The amount of leaks that go by the wayside without being criticized is amazing.

The fact that the media capitalizes on this particular leak speaks to their allegiance.

Why would anyone, except the perpetrators of course, be outraged by exposure of a crime. Outrage is the reaction to discovery of the crime itself, which in this case is illegal wire-tapping.

As I have said before, the only source of heat in the Plame fiasco is the trumped-up allegations of the nefarious motives that were supposedly behind the discussion of her CIA employment. Without the hysterical accusations of motives of spite, malice, and revenge, there would have been nothing. But the Left is brilliant at creating these emotional smoke screens to mask the simple truths of any given situation.

What I want to know is why the White House is so inept at putting out the fires that were set to create the smoke. I think McClellan is a very poor press secretary. He is not forceful, he has no charisma, and he is a plodder often a few steps behind the yapping heel-biters that pass for the White House Press Corps.

A sharp, witty, charismatic person who could think on his/her feet could have, and should have, stopped many of these smear campaigns before they ever got any momentum.

For example, Novak said in an interview years ago that when he was visiting with a DNC official, and complaining about Wilson, the Dem himself, in an effort to kind of defend Wilson, said something to the effect of "Well, Joe's not so bad, you know----and his wife even works for the CIA." I saw it once in a Novak interview, and it never surfaced again. Andrea Mitchell is on record for admitting that everyone in the Beltway press corps associated with reporting on some specific area--intelligence, military, I forget---knew for years that Plame worked for the CIA. This is valuable stuff, but it was never used.

The White House may have felt it was taking the high road in not pointing out that Plame, if she was covert at all, was extremely bad at it. But I think they were wrong.

1. She talked freely about working for the CIA as an analyst
2. She made political donations listing her name and, as her employer, the fake company created by the CIA as a cover for whatever it was trying to do
Now, I am not a highly trained intelligence operative, but even I could find out who worked for the CIA in office and administrative work. In the old days, I would have simply sat outside the entrance to the office building and photographed everyone who entered, and then done a check on license plates, the same way that every Cold War operative did for decades. And a google search of those names would come up with all sorts of references, including political contributions. What a simple next step, obvious to any secretary in any office of any intelligence agency in any country in the world, to wonder why a CIA analyst listed a different company as her employer, and then to do a quick check on that second company. Ths would be Intelligence 101---if you couldn't pass that test, you would be writing parking tickets.

Americans are smart enough to see that, if the information is presented to them. They are smart enough to see that if Plame was really supposed to be undercover recently, her incompetence alone would have guaranteed her uncovering to the people who really matter, the smart guys who are good at finding out this kind of stuff. They would have been able to see that the only people who were suddenly informed via White House information were those in flyover country, because everyone of significance already knew. But we let ourselves be blindsided into playing defense, and a very shaky defense at that, by letting the Dems have free access to public opinion for weeks with no rebuttal at all, and then having Scott mumble and fumble without scoring any good points.

We need a superstar in the front lines, someone who can get some attention and then present information that matters.

From the April 8 WaPo:

Fitzgerald's filing was meant specifically to undermine Libby's claim that the issue of the CIA's employment of Plame was of "peripheral" interest to Libby at the time. He said in the filing that leaks regarding Plame were meant to embarrass Wilson by suggesting his wife had organized a CIA-sponsored trip by Wilson to probe Iraq's alleged purchase of nuclear material -- in short, to suggest his trip resulted from nepotism.

"Fitzgerald argued, in essence, that the White House effort to rebut Wilson's criticism was so intense, and so preoccupying, that Libby could not have forgotten what he said about Plame. Fitzgerald also noted that Plame's employment was specifically raised as a relevant matter by Cheney, who had directed Libby to disclose information from the NIE. . . ."

It really is all about Plame in the end. This story isn't going away anytime soon kids and the spin that it was "legal" doesn't seem to be getting any traction at all.

LoL, Bushies.

"Now, I am not a highly trained intelligence operative, but even I could find out who worked for the CIA in office and administrative work." The CIA has stated that here status was covert"..Almiranta

Her status was covert you dumbass:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

This non-story is dead. Today, nobody is talking about it on the cable news channels. Fox was talking about the booming economy, strong job numbers, and the low unemployment rate.

Nothing is new with this alleged AP "leak" story. The information that was declassified was the IE report which made no reference to Valerie Plame. Parts of the report were declassified in 2002, and given to Senate Demorats.

