Announcement

**chequita guevara** · October 1, 2003, 09:59

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
(Unless the CIA decides to do its own "investigation"...)

They are. This is obviously of great concern to them.

**DinoDoc** · October 1, 2003, 10:02

Was the woman an undercover agent or not? Thier seems to be a lot of confusion over this fact.

**MrFun** · October 1, 2003, 10:03

Originally posted by Sava

My little crack about selling your soul comes from my perhaps misguided impression that you aren't being critical of this administration. As a libertarian, I would expect you to be critical of an administration who's actions defy the principles of your political ideology. If I am mistaken in some way, I apologize. I just call it like I see it.

One, I'm not a nut -- er, I mean, libertarian.

Two, yes, I am very much critical of Bush's administration -- they are trying so hard to find a justification for why we went into Iraq, that Bush got his panty hoses all twisted.

I am still hoping that the common Iraqis will eventually have an improved quality of life, though as a result of this -- it's just that I think the Bush administration invaded for the wrong reason, instead of the right reason.

**chequita guevara** · October 1, 2003, 10:03

Looks like Agee is going to have to sue some more people for repeating the tired lie that he outted agents. He's already forced Barbara Bush to remove that lie from her memiors. You'd think a former First lady whose husband was also former head of CIA would be able to substantiate such a charge, but she couldn't. So let's leave Agee out of this. (And besides, after they tried to kill him, I think he'd have had a right to name some names if he did do so.)

As for Caligastia's post, it is contradicted by the former agent they had on PBS lasted, whom Murdoch quoted.

**chequita guevara** · October 1, 2003, 10:05

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Was the woman an undercover agent or not? Thier seems to be a lot of confusion over this fact.

According to the ex-CIA guy on PBS last night, she was, but even if she wasn't, it's besides the point. Analysts sometimes become field agents and some analysts are former field agents. Her ability to do anything else now is compromised, and anyone she met with anywhere in the world is comprimsed, even if it was innocent.

**Caligastia** · October 1, 2003, 10:06

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

They are. This is obviously of great concern to them.

This is nothing unusual. The CIA is naturally obsessive about privacy, and every time the CIA feels that information about one of their employees or operations has been leaked improperly they ask for an investigation, and that request is almost always granted. There are about 50 such investigations a year, so the fact that there's an investigation is no huge news.

**Caligastia** · October 1, 2003, 10:08

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Was the woman an undercover agent or not? Thier seems to be a lot of confusion over this fact.

There is no evidence that she was.

**DinoDoc** · October 1, 2003, 10:09

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As for Caligastia's post, it is contradicted by ...

Has there actually been an official confirmation of her status?

**Caligastia** · October 1, 2003, 10:11

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

According to the ex-CIA guy on PBS last night, she was, but even if she wasn't, it's besides the point. Analysts sometimes become field agents and some analysts are former field agents. Her ability to do anything else now is compromised, and anyone she met with anywhere in the world is comprimsed, even if it was innocent.

Her ability to do anything else has been compromised by the hyping of this nothing story.

**chequita guevara** · October 1, 2003, 10:13

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Has there actually been an official confirmation of her status?

I doubt there will be. The CIA is kinda cagey about such things.

**chequita guevara** · October 1, 2003, 10:16

Originally posted by Caligastia
Her ability to do anything else has been compromised by the hyping of this nothing story.

It's not a nothing story. It's yet another example of this Administration punishing those who contradcit its lies (for example the scientist who had been putting up maps of caribu migration). This is an attempt to silence people in the Administration (esp. intelligence) who either disagree with or can contradict "the official story."

**Caligastia** · October 1, 2003, 10:20

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It's not a nothing story. It's yet another example of this Administration punishing those who contradcit its lies (for example the scientist who had been putting up maps of caribu migration). This is an attempt to silence people in the Administration (esp. intelligence) who either disagree with or can contradict "the official story."

It's a nothing story because there is no evidence whatsoever that Plame was an agent or working undercover for the CIA. Simple as that.

**rev** · October 1, 2003, 11:22

There is no evidence that she was.

Of course there's no evidence she was undercover. It's the CIA!

One of the better points I've heard is that real analysts and non-covert members of the CIA will often openly divulge the fact that they work for the CIA, so that those who actually DO have to lie or dodge questions about their employer CAN.

**uh Clem** · October 1, 2003, 11:23

It's a nothing story because there is no evidence whatsoever that Plame was an agent or working undercover for the CIA. Simple as that.

Most right-wingers are still in this early stage, Denial, about the impending demise of the Bush gang. Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance are still some ways off.

The CIA requested that the DOJ investigate, on September 26. Langley takes this very seriously. Novak's column was more two months ago, and yet the White House has done nothing.

You don't diss the CIA, not like that. Not unless you know what you're doing and why (like William Blum, for instance). When it comes to politics, Karl Rove might believe his own bull****, but wrt intelligence, he's a hick.

George Tenet was fine with taking the blame for the State of the Union mix-up. That's just one of the things you have to do sometimes, take one for the team. Nobody believed him anyway.

But he didn't expect to be thanked for that by having one of his people outed, and then for Bush to forget all about it. Well, Bush and the press might have forgotten about it, but the CIA hasn't. That's being treated contemptuously, and publicly so.

Bush might think that because his Daddy used to run the place, he can treat them like the landscape crew at Crawford. ("Hey, ah-meego, compren-doh?") Bad plan.

**DanS** · October 1, 2003, 11:36

Was the woman an undercover agent or not? Thier seems to be a lot of confusion over this fact.

Yes, there is a lot of confusion over this. This is the rhetorical battleground that Novak set up. Like any large organization, there are quite a few job descriptions in the CIA. How you interpret these descriptions is the difference between "treason" and "no big deal". And they probably won't go into any great deal describing this to us.

Anyway, I agree that Wilson should have kept his nose out of the politics. The Administration can hit back, of course, but has to be careful about how they do it.

Announcement

White House Outted CIA Agent

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment