Dude needs some knowledge of history.

Especially since he’s the worst leader of the Senate since Caligula’s horse.

Again, making up your own facts. It’s not a requirement that they be stationed overseas, but that they had “served” overseas within the past 5 years.

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States

Plame traveled oversseas as an NOC cover on multiple occasions after 2002. That’s serving overseas. She was covered.

You mean like having her drive to an office at Langley everyday?

Now that’s a very good way to keep the fact that you work for the CIA a secret.

Are you telling me that no agent who works at Langley can be considered a covert agent. That’s the CIA’s policy? You know this despite the fact that the CIA classified her as a covert agent?

There’s also the fact that Plame and Wilson told everyone who would listen, that Plame worked for the CIA and precisely what she was doing there.

And this is just false. Fitzgerald’s team investigated claims that “everyone” knew Plame was a CIA agent and found them to be false. The CIA classified her as covert and was taking affirmative measures to conceal her relationship with the agency. She traveled overseas under covert cover within 5 years of the alleged crime (as stipulated by the law charges were brought under), and in all likelyhood had traveled under covert cover within the year that she was outed.

Mark, as anyone can see, you’re the one avoiding facts here. The facts are that the CIA classified Plame as a covert agent when Novak’s column was published. You cannot dispute that. She also fits there legal definition of the law that protects covert agents from being outed. That’s a fact. You cannot dispute that.

Yet you do.

And you insult me and claim that I make my own facts.

That makes you a hypocrite and an idiot of the highest order.

I guess reality does win on occasion.

Having a NOC cover does. By definition. She was covert.

Not according to the law in question. For example, one of the requirements was being stationed overseas.

Oh, and again you ignore the fact that the CIA says she was covert and they were taking proactive measures to keep her relationship with the organization secret at the time of Novak’s column.

You mean like having her drive to an office at Langley everyday?

Now that’s a very good way to keep the fact that you work for the CIA a secret.

There’s also the fact that Plame and Wilson told everyone who would listen, that Plame worked for the CIA and precisely what she was doing there.

Hard to out someone who is so busy outing themselves.

But then, you don’t care about facts. Then again, what’s new.

How is a declassified CIA employment history explaining that she traveled overseas seven times under NOC (which is covert) and official cover NOT proof that she was a covert agent. How is the CIA saying Plame was a covert agent at the time of the outing NOT proof.

Seriously, how is it not?

Nor have explained why, if you are so convinced that Fitz believed she was covert, he didn’t attempt to try any of the people who outed her.

Yes, I did, you idiot. You just can’t read apparently. Here it is AGAIN copy and pasted from a previous post:

Because the law also states that the people accused of outing an agent must have “knowingly” outed her. Fitzgerald said he could not prove that — in part because of Libby’s obstruction.

Having a NOC cover does. By definition. She was covert.

Oh, and again you ignore the fact that the CIA says she was covert and they were taking proactive measures to keep her relationship with the organization secret at the time of Novak’s column.

Again, Mr. “Shitley makes up his own facts”, how do you claim to know more about Plame’s status at the CIA than the CIA does?

I look forward to your reply. You’re hypocrisy and idiocy shines through brighter with every one.

Nor have explained why, if you are so convinced that Fitz believed she was covert, he didn’t attempt to try any of the people who outed her.

You just continue to interpret facts in a way that suits your agenda, regardless of whether that interpretation fits reality. Then again, what’s new.

While assigned to the CPC, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

As always, Shitley interprets plain text to support his cause instead of reality.

Having a cover identity does not make one a covert agent.

Like I said, try to learn something before shooting off your mouth.

Patrick Fitzgerald and the CIA are lunatic sources? And, yes, they do claim Plame was covert at the time of her outing:

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee

To quote Eric Stratton: “Gee, you’re dumb.”

Boy, just when I didn’t think Mark could make himself look like more of an idiot, he manages to do so…

Now, I assume you also read this:

While assigned to the CPC, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship with the United States.

So, basically you’re saying you know more about Plame’s covert status than the CIA does.

Again, let me remind you of this gem:

Shitley has his own version of facts. That these facts are inventions of his far left friends doesn’t bother him. He likes them better than reality based facts.

It’s just dumbfounding how much of an idiot you are.

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agendy (CIA) as an operations office in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

Thanks for proving my case for me Shitley. The above position is not covert. Maybe you should try to study a little before talking about things you know nothing about.

Even the lunatic sources that he cites do not claim that Plame was a covert agent at the time of her non-outing.

Maybe he can explain why if the case for outing is such a slam dunk, why Fitzgerald didn’t even charge it at the trial.