If she was covert, why wasn't Libbey charged with outting a covert agent? Even Fitzgerald is not touching this issue.

That's right, Salvelinus and Barneyg2000.

In today's world, where our lexicon is ruled by the leftists, the practice of doublespeak is alive and well.

Leaking is bad when a Republican does it to defend themseles. When a barking moonbat does it, it's "courageous whistleblowing."

When a CIA Operative goes out of her way to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair with her husband, she's really "covert," and needs to be protected from public attention. Forget the fact that from I can tell, virtually any who is anyone in the D.C. social circuit knew who she was and where she worked;

When the NSA listens in on a phone call originating or ending in a known or suspected al Qaeda connection, it's "domestic spying;"

Putting underwear on the heads of a detained suspected terrorist is "torture," but chopping off the head of a kidnapped hostage and videotaping it is an act of "resistance" to an illegal occupation;

And, flying planeloads of passengers into commercial buildings occupied by thousands of workers is an act of protest.

Someone call Ward Churchill! This "little Eichman" is about to puke...

"When the NSA listens in on a phone call originating or ending in a known or suspected al Qaeda connection, it's "domestic spying;"" ...dbogdan

dbog, how do you know that is true? Because the Prez says so? The same one that said "..And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks,.." but leaks himself? The one that said we get a warrant, but doesn't? That man has no credibility.

Who says there is no progress in Iraq:

Private forces gain traction
Militias last emerged as a top U.S. concern in 2004, when the American and Iraqi armies spent months putting down violent uprisings by the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to the firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, in Baghdad, Najaf and other cities. But the problem is far thornier now, U.S. officials say, because the militias have added thousands of foot soldiers and gained new political stature.

Shiite Muslim militias pose the greatest threat to security in many parts of Iraq, having killed more people in recent months than the Sunni Arab-led insurgency

See, we have made so much progress that we went full circle.

"When the NSA listens in on a phone call originating or ending in a known or suspected al Qaeda connection, it's "domestic spying;"" ...dbogdan

dbog, how do you know that is true? Because the Prez says so? The same one that said "..And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks,.." but leaks himself? The one that said we get a warrant, but doesn't? That man has no credibility.

Let's turn that around, Barney: how do you know it isn't true? Any evidence? Or just what is written at Kos, the DU, Move On, etc?

The only way to understand the dems reaction to this, the biggest non story in years, is that the dems are either dumb as stumps or completely disengenous. How dumb do they think the american people are. They are trying to compare the NY Times leaking of classified information that directly harms the ability of our government to protect us and puts us all in real danger, and the President, who has the sole power to decide what is classified and what is not, authorizing someone to release declassified information about iraqs wmd to refute confirmed lies by joe wilson, the least credible person in Washington DC. But again this is the party that tried to blame President Bush for the weather. The dems, who are shameless, only understand one thing-losing elections. That is another good reason in November to go out and vote Republican. Don't forget how they treated Judge Alito and his family. Don't forget how they tried to get Judge Roberts adoption records. And don't forget those forged documents.

**This non-story is dead. Today, nobody is talking about it on the cable news channels. Fox was talking about the booming economy, strong job numbers, and the low unemployment rate.**

I'm afraid this "non-story" is far from dead. The fact Fox aren't touching it is further proof of how dangerous they view it as.

The President and Cheney dispatched Libby to discredit Wilson. Wilson's wife was exposed as a CIA operative. Now whilst there's no proof that they asked him to do this, they must surely have suspected that he might have been behind it.

After all, it did look as if this might discredit Wilson, which was what Bush and Cheney wanted.

Why did they launch an enquiry? Are they so dumb that they couldn't add two and two together and get four?

It was a cover up.

"Her status was covert you dumbass:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/"

No, you're the only "Dumbass" here, Barney. By now you should know that the Michael Isikoff piece you quote is utter BS, and that the "newly released ... judge's opinion" that Isikoff cited doesn't support his piece. The ONLY item relied on in the judge's opinion cited by Isikoff was footnote 15 of an August 27, 2004 Patrick Fitzgerald affidavit, in which Fitzgerald wrote:

“In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.”

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/libby-fitzgerald-affidavit-20060203.pdf

That's IT. That's the ENTIRE discussion in Fitzgerald's affidavit on whether Plame was covert as of the date of her outing. Note that NOWHERE does it state that Plame was covert. NOWHERE. Isikoff just made that up. In other words, the claim is complete bullsh*t, and you're just repeating someone else's complete bullsh*t.

