A Bad Day to Be Scott McClellan

[Drake Tungsten]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It stumps me as well.

And how would this person know whether or not Plame had been considered covert by the CIA sometime between 1998-2003? Oh wait, it says in the op-ed they don't know, they need clarification. In the conclusion it stated clearly that the CIA needed to clarify Plame's status before legal action was taken against anyone. That hardly sounds like categorical denial that Plame was covert.

And again, how does "questionable" translate to a certainty for you? The conclusion of the op-ed was nowhere near the certainty you expressed.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
She wasn't undercover.

Huh? Is it not unlawful to disclose the identity of a CIA officer?

[Boris Godunov]

No, it's unlawful to intentionally dislose the identity of a covert CIA officer. However, it has yet to be shown one way or another if either of these were the case. According to the CIA, she was indeed covert, hence why they're even bothering with an investigation. Why investigate otherwise?

[DinoDoc]

Would it make you feel better if I had stated that given the available evidence claims that Plame was a covert agent are highly suspect?

[Boris Godunov]

I'd rather you just state what is known, and it isn't yet known whether or not Plame was indeed covert at the time.

But if the CIA has forwarded it on to a special prosecutor to investigate, wouldn't that indicate that the CIA, at least, thinks she was covert and it was blown?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Would it make you feel better if I had stated that given the available evidence claims that Plame was a covert agent are highly suspect?

Yes, its more accurate

[DinoDoc]

The desk job in Langley tends to speak against her having covert status.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The desk job in Langley tends to speak against her having covert status.

The law says she has to have served outside the U.S within 5 years. How do you know she didn't do so sometime between 1998-2003?

If she wasn't covert, why did she have a front?

If she wasn't covert, why did the CIA refer this to a special prosecutor for criminal investigation?

[Alexander's Horse]

not at all Dino - you don't understand

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sounds about right, Drake. Innocent mistake...if that... Even makes Rove look decent, trying to warn a reporter before they make a mistake. Ironic...the friendly warning was turned into a conspiracy with many fooled, including me. Reporters are like cops - both have jobs requiring a highly suspicious mind.

Point being Cooper's the ***** here. Not that Rove isn't a ***** its just in this instance all threads of communication originated from Cooper and Rove was attmpeting to prevent the Times from looking like idiots when the final story surfaced. In the long run the WH was right it was a non-story from a lying Megalomaniac Wilson. Course that didn't prevent the Times and every other media source from running the hit piece anyway.

[Ramo]

Ramo,

Don't even try, your not funny and obviously not original.

The point being Bush in 2003 made the statement that if a person was found to be doing something illegal then that person would be dealt with.

For cryin out loud simply look at the ABC newscasts where they have the quote plastered day and night.

The 2004 intereview was an affirmation of his 2003 pledge to deal lawbreakers. The question was obviously wrong in that he NEVER pledged in 2003 to fire leakers but moreover DID pledge to "DEAL WITH" lawbreakers. Obviously the important part of his answer to the affirmative was in keeping with his earlier pledge i.e. not to allow memebrs of the whitehouse to break the law. Now if Rove is found to have broken the law including perjury in front of grand jury Rove will be dealt with.

Until such time as that can be understood completely it is fully understandable to keep their mouths shut. The ridiculous claims of the press for Roves head ( a promise Never made originally and weakly Nay nonexistently promised in the 2004 press conference) are premature until it is understood to what if any extent Rove broke the law.

Christ, how can you be this dense. The quotes that I'm pointing out. NOT some quote you have in mind, have absolutely nothing to do with breaking the law. Just leaking classified information. And they specifiy firing. Try reading the actual quotes, please. I didn't cite ABC, but very specific quotes.

'cepting that leaking classified information is a crime Dufus.

Not under the law that the special prosecutor is looking at. It is illegal under the Espionage Act, but the relevant law here, the Intelligence Identities Act, is much more narrow, and deals specifically with outing a covert agent, with a very narrow definition of covert agent, under which Plame may or may not qualify. So, Rove very well may have leaked Plame's identity, while not breaking the law since the Espionage Act isn't used very often. Dufus.

Your hackery is absolutely pathetic.

[Ramo]

The desk job in Langley tends to speak against her having covert status.

Her employment at a phony energy company tends to speak for her covert status. A desk job afterwards doesn't imply that any previous jobs were CIA fronts (indeed, energy expertese would be reasonable grounds for CIA employment).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
(indeed, energy expertese would be reasonable grounds for CIA employment).

Direct and official CIA employment seems like it would be a big no-no for someone with a need for cover, yes?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Direct and official CIA employment seems like it would be a big no-no for someone with a need for cover, yes?

While its a debatable decision, it actually could potentially work well as an undercover strategy. After all, foreign intel agencies would figure there is no way she could have been a covert agent before if she was officially employed by them now.