comfort level of all the President’s supporters that leads me to believe that is what happened.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmRoger, Wilson’s statement obviously means that her covert status was ruined the day Novak published her personal information. I’m not even sure what you were trying to accomplish with that quote. You guys seem to be losing it.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmJake….. Here is what the IIPA states:
(4) The term “covert agent” means –
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency –
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States….
Notice there is not a point when it says: “stationedâ€
Stop TWISTING the FACTS!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmI just got finished listening to Victoria Toensing give testimony along with the other panels. It was a little like listening to someone run their fingernails across a chalkboard. I am a bit stunned at what she said and the force with how she said it..
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmShe gives testimony under oath that Plame was not covert yet she has not spoken to Plame or the CIA and does not have security clearance.. How does she know what missions Plame may have taken outside the country in her covert role under top secret status over the last five years? How can she make such a definitive statement under oath about information she has no way of knowing? That is the whole point of being covert is that people don’t know what you are doing. It seemed the whole point of her testimony was to discredit Plame and deflect attention away from the Administration.
Be careful, you might get attacked by the neocon trolls now.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — March 16, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Let ‘em bring it…
As I have said in the past, truth trumps all. If you can not (or will not) see the truth for what it is, you are nothing more than an indoctrinated fool. Conservatives need to be able to call a spade a spade in our own party so we can take it back from the ultra-right that have kidnapped it.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 16, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
You notice that I give Pat and Jake their due attention. NONE. I will say this, THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME AND DO NOT ASSOCIATE THEIR VIEW WITH MINE. People like them are what has gone wrong with the Republican party.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:47 pmJake, Are you a lawyer?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pmNo, Patrick1 Getsa Facial, I am not saying revenge is ok since someone’s used revenge in the past. I actually said there are other possible motives besides revenge.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pmIt’s fine if you don’t know, dlet. I still won’t call you names.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
You criticizing others for what they *don’t-know*? BAHAHA, now that’s rich, you senile old fool.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
So people that do missions overseas aren’t *serving*?
You sanctimonious st*pid old b*tch!
You know, while we’re on the topic of what we know Jake.
We know you work for a right wing religious terrorist organization, we just don’t know which one yet.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmIt’s firing squad time.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmNo, Patrick1 Getsa Facial, I am not saying revenge is ok since someone’s used revenge in the past. I actually said there are other possible motives besides revenge. Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Yeah, the motive of discrediting the truth, spreading lies, to achieve political expedience. That’s what you do after all, you useless pile of stinky old sh*t!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pmso valiant venus, we now *know* that the government destroyed a covert operation for *political* purposes – and that’s all you’ve got?
You’re a pathetic st*pid little c*nt!
March 16th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThat is the whole point of being covert is that people don’t know what you are doing. It seemed the whole point of her testimony was to discredit Plame and deflect attention away from the Administration.
Comment by Jenny G.
Which makes her nothing more than another hack for the Bush Crime Family.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pmI believe Plame was covert — I just want to know when and for what country?
Comment by Jake
———-
He didn’t say who she was covert for. Al Qaeda it seems.
Comment by Patrick1
Lets see the facts, you couple of impotent old senile chickenhawk COWARDS.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#95 So now you folks blame Novak? I thought you decided to blame Bush or Cheney for this one? You are free to pick whoever you want to blame afterall. When you make up stories based purely on assumptions and opinion, you are also free to caste the final blame on whoever you want. That is the nice thing about making up stories, you get to make up whatever ending you want as well.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pmIt’s fine if you don’t know, dlet. I still won’t call you names.
Comment by Jake
Oh…you upped me on the respectfulness scorecard. That’s okay though. I have no respect for you anyway.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pmJake:
“If Bush, or anyone in his Administration, violated the law, I want them prosecuted (or if they are civil officers of the U.S., impeached and then prosecuted). Thing is, I am looking at the elements for said crimes, and YOU have not proven them yet.”
This message board is not a court of law, Jake. I am not a prosecuting attorney and neither are you a defending attorney. If laws were or were not broken, the facts will have to be found in a court of law. There is no way for me personally to PROVE anything.
“Regardless of what kind of chaos would result if all of our elected officials w/ CIA clearance decided to split hairs over who is and who is not “covertâ€, if they didn’t break any law, there’s nothing that can be done.”
You’re wrong. Lots of things can be done (outside of direct legal consequences). Only the peons went to jail for Nixon, but there were consquences for all involved, including RMN. It was a sorry period of our great nation’s history, as this is as well. For this reason, it’s cold comfort for real patriots to hear how the spirit of the law can be broken as long as the letter of the law keeps power in the hands of those who make piss-poor decisions with other people’s lives.
But, then I guess you and I just have different standards for what counts as reassurance.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI don’t see any reason why Toensing shouldn’t be brought up on charges of lying to congress. It’s a felony. Shouldn’t she be indicted?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmJake and his ilk are so deeply demented, they probably actually DO believe Valerie Plame was covert for some other country, else they might be faced to admit the Party really did commit treason. If that were to happen, if the light of truth creeps into their benighted minds, the Right Wing nuts go crazy, beholded not to America, but the Party, would be burned by truth like a vampire by the sun.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmVictoria Toensing was simply stating that plame wasn’t covert based on the article of the law. She also points out that Hayden agrees and wouldn’t testify otherwise. Hayden said Plame was covert but not based on the article. It is kinda like calling Plame a Doctor. You can give her any title you want, but that doesn’t mean she actually is what the title describes. It is the same with calling her Covert. The article definition of Covert defines Plame as NOT COVERT and that is what Victoria Toensing pointed out. Hayden agrees with her. Again, this is a show trial. It isn’t like they are prosecuting anyone. They are simply looking for TV time and more political power.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pmYou know, recently I’ve been bemoaning the limited intellect and integrity of our resident trolls here, but today I have to admire their tenacity, if nothing else.
It takes some kind of intestinal fortitude (perhaps fueled by delusion) to stand in the face of unrelenting facts and cling to their beliefs. It becomes even more remarkable when you recognize the limited armaments with which they were sent into this battle: no wit, no ability to reason, no sense of ethics beyond their “party before country” creed.
So let’s salute the TP trolls: they may not be smart, but they’re determined. (Hey! Who does that remind you of?)
March 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pmYou notice that I give Pat and Jake their due attention. NONE. I will say this, THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME AND DO NOT ASSOCIATE THEIR VIEW WITH MINE. People like them are what has gone wrong with the Republican party.
Comment by hacker bob
Good day, HB. I think you’ve earned a great deal of respect from people on here by doing what this regime refuses to do…admit when a mistake was made (their ‘mistakes were made’ line is disingenuous). Still I must disagree with you on one point…Jake (according to him) is an ‘independent’! haha
March 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pm“Sorry, it is not “stationed†but “servedâ€:
(4) The term “covert agent†means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:45 pm”
Now that you realize that it is “served”….. Once they go to another country, they have “served” over seas.
There is NOT a time limit on “serving” overseas. It can be 5 minutes or 5 years.
So she was IN-FACT covert as the law states. Can you now accept that and stop with the nonsense?
March 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pmPeople like them are what has gone wrong with the Republican party.
Comment by hacker bob
They are the republican party; but evidently you’ve not been paying attention to the gradual metamorphosis.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pmRoger, again, she just testified under oath that she was covert, the head of the CIA just testified under oath that she was covert, and they both testified that she had carried out covert operations within the last 5 years before she was outed. I’m not even sure what you guys have as an argument anymore. This is simply ridiculous.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmNIGER IS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
Thanks for helping us prove our point. SO, you willing to admit you were wrong now that you have posted proof against your own arguement?
I doubt it. Hence why people call you an idiot.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pmhacker bob sez:
Don’t worry, bob…I, for one, do not lump you into the same category with those jackasses…after all, back on the “congress-injured-veterans” thread, Jake tried to make the argument that the case of a soldier who was wounded in combat and elected to continue to fight is not substantively different from the case of an injured soldier being forced to redeploy. His reasoning was truly repellent, and I told him so.
We have had our differences previously, bob, but please be assured that no one here puts you in the same classification as those piss-soaked trolls. It’s still nice to hear you publicly and officially distance yourself from them, however. ^_^
March 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThe article definition of Covert defines Plame as NOT COVERT and that is what Victoria Toensing pointed out.
Comment by Roger_Roger
What part of the Article Definition defines Plame as Not Covert?
March 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThat is the nice thing about making up stories, you get to make up whatever ending you want as well.
Comment by Roger_Roger
I seem to remember you saying similar things about Libby before he was convicted. How’d that one turn out for ya’?
March 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pmRemoveBush:
I was not who brought up “stationed” but, yes, I already posted the correct definition.
goose1:
I take the 5th and decline to answer that question on advice of counsel ; )
hypatia’s father:
Of course, I did not mean “prove” as in court of law — I meant “prove” as in this debate online.