As I said, he lives in his own little world, and he doesn’t let anything as trivial as reality impinge on it.

Shitley has his own version of facts. That these facts are inventions of his far left friends doesn’t bother him. He likes them better than reality based facts.

I’m sorry, I just can’t let the irony that drips from these two statements pass. You don’t find idiocy this stark very often. Bravo.

Well, the person in question is a woman, and no, I don’t know it better, but I know it as well. And when she made her claim that Plame was not covert, she didn’t know what Plame’s employee history at the CIA was. She had no real insight into whether Plame was covert or not.

Yes Plame was covert at one time, but that was a decade before this incident. She had been operating in the open since then.

Dude, are you dense. Read the link I provide. Actually, I know you probably won’t, so here’s the important part:

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agendy (CIA) as an operations office in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to the CPC, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship with the United States.

The law the protects agents states the US must be taking “affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States” and that the agent must have traveled overseas within the past 5 years.

Plame was covert.

BTW, if it was so obvious that the law applied, why was the only thing Fitz could gin up was a case of he said he said with a reporter?

Because the law also states that the people accused of outing an agent must have “knowingly” outed her. Fitzgerald said he could not prove that — in part because of Libby’s obstruction.

We were greeted as liberators. I guess you missed all that.

Yes, you’re right. I had forgotten that the US military was showered with flowers and candy, not bullets and IEDs. I don’t know how that had slipped my mind.

Nothing will cause him to loose faith in his “facts”.

2) WMDs have been found, just not in the quantities predicted before the war, as have mothballed WMD programs.

They were?

For some reason, I’m not surprised that you haven’t heard of it, or managed to forget.

1) Plame hadn’t been covert for years, after being one of the darlings of the left. Even the author of the statute in question stated that it did not cover Plame.

The author of the statute was wrong. According to her CIA employment history and the statute, Plame was covert.

So you know better what the legislation says than the guy who wrote it. Yes Plame was covert at one time, but that was a decade before this incident. She had been operating in the open since then.

Fitzgerald’s team looked into this claim and concluded this was not the case. That Plame was covert and she and the CIA were taking proactive steps to conceal her identity.

By having her work out of the headquarters building? Now that’s an amazing cover. You are apparently the only one who fell for it.

BTW, if it was so obvious that the law applied, why was the only thing Fitz could gin up was a case of he said he said with a reporter?

The so called failures in Iraq grew out of mostly unrealistic expectations painted by the media.

You’re right, it was the media who claimed we’d be greeted as liberators Stupid media…

We were greeted as liberators. I guess you missed all that.

That’s right. The people who keep calling Bush a liar are the ones actually lying.

It’s amazing either A) how dumb or B) how dishonest some people can be.

The weapons Saddam used in the Iranian war and indeed against the Kurds were no longer a threat by the time the 2003 invasion rolled around. The U.S. eventually discovered that he gave up his chemical warfare program in 1991 and his nuclear program in 1995.

Any remaining WMDs had decayed to the point that they were not a threat.

The “lie” came when Bush and Co. (most notably Colin Powell at the UN) said the “know” Saddam has WMDs and that the threat is so great that we need to invade now. Rumsfeld actually said “we know where they are.” The lie was that the Bush administration conveyed a level of certainty about the WMD threat that they could not possibly have had, considering they did not exist and that other CIA intelligence has come forth since the invasion (but was available to Bush and Co. at the time) that showed Saddam did not have WMDs.

That’s the lie.

Now, if the media had been doing their job, those questions might have been raised before the election when they could have done some good. But the dirt will eventually come out.

Here’s the thing: Obama/Rezko HAS been reported on — a lot. But there’s been no evidence found of wrongdoing. Same with Blago. For all the talk of Obama not being lily white, I’ve yet to see one shred of solid evidence that shows he’s done something “corrupt.” It’s all innuendo.

The closest thing there’s been is the Rezko land deal, but there’s nothing illegal about what he did, and there’s been no evidence that he did any special favor for Rezko.

Problem is, the things the Dems attacked the Republicans over were based on some sort of reality. The “bush lied” line was based on the fact that Bush told the American people that we had to invade Iraq right now because of the threat his WMDs posed. Well, he didn’t have WMDs and was no where near the threat he was made out to be.

I get weary of having to correct this nonsense over and over again, but apparently the left is ineducable.

Saddam used WMD’s against Iran, so the claim that he had no WMD’s is a lie.

That’s right. The people who keep calling Bush a liar are the ones actually lying.