You're also ignoring what Fitzgerald said at his October 28, 2005 press conference: "Let me say two things. I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."

So contrary to your nonsense, ALL the evidence to date shows that Plame was NOT stationed overseas at any time within the 5 years before her outing (meaning that she wasn't legally "covert" at the time of her outing), and NOTHING stated by Fitzgerald or anyone else to date proves otherwise.

Its dead this non-story because of the following:

Economy, Economy, Economy
Tornado, Tornado, Tornado.

She was not covert - See the previous post.

Bush did not disclose the name of Valerie Plame - see Fitzgerald page 27 of the new filing. For Bush's non-role in this, please also see that page.

The infomration passed on the Judith Miller contained information about the NIE report, which was unclassified by the President. A President has the authority to unclassify this. This is not challenged constitutionally and the Supreme Court has confirmed this. Most of this same information was given to the Demorats almost a year prior in 2002.

It is established that Libby did not disclose the name to Judith Miller, and it is noted by Fitzgerald's new filing pages 23 and 24. This is confirmed by Miller's attorney on Jabba the Hut's Hardboil program.

This course was set up by Wilson, who had leaked secrets of his trip to the Times. The only established liar is Joe Wilson per the Senate Report.

Jpl, there is only one small problem with your argument. The reason Fitzgerald did not charge Libby with outing a covert agent, was due to the perjury that prevented Fitzgerald form finding the truth. Nowhere in that document that you sited does it state that Plames status was not covert. Until you prove otherwise, I think I will believe a federal judge. The guy that has actually seen all the evidence, and bases his opinions on evidence and law, and not Sean Hannity as you seem to have.

No, you're the only "Dumbass" here, Barney.

Finally, JPL, more people are coming around to my way of thinking. However, Baloney's not the only dumba** here; I could list a few more for you. Stick around, you'll see for yourself. We have a small group of trolls here, and with the exception of one, maybe two, they're all dumba**es. They hang out at kos or DU, or they pull stories from National Journal or the UK Guardian, and expect us to swallow the same nonsense that they've been programmed to parrot.

So JPL, Barney's not the lone dumba**; he's the lead dumba**. Ain't that right, Baloney?

"Until you prove otherwise, I think I will believe a federal judge. The guy that has actually seen all the evidence, and bases his opinions on evidence and law, and not Sean Hannity as you seem to have."

Hey idiot, I just SHOWED you all the evidence the judge was relying on: Namely, Fitzgerald's footnote 15, which says NOTHING about Plame being covert. I also explained the law to you, which clearly states that Plame could not be deemed "covert" unless she had worked overseas within the 5 years prior to her outing. I also pointed out that there's NO evidence that Plame worked overseas during that time. In other words, to date there's no evidence and no law supporting the view that Plame was covert.

P.S. I'm a lawyer, and don't need to have the law explained to me by idiots like you. I've read and understand the statute myself.

P.P.S. Sean who?

"They hang out at kos or DU, or they pull stories from National Journal or the UK Guardian, and expect us to swallow the same nonsense that they've been programmed to parrot."

"Programmed to parrot" seems exactly the right description, keefer. This clown Barney's obviously just sent here by his Leftist Overlords elsewhere, and told not to engage us in debate, but just to spew non-responsive lefty slogans. His object simply appears to be to disrupt the conservative conversation, and probably to spy on us and report our conversations back to his Leftist Overlords.

Its evident that this is a non-story. They keep recycling old news. The only liar is Joe Fatzo Wilson, who was called out by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

If he outted a covert agent, he would have been charged with it. He can not charge him because there is no evidence tht she was covert.

You are missing the point, folks. It's not so much a matter of legality as it is President Bush speaking with a forked tounge.

Why would he make such a big deal out of getting to the bottom of the leaking of information, when he was the leaker?

Your an ass, Ash. Get it through your thick leftist skull that Bush is the President. As such, he has the right and power to declassify information and release it to the public. So when he complains about leaks, obviously he's complaining about releases of information that he didn't authorize. If he authorized it, it's not a leak.

Bush authorized releasing information about Joe Wilson's trip to Africa. He obviously had to do this, to counter the lies that Wilson was telling about his trip in the press. (And yes, it's been confirmed repeatedly that Wilson was lying.) But he did NOT authorize identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee. Therefore, it's COMPLETELY consistent for Bush to declassify information that he thinks should be released, and to criticize those who release classified information that he didn't authorize the release of.