JPV:
What “facts” do you want to see — I’m just asking questions, not stating facts.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pmComment by Barfly — March 16, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
I refuse to believe that. They are a faction of the party. Every family has the red-headed step child that they keep locked away. Ours just got out of his cage.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmJake = Patrick1 = Black Knight from the Holy Grail:
“It’s just a flesh wound! C’mon, now! Have at you!”
March 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmSo I guess that means that the security of the secret underhanded actions of the Administration is more important than the security of the United States and the American public.. Top security only matters as long as it benefits their interests, not the interests of a secure country.
That is not American and these guys have abused the system long enough. Nothing they do now, or ever has been, in the honest or best interests of our country. They all need to go before they bring this country any lower and threaten our safety or stability further. They have destroyed any credibility the office of the Presidency has ever held. I can’t stand this.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pmIsn’t it time to ban me and my inane chatter from this board? I mean, it would be one thing if I was offering any discernable debate or dialogue, but really, I’m just reciting right-wing talking points. Please…ban me.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pmEven IF she is telling the truth that, within the last five years, she served outside the United States, then we have to look at whether she was de-classified or whether the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, as well as the following definitions as well:
(7) The terms “officer” and “employee” have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5, United States Code.
(8) The term “Armed Forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(9) The term “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term “pattern of activities” requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:10 pmyou know, this Patrick 1 is really cracking me up. Seriously, I am trying to put myself in his brain and see the world the way he does… You all should try it. It’s like a bad acid trip.
you know, the world is flat, there was no Big Bang, evolution is simply a THEORY, nothing more; homosexuality is immoral, we’re all descendants from Adam and Eve; hence we’re all inbred, etc…
whoa, my head hurts!
March 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pm“#126
RemoveBush:
I was not who brought up “stationed†but, yes, I already posted the correct definition.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
”
Care to revise that piece of $hit story?
“#82
Mike Hunt:
Does “conducting secret missions overseas†qualify as being “stationed†there? The Identities Protection Act is very specific.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:39 pm“
March 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — March 16, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Yes, I read the “congress-injured-veterans†thread and couldn’t type a response. I was too busy shaking my head in disbelief of his statements.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pmit’s rather clear to me that the reason “sealed vs. sealed” remained just that, sealed, is NOT because no crime was committed by Pig Boy…
but rather that Fitzgerald, being the shrewd prosecutor that he is, knew that he only had a GOOD chance of proving the WHite House knew she was covert… not a great chance… and that was not enough for him to take it to trial…
today’s hearings, to play devil’s advocate, confirm two things…. 1) Plame was covert; 2) the White House’s eternal stance of “prove it! prooooove we knew she was covert” has essentially won out… right in step with “I have no recollection, sir”… passive denial…
but we all know better… we all know who killed Nicole Brown Simpson, also… unfortunately, Rove nor Fitzgerald were there to testify, and this thing has gone about as far as it can go…
March 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm“#131
Even IF she is telling the truth that, within the last five years, she served outside the United States, then we have to look at whether she was de-classified or whether the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, as well as the following definitions as well:
(7) The terms “officer†and “employee†have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5, United States Code.
(8) The term “Armed Forces†means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(9) The term “United Statesâ€, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term “pattern of activities†requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 3:10 pm”
It’s already been looked at schmuck!!!! Patrick F. and the CIA director both state that she was “CLASSIFIED” and that she was a “COVERT” agent.
Damn……. They have the officials telling them and they still want ot argue that she “might” not be.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pmTo the author of post #130:
Again, please do not namejack other posters, even if the temptation is extreme. Namejacking is one of the reasons rachel was so universally reviled here. Let’s not go down that road again, K?
March 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pmJake, you wrote:
“Of course, I did not mean “prove†as in court of law — I meant “prove†as in this debate online.”
But, Jake. You are constantly invoking the law as if you expected the same level of discrimination on a pubic message board as you would in a court. In this context, you are invoking an impossible metric for determining proof. It’s silly.
We’ll both have to wait and see how the legal implications play out, though I admit it will be interesting to see if the fine legal (Clintonian ?) technicality you have evoked will be impressive to anyone but a true believer. That said, public debates are not meant for such determinations. As for the “public” implications, how confidence is diminished or restored in our present government (as opposed to administrations from previous decades, ceturies, etc.), now that’s substance for debate that any thinking patriot could sink their teeth into.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pmThe definition is, of course, included in the same law
Comment by Jake #96
I just got finished listening to Victoria Toensing give testimony…
… she has not spoken to Plame or the CIA and does not have security clearance..
How does she know what missions Plame may have taken outside the country in her covert role under top secret status over the last five years?