Furthermore, Bush did not claim that WMD’s were the reason we had to go into Iraq. He gave several reasons why it was the right thing to do. The media kept demanding he stick to only one reason, but that was their demand not his.

On top of that, the claim that Saddam had no WMD’s is based entirely on the fact that huge stockpiles were not found. Traces of WMD’s were found, however.

So all the evidence points to Saddam having some WMD’s since he used them on Iran, and on the Kurds, and since traces have been found. As for the fact that no huge stockpiles were found, there are four possible explanations for that:

1) they were moved, probably into Syria.
2) they were hidden within the country
3) they were destroyed secretly. (Why?)
4) they never existed.

Of the four possible explanations, all but the last fit the known facts, that Saddam actually used WMD’s in the past and that traces of WMD’s were found. But the left keeps insisting on the explanation easily shown to be impossible. As I said: ineducable.

Criticism over Plame affair was based on the fact that three members of the Bush administration told reporters that Plame worked for the CIA, outing here. That’s fact.

Then why was no one charged? If it’s a fact, then the three members should be in prison for violating the law. Instead, the only charge ever leveled in the case was against Scooter Libby over inconsistencies in his testimony.

The person who outed Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, and he was not charged with any crime because it appeared to have been idle gossip.

There was, however, a whole lot of lying going on in the Plame case, but it was all done by Joseph Wilson himself against the Bush administration. He claimed Dick Cheney sent him to Nigeria to check out the yellow-cake rumors, and that Cheney therefore knew the rumors were false. But he lied about everything in the trip.

He was sent by the CIA, and not by Cheney at all. Cheney never even received a report back from Wilson.
He claimed that he proved the yellow-cake rumors to be false, but his report actually tended to confirm the rumors.
He claimed that his wife being CIA had nothing to do with him being picked for the mission, but she was the one who recommended him.
Wilson claimed that Bush lied in the State of the Union address, but it was Wilson himself who was the liar.

Do you detect a theme yet? The ones calling Bush a liar are the ones actually lying. Repeatedly. Virtually everything Wilson claimed was a lie.

—

The culture of corruption charge was based on the fact that, multiple republican lawmakers were indicted and convicted of corruption. The incompetence tag was based on failures in Iraq and New Orleans.

There were more Democrats involved in corruption than Republicans, so the “culture of corruption” was a hypocritical farce at best. Was any Republican found with a couple hundred thousand in bribes stashed in his freezer?

Failures in Iraq? Failures happen in every war.

And the real incompetence during Katrina was by the news media, who blamed President Bush for the failures of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, and inflated the problems into New Orleans into reports of thousands of people being killed in the Superdome.

Meanwhile, in Mississippi, where Katrina actually hit, there seems to have been no evidence of incompetence. Maybe Republican governors actually take care of business? Louisiana now has a Republican governor, and the last hurricane there was handled quite well.

Now, with Spitzker and Blagojevich, there’s starting to become of string of Dem corruption charges. But when you start trying to tie in other people like Reid and Obama with NO EVIDENCE, it’s going to backfire (and I’m more than willing to see Reid go, never been a fan of his). But to try and tie him to this scandal because he had a conversation with Blago is just stupid.

It didn’t start with Spitzer and Blagojevich. It’s been ongoing for years now on the Democratic side. That’s how they lost the majority control in 1994, and will almost certainly lose it again.

Whether Reid is guilty of anything in this instance we don’t know yet. But between Rezko and Blagojevich, it’s looking very unlikely that Obama somehow sailed through all the Chicago corruption pure as a lily.

Now, if the media had been doing their job, those questions might have been raised before the election when they could have done some good. But the dirt will eventually come out.

The public roundly rejected negative campaigning during 2008 (see Coleman, Norm). If you guys want to keep up this (as Gingrich would call it) mindless opposition, go nuts. But it’s not how you’re going to get your party back into power. A small percentage of you guys LOVE it. But, in the end, it’ll just turn into a circle jerk if you not careful.

Tom_Shipley on January 7, 2009 at 3:12 PM

If negative campaigning didn’t work, the Democrats wouldn’t have a majority in the House and Senate now.

Except that Cornyn, as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, isn’t terribly interested in Blago or his cohorts. He’s interested in drawing some of the scandal to Reid, whose re-election chances are already looking sketchy in two years.

amerpundit on January 7, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Bingo.

Defeat Dirty Harry, 2010!

monotonousboy on January 7, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Dirty Harry and Crazy Barry

Harry likes the limelight, but it most certainly does not like him.

When, Tom, do we get to see your hagiography to the great Roland Burris III?