Got it yet?

Jpl, you talk a nice game, but you have not shone any proof that Plame was not covert! Let’s break down your argument.

Hey idiot, I just SHOWED you all the evidence the judge was relying on: Namely, Fitzgerald's footnote 15, which says NOTHING about Plame being covert. …AND, nothing that says that she wasn’t.

I also explained the law to you, which clearly states that Plame could not be deemed "covert" unless she had worked overseas within the 5 years prior to her outing. …YET, you do not point to any evidence that says that she wasn’t covert.

I also pointed out that there's NO evidence that Plame worked overseas during that time….YET, we do have the opinion of a federal judge that she was. AND, not only from a federal judge, but from the CIA which stated that YES, she was overseas in last five years, and YES they were protecting her identity.

SO, AGAIN, if you don’t have any proof other than calling a Isikoff a liar, than shut your pie hole.

Jlp, since you are LAWYER, and seem to know classified information that nobody else knows (Plame’s identity before the leak) it is refreshing to know that you have just stated that the President authorized the outing of a covert CIA agent that was protecting the US from nuclear proliferation. I will let you own words hang you….

“Bush authorized releasing information about Joe Wilson's trip to Africa. He obviously had to do this, to counter the lies that Wilson was telling about his trip in the press.”

Chew on that!

Bush released part of the IEA report and he did not release Plame's name. Plese tell me your source that Bush outted Valerie Plame's name. Fitzgerald and the documenation clearly show that this is not the case. Case closed, this issue is dead.

Also, you have not shone? Is this second grade english? Its you have not shown.

Yet Democrats are pretending to be outraged that "classified" information was leaked to the media.

Well, they weren't outraged that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program was leaked to the media... THeir outrage was reserved for Bush for wanting to wiretap terrorists.

If the President authorized extrajudical executions of American citizens and called it a Terrorist Reduction Program, I expect Mr. Margolis would express disbelief that critics of the authorization of executing American citizens are opposed to reducing terrorism.

Poor Barney, just can't keep up.

Barn, you clearly have no idea of how data mining works, or how basic intelligence gathering works. Heck, you can't even read Fitzgerald's report accurately! But don't despair---you do have that scintillating vocabulary to fall back on.

OK, let's say Val WAS covert. How brilliant of her to have, as her cover story to hide the fact that she was a CIA agent, telling one and all that she worked for the CIA!!! I guess Joe was in on this, because he was introducing her as "my wife the CIA agent" and even chatting up at least one stranger at Fox with stories about his wife working for the CIA. Part of a master plan, was it, Barn? Hard to keep up with those wily Wilsons.

But then Val decided to do something that would get her name on some public information lists, by contributing to some political groups. Using, I might add, HER OWN NAME. And, clearly in an effort to muddy the waters, she listed her employer as----the supposedly secret fake company which was supposedly a front for a supposedly highly secret covert operation. Are you keeping up, Barney? I am typing as slowly as I can.

Now, for a true covert agent to simultaneously brag about working for the CIA and go public as an employee of a fake company---one put together so badly that even a superficial look into its telephone records and other public data would immediately show it to be a fake---tends to boggle the mind. At least the mind of anyone who understands what "covert" is supposed to mean.

So, Barney, was Val's cover story really part of a brilliant master plan ruined by Libby's comment to someone that she worked for the CIA, when it would appear that working or the CIA was part of her own cover story? Or was it that she worked for the front company that didn't even bother to keep its records current? In either case, she did a terrible job of keeping anything secret at all, without the help of anyone from the White House. I, for one, am deeply relieved that such an incompetent boob is no longer in charge of anything important---if, in fact, she ever was. Fitzgerald, by his own admission, NEVER EVEN ASKED.

And you appear to be telling us that Fitzgerald did an investigation, and then released his report on his findings, but YOU have deduced that if he had different information the report would have been different. Worked a long time on that one, did you, Barn?