Comment by Jenny G. #100
Jake,
I think Jenny G. has provided quite an adequate rebuttal…
…to your cut-n-paste non-sequitur…
March 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pmNAMEJACK THIS, PRICK.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pm“Patrick1″ sez:
Hello again, rachel.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:35 pmhypatia’s father:
I was thinking more in line with “debate” according to Oxford Rules. The elements of the alleged crime would still be relevant therein.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pmI was thinking more in line with “debate†according to Oxford Rules. The elements of the alleged crime would still be relevant therein.
Comment by Jake
Okay. We’ll see you in two weeks after you gathered all your informtaion then. Bye-bye.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pmAccording to Toensing, Plame was NOT a covert operative — but of course, that depended on what your meaning of “was” was.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pmHer now proven covert status dictates by law that treason charges must be brought up… how can we be a country of laws unless treason charges are now pursued?
March 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pmJake, you don’t need an Oxford rulebook surely just to back up the idea that “elements of the alleged crime would still be relevant…”–which is just a fancy way of saying that we can talk about possible crimes. Which we’ve been doing quite nicely.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pmI see your stupidity, just like your faith, is limitless. What a stupid question!
She was, as you now admit, covert. That is all that relevant here. Blowing the cover of a covert operative is treason. That is the crime here.
The the exact nature of her job, just like her field of expertise and her hat size has nothing to do with anything.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pmI was just pointing out, hypatia’s father, that I am not holding anyone here to the standard of proof in a court of law. Unlike dlet, I don’t need 2 weeks to prepare.
P.S. RemoveBush: check again, because someone else brought up “stationed†prior to 2:39 pm.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pmUnlike dlet, I don’t need 2 weeks to prepare.
Comment by Jake
But the Oxford Rules state a minimum of two weeks for both sides to gather information. Since we can’t change the rules you want then see you in two weeks. And yes I think you do need two weeks.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pm#7 Mike Hunt:
Will Patrick arrive soon to say that the CIA Director was lying?? More at 11.
Of course he will. Hayden was obviously lying. He’s contradicting WH spokesmen like Hannity, Limbaugh, FauxSnooze, Toenzig, Levin, et.al. I mean, who you gonna believe?…. Really.
Cheers,
March 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pmAll you libruls are a bunch of posers!
March 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pm#17 Jake:
When was she covert, and for what country?
“Stoopid is as stoopid does…”
I think Patrick1 is Bob Boudelang under an assumed name, and Jake’s just Patrick1 run through a “Big Word AutoBot™” script.
Cheers,
March 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pm#121 Hayden testified that she was Covert but not in the sense of the law. He refused to call her covert based on the law. Basically, he was using his own terminology which is perfectly fine. Either way, no crime was committed anyways as Fitzgerald had previously testified to. He clearly stated that since there is no evidence that anyone in the White House knew of her covert status no crime was committed. With that information, this “trial” simply becomes a show trial used to get dems on TV and shoot for extra political power. I don’t blame them. It has been their game plan since taking over. Hell, they are now supporting the Iraq war even though they are against it on TV. They concluded that supporting and extending the war would net them more political power so they simply forgot about campaign promises and what they say every night on TV. Very insane if you ask me. Then again, they calculate that the far left like you folks will vote for them regardless so they are simply gunning for the middle. How does it make you feel when your own party doesn’t care about you and votes against the values they campaigned on?
March 16th, 2007 at 4:27 pmShorter Jake…”Depends on what your meaning of the word “is” is.” Pathetic. Transparent. In character.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pmdlet sez:
<chuckle> Nicely done, dlet. ^_^
March 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pmJust returned from my friends over at Powerline – they sure clarified the statute which defined prcisely the word “covert”. Val might have missed the memo…..
March 16th, 2007 at 4:45 pm#53 Jake:
I also don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas†qualifies as being “stationed†there.
You’ve already admitted there’s a lot you “don’t know” (although that was a newsflash to no one here). What’s that got to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?
50 USC § 426:
§ 426. Definitions
For the purposes of this subchapter:
…
(4) The term “covert agent†means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
See the word “stationed” anywhere there?
For the rest of you folks, a FYI: This “stationed” crapola is the stuff being peddled in Wingnuttia through the RW Mighty Wurlitzer (and Dubya shills like Toensing). Jake suckles at the teat of the RNC.
Cheers,
March 16th, 2007 at 4:45 pmJake: “For instance, what was the motive behind Clinton’s White House Travel Office firings?â€
Gee…I don’t know.
What was the motive behind Bush wanting to fire 8 attorneys because they were not loyal to him?
March 16th, 2007 at 4:48 pm#69 Bluedog49:
Remember, this little incident was called “TRAVELGATE!!†by our mainstream media. It received media saturation for weeks.
And investigation by a rabid Federalist-Society-appointed “independent counsel” for years, who eventually came to the conclusion of no wrong-doing….
Cheers,
March 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pmHWSNBN sez:
Waxman just blew a gasket. Victoria Toensing testified that Plame was NOT a covert agent. And how did she know that? TOENSING WROTE THE LAW!!
Wouldn’t matter. If Daffy Duck had “written” the law, or it had been passed down through ESP transmissions by space aliens from Betelgeuse, it was passed by Congress, and it says what it says. Toensing is not a judge, and her crapola (see my link above) about “stationed” overseas is nowhere in the law. Wilson has testified that she served under cover overseas in the last five years, and Toensing is revealed for the dishonest hack (and Dubya-butt-sucker) she is.
Cheers,
March 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pm#80 Jake:
P.S. dlet — you will note that I wont call you an “idiot†if you don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas†qualifies as being “stationed†there as well.
Jake: Just a hint … don’t start calling others “idiot” when your own ‘facts’ are a stinking pile’o'cr*p….
Cheers,
March 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pmJust returned from my friends over at Powerline – they sure clarified the statute which defined prcisely the word “covertâ€. Val might have missed the memo…..
Comment by valiant venus
Powerline.
I had no idea you were funny, Haggie. Maybe you have even funnier dead baby stories you’re keeping from us?
March 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWill Patrick arrive soon to say that the CIA Director was lying?? More at 11.
He said on another thread that “the word of Hayden is NOT ENOUGH!”, and then went on to say he had been in the military…
If you want to get rid of the trolls, tell them the TRUTH:
That George W. Bush is a TRAITOR coxucker PUNK, and that he an all his Nazi azzhole-lickers of TRAITOR Bush will
BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.
God Bless America and the DEMOCRATS and the WORLD!
BURN IN HELL, TRAITOR coxucker PUNK Bush and all of his Nazi azzhole-lickers.
Thank you, God and Jesus!!!
March 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pmOkay, Roger Roger — Hayden says Plame was ‘covert’, but it’s the other kind of covert, which isn’t the same thing as covert at all, Fitz ‘testified’ that no crime was committed, and this is all just a show trial for a Democratic power grab. Riiiiiight. backs slowly away
March 16th, 2007 at 6:09 pmdlet:
As I said, I don’t need two weeks. I’m fully prepared to wait for your side of the debate though.
Arne:
As I said above, I was not the one who brought up “stationed” — and to show you I truly appreciate your helpful hint, I will give you one as well — re-read Nico’s initial post.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:40 pmRemember in the Saturday morning westerns when, during a gunfight, the bad guys ran out of bullets and ended up throwing their guns at the good guys in desperation. Well, that’s a lot like the remaining Bush supporters. They’re out of bullets.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:50 pm“#148
P.S. RemoveBush: check again, because someone else brought up “stationed†prior to 2:39 pm.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 4:11 pm”
Wrong once again…..
The only place this comes up is from the actual story……. So YOU are the only one here that brought this up…….
Once again……
Care to revise your $hit story?
“#53
I also don’t know whether “conducting secret missions overseas†qualifies as being “stationed†there.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 2:26 pm“
March 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pmRemoveBush, thank you for demonstrating again that Jake is a weasel.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pm[...] CNN, The Washington Post, New York Times, JustOneMinute, The Nation, Think Progress, Firedoglake, Nico @ Think progress Hat Tips to you [...]
March 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pmAs I said above, I was not the one who brought up “stationed†— and to show you I truly appreciate your helpful hint, I will give you one as well — re-read Nico’s initial post. Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
You’re a stupid old c*nt you ignorant hateful old coward! You’re the reason people make lawyer jokes! You’re deceptive, foolish, dishonest, weaselly and frankly downright st*pid! People like you, are why holocausts happen – you nazi freak!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pmRemoveBush:
As you yourself noted, Nico brought up “stationed” in the actual story, at 1:52 p.m. Not until I checked the actual definition of “covert agent” in the IIPA did I catch the mistake. So, no, I am not “wrong again”.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:44 pmAs you yourself noted, Nico brought up “stationed†in the actual story, at 1:52 p.m. Not until I checked the actual definition of “covert agent†in the IIPA did I catch the mistake. So, no, I am not “wrong againâ€. Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Actually it was the right wingnutter (of which you’re a particularly *cracked* nut) used that term, not Nico.
What does that make you? An illiterate old fool. Get your eyes checked dum bass – you look like a st*pid gradeschooler! And for someone that *thinks* they’re smart like you are, it must be awful for everyone to see *exactly* how st*pid you are! Oh no, everyone knows Jake is an incompetent twit! It’s just like junior high all over again for you isn’t it pencil-d*ck?
March 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
Fine, it was Nico who first brought up the right wingnutter term — as I said above, I was not the one who brought up “stationed†— happy now?
March 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pmFine, it was Nico who first brought up the right wingnutter term — as I said above, I was not the one who brought up “stationed†— happy now? Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
You are in fact part of the group that did bring it up. That makes you a continuing part of the smear and ignorance. I ask you again. Why do you hate America? Because no one that love it would be the giant steaming pile of j*ck*ss sh*t that you are?
March 16th, 2007 at 8:32 pm“RemoveBush:
As you yourself noted, Nico brought up “stationed†in the actual story, at 1:52 p.m. Not until I checked the actual definition of “covert agent†in the IIPA did I catch the mistake. So, no, I am not “wrong againâ€.
Comment by Jake — March 16, 2007 @ 7:44 pm”
Until YOU checked the definition????
I was the one who posted the DEFINITION, do I need to go and post that part as well????
March 16th, 2007 at 9:10 pmI am NOT part of the group that brought it up and, for the record, I posted the definition and a link to said definition BEFORE RemoveBush:
My post # 92 @ 2:45 pm
My post # 96 LINK
RemoveBush’s post # 99 @ 2:47 pm
So, there!
March 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pm#165 TTTSNBN:
As I said above, I was not the one who brought up “stationedâ€
Why, when you’re right, you’re right, Jake. Toensing and the rest of the RNC Mighty Wurlitzer brought that steaming sack’o’sh*te into the building. You just dutifully spread it around.
Cheers,
March 17th, 2007 at 12:41 amAH YES, SWEET VINDICATION of Valerie and Joe, AND A BIG HANDFUL OF SHIT SMEARED INTO THE FACES OF HATCHET-FACED TROLLS LIKE Toensing AND THE REST OF THE CRUMB-BUM DUNG-PUN-dits!!!!! HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!
March 17th, 2007 at 12:59 amCIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert…
…according to a third-hand account.
Personally I’d expect you could get the same 3rd-hand translation about what Bush thinks.
Does pose the question though, WTF does anyone care what someone says someone else says the CIA director says ? A grand jury case has been completed and we now have a second set of hearings where even the covert agent herself is testifying.
Why can’t you instead just point to the CIA’s official submission on her status as per evidence and testimony introduced at these hearings rather than provide a 3rd hand undocumented account ?
March 17th, 2007 at 1:31 am[...] was undercover, we knew that even before her testimony today. We also know that notes written by Cheney revealed he directed the effort to discredit [...]
March 17th, 2007 at 2:00 amArne:
I will take whatever moral victories I can get here.
Raymond Funamoto:
“Sweet vindication”?! May I suggest you re-read posts # 17 – 175 above?
March 17th, 2007 at 9:01 amHayden’s testimony to two sitting Representatives clearly defines Plame was covert. Roger_Roger is just trying to spin. These posters can’t possibly consider themselves patriotic Americans if they want to quibble over something that has already been settled at the highest levels.
Idiots.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:35 pm“An idiot can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.”
March 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pmTREASON!
March 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pmPlame was not “covert” under the legal definition Victoria Toensing patiently explained to the Dem Hacks on the Hill. As Toensing noted, IF she was such a valuable covert agent, the brass at the CIA should have explained the dire consequences to Novak and Armitage. In St. Val’s favour is the fact she told her bosses her “covger” had been blown by hubby. What’s not in St. Vls favour is the fact her lying husband said he never wanted her picture published….and couldn’t get in Vanity Fair fast enough…..
March 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pmSanity – when did Dems decide the Law was merely a suggestion? Is Hayden an attorney? How long has he been head of the CIA? Do you think the person who assisted the Committee drafting the LAW might know something about the Law ?
March 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pmSorry!
The LAW says Plame was COVERT.
Michael Hayden says Plame was COVERT (if you doubt Waxman, WHY doesn’t Hayden DISPUTE it? A: Cause Plame was COVERT).
PAtrick Fitzgerald said Plame was COVERT.
CIA, who asked for the investigation from Justice Department, which we NOW KNOW WAS NEVER DONE,
said Plame was COVERT.
Finally, Valerie Plame Wilson told Waxman UNDER OATH that she WAS
ta da!!!!
COVERT!
Have Gonzo or Rove (or Libby in HIS case) TESTIFIED UNDER OATH???
Why NOT???
COVERT!!!!
God Bless America, the Democrats, and the WORLD!
BURN IN HELL, TRAITOR Bush the MURDERER coxucker PUNK!
March 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pmVictoria Toensing got her boney ass handed to her. Any goofus that backs her lame argument isn’t worth debating. Her argument was DEMOLISHED! Go to C-SPAN and watch it again.
Plame was intentionally and knowingly exposed. In my opinion it is TREASON.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pmIs Hayden an attorney? How long has he been head of the CIA? Do you think the person who assisted the Committee drafting the LAW might know something about the Law ?
Comment by unvaliant venus —
Yes, as has already been pointed out several times, Toensing knows about the law she helped to draft; what she didn’t know and never tried to know was the extent of Valerie Plame’s covert work before she was outed by Robert No-facts. Toensing herself admitted under she never went to the CIA to find out.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:32 pmSo you don’t think Hayden, even if fairly new to the job, wouldn’t try to find out the history of an agent in a now famous case at the CIA? You trolls must be getting really desperate if you feel the need even to denigrate the Dumbya-appointed Director of the CIA.
Sorry! The LAW says Plame was COVERT.
Sorry, no it doesn’t. The law defines what covert is. Plame’s status under the act hasn’t been determined or ruled on. The CIA has given no testimony, the prosecutor didn’t and the judge had no ruling on it. No evidence that she was covert under the act has been entered into evidence.
I guess you’re not one of those fans of Habeus Corpus either.
Michael Hayden says Plame was COVERT (if you doubt Waxman, WHY doesn’t Hayden DISPUTE it?
Because he hasn’t testified. If you believe Waxman has truely opted for this undocumented heresay in place of testimony to that effect then why would you believe anything he said. He’s clearly not trying to settle the matter.
PAtrick Fitzgerald said Plame was COVERT.
No he didn’t. He never said nor wrote that. He even held press conferences about the fact he wouldn’t be addressing that as part of the investigation.
CIA, who asked for the investigation from Justice Department, which we NOW KNOW WAS NEVER DONE,
said Plame was COVERT.
No, they didn’t. They said she was classified which required such a filing.
Finally, Valerie Plame Wilson told Waxman UNDER OATH that she WAS ta da!!!! COVERT!
Which counted for nothing without her travel being entered as evidence.
Have Gonzo or Rove (or Libby in HIS case) TESTIFIED UNDER OATH??? Why NOT??? COVERT!!!!
And the plot is lost!!!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 5:15 amYes, as has already been pointed out several times, Toensing knows about the law she helped to draft; what she didn’t know and never tried to know was the extent of Valerie Plame’s covert work before she was outed by Robert No-facts.
She never tried to find out ?
I think you’ll find she said in these hearings that she only had the testimony and records of the Libby case and this hearing to go on and that these didn’t establish that fact.
There is a simple solution there and it’s not Toensing that’s failed to achieve it.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:23 am[...] Either Plame is telling the truth or she is lying. I believe that she was telling the truth. The evidence by my reading supports [...]
March 18th, 2007 at 6:13 amShe never tried to find out ?
I think you’ll find she said in these hearings that she only had the testimony and records of the Libby case and this hearing to go on and that these didn’t establish that fact.
There is a simple solution there and it’s not Toensing that’s failed to achieve it.
Comment by Kilo
Toensing clearly admitted under oath that she did not try to find out about Valerie Plame’s status from the CIA, nor from Valerie herself. There also have been several articles in the non-Neo-CON press about the CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings, where Plame worked, and its other employees getting destroyed by her outing. It takes years to build up a trustworthy reputation for such a company, but all you guys can do is try to spin it and equivocate with your ridiculous neo-CON talking points simply because Plame’s husband told the truth about what was not found in Niger. Shame on you all!
March 18th, 2007 at 6:56 am“but all you guys can do is try to spin it and equivocate with your ridiculous neo-CON talking points”
Comment by Lora — March 18, 2007 @ 6:56 am
What am I spinning ? What talking point ?
I don’t have to “do” anything Lora other than point out, yet again for the very slow, that no evidence has been put before any hearing that Plame was a covert agent, as required to establish the Act had been violated.
If it would make you feel better I could say this redhead nobody lied her arse off and everything she said was the complete opposite of the truth. Or we could pretend she gets hit by a bus tomorrow and everything she’s said so far is somehow stricken from the record.
Now can you understand that this wouldn’t change anything in regard to what I have said ? Yes ? No ? Maybe ?
If not you need to go find a discussion you can understand as this one is clearly over your head. If you can understand this then you know talking about “spin” in regard to this redhead nobody actually amounts to you trying to spin a talking point into something more meaningful.
This redhead is meaningless. Establishing Plame’s identity as covert by presentation of evidence in a hearing is not. 4 fkn years it’s been and you want to talk about something else.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:09 amGood luck with that. See how well that works out.
[...] Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume continued his campaign to smear Valerie Plame Wilson. Previously, he had falsely said that it was “unlikely she was” [...]
March 18th, 2007 at 11:38 amkilo
March 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pmShe isn’t even a redhead. She looks blonde to me and everyone else. You guys are obviously getting desperate when you start denying that even the Bush-appointed CIA director called her covert, and you’re too stupid to realize that whether Plame was covert or not,　the outing of her, put her many connections in other countries and via Brewster-Jennings in harm’s way.
Don’t expect further answers from me. I’m too busy bother with your equivocating and neo-con spin. BTW, none of you have proved that Plame wasn’t covert.
[...] by other CIA agents in 2003, after Bob Novak’s column outing her was printed. Beyond that, CIA Director Michael Hayden, a Bush appointee, also officially confirmed her classified covert status; she was a NOC (Non Official Cover) covert agent who acted overseas in [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pmtruth, she is telling trth
March 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pm[...] are angry at CIA Director Michael Hayden for telling Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) that Valerie Plame was covert. “Waxman’s statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 am[...] saw an article which states that the righties are angry the CIA director [Hayden] told Rep. Henry Waxman that Valerie Plame was covert. Of course he did. No big surprise there. Now that the cat is out of the bag, he has no reason not [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmIf she was not covert, why did President Bush (back wnen it first came to light) say he would fire anyone in his adminstration that was involved?
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm[...] Think Progress » CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.†[...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pm[...] Well, not only has Plame told us today that she was covert, but now we come to find out that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden has told congressmen that she was covert as well. [...]
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 pmWas the affair with a married Ambassador (Wilson), at the time the diplomatic advisor to the senior US/NATO military officer in Europe, part of her cover? That’s pretty ingenious. I guess I’m not very sophisticated in these matters, but I would have expected an CIA undercover operative in Europe to have kept a low profile.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:23 am[...] Novak first recounts the events at a hearing last month, when House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated that CIA Director Michael Hayden had authorized him to state that “Wilson was covert.” [...]
April 12th, 2007 at 8:00 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 11:01 amBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 12:33 amKyle
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pmnaked picture of wwe divas
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 17th, 2008 at 4:26 amProm Dresses Hat Hollister Clothing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 8:44 pmStarting A Company
Thanks for creating this blog. I thought it was a very interesting read. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:25 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:53 amFree Granny Porn Milf Camps Friend’s Hot Mom
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 8:53 pmfrancinedee com
March 19th, 2008 at 1:02 amcorporate team building
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pmBurt Reynolds
I declare war on thee.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:03 amforexG
i do agree but i don’t think that’s completely true. I’m so confused!
March 20th, 2008 at 5:53 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:25 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 10:24 pmHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 3:04 amHank
Plant the seeds of expectation in your mind; cultivate thoughts that anticipate achievement. Believe in yourself as being capable of overcoming all obstacles and weaknesses
March 21st, 2008 at 6:29 amFaceknock
Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:20 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:51 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 amYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 amKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pmGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 6:24 amNoche
A friend is someone who sees through you and still enjoys the view.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:16 amRalph Wiggum
I think God approves of you.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:36 ambook ii law one
I found your site via Google while searching for %KEYWORD% and your post regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pmFree Granny Porn Lesbian Milfs Free Mom And Son Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 2:35 amimmigration lawyer
Aspiring lawyers raised in psychologically healthy families face more obstacles in law and their careers than those raised in dysfunctional families and I imagine this is true since law often requires one to be cutthroat.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:18 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 10:01 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pmTom
Are you sure this is correct?
March 29th, 2008 at 12:01 ambuild a car game
[17] Increasing costs of oil-based fuels and tightening environmental law and restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions are propelling work
March 31st, 2008 at 11:14 pmbuild a car game
Some vehicle manufacturers are producing cars with devices that also measure the proximity to obstacles and other vehicles in front
March 31st, 2008 at 11:14 pmbuild a car game
Although various pistonless rotary engine designs have attempted to compete with the conventional piston and crankshaft design, only
March 31st, 2008 at 11:14 pm