Of course, the "perjury" of Mr. Libby was only concerned with the timing of what he learned, not WHAT he learned or who he told. It was all about when, and it was really really important to make it clear that Libby really HAD to have thought the Wilsons were really really important, because it would be just too too painful to acknowledge that no one but the Wilsons thought the Wilsons were important at all. Even the CIA was so UNimpressed with Joey Boy that they didn't even ask him to put his cockamamie 'report' in writing, much less pass it on. But Fitzgerald had to create the impression that the Wilsons were so damned important that no one could possibly be telling the truth when he said he simply did not remember much about what he learned, or when he learned it, so Libby was called a liar for giving the Wilsons about as much attention, or credibilty, as the CIA itself did.

Legends in their own minds, heroes only to the clueless, the Wilsons.....

Mavbe graph paper and colored pencils would help you keep this stuff straight....???

Barney claims "....seem to know classified information that nobody else knows (Plame’s identity before the leak)" Says who, Barney?

Novak had an interview years ago in which he said that when he was bitching to a DNC (that would be DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE) official about Wilson, the official mounted a feeble defense of Wilson by saying "Joe's not so bad...and his wife works for the CIA, you know."

"Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely...."

"Vallely said, citing CIA colleagues, that in addition to his conversations with Wilson, the ambassador was proud to introduce Plame at cocktail parties and other social events around Washington as his CIA wife.

"That was pretty common knowledge," he said. "She's been out there on the Washington scene many years."

If Plame were a covert agent at the time, Vallely said, "he would not have paraded her around as he did."

Andrea Mitchell is on record as saying that all in the Beltway press corps who covered inteligence or the Hill (I ofrget just what reference she used) knew about Plame working for the CIA, long before the Libby non-scandal came up.

Now, YOU may not have known about Valerie Plame before Libby talked to Novak, but then I somehow don't think you get out much. Somehow, reading your posts, I picture severe acne, a basement in your mom's house, and a curfew.

But in the Beltway, pretty much everyone who knew Plame, or her husband, knew she worked for the CIA.

PM says..."which in this case is illegal wire-tapping."

Too bad saying don't make it so, PM. "In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place."

In addition there is abundant case law,including Supreme Court rulings, that clearly state that the President is authorized to do exactly what this President did.

Don't like the law? Change it---but don't misquote it. Or, in your case, don't just quote the propagandists of Air America and The Daily Kos, folks who never met a lie they didn't like. After all, they can count on some mindless sheep to regurgitate whatever they feed them.

Almiranta, I guess you missed this from an earlier post:

Paul Valley is liar, and I can prove it. Here is what he stated as fact on the O'Reilly Factor on 8 May, 2003:
"It appears from reports that we are getting now that the mobile vehicles that they had, you know they found one up north that was sanitized. They found all the historic data of a weapons program but haven't found the actual biological or chemical weapons.

It appears that a lot of those weapons were transited out of Baghdad through Syria and now are buried in the Bekaa Valley as deep as 30 to 40 meters. The Syrians are looking the other way. The only way this is going to be validated, Bill, we are going to have to take on that Bekaa Valley challenge some way or another to validate if this is true or not."

Also, ... “Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002” “Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002..”

But he said this on 11/8 (WND two days later) “…After recalling further over the weekend his contacts with Wilson, Vallely says now it was on just one occasion – the first of several conversations – that the ambassador revealed his wife's employment with the CIA and that it likely occurred some time in the late summer or early fall of 2002.

First it was is the spring, than it was in the fall. Maybe it was five times, maybe it was three times, maybe it was one time. The liar can’t even get his lies straight.

Also,…”But then Val decided to do something that would get her name on some public information lists, by contributing to some political groups. Using, I might add, HER OWN NAME. And, clearly in an effort to muddy the waters, she listed her employer as----the supposedly secret fake company which was supposedly a front for a supposedly highly secret covert operation. Are you keeping up, Barney? I am typing as slowly as I can.”..

What did she put down as her line of work, Covert CIA Agent? CIA agents do live normal lives. They just don’t go around telling people they are CIA. That is why they have a cover.

Got any more brilliant thoughts?

"[I]t is refreshing to know that you have just stated that the President authorized the outing of a covert CIA agent....I will let you own words hang you…."

My God, but you're a moron, Barney. What part of my statement, "[Bush] did not authorize identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee," do you not understand?

Let me try to educate you again. The information that Bush DID authorize releasing was the fact that, upon Wilson's return from Africa, Wilson reported to the CIA that Saddam Hussein had indeed sought to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. This was revealed in the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the CIA, and completely contradicted the lies Wilson had told about his trip in the press in 2003. What Bush did NOT authorize disclosing was Plame's employment with the CIA. It's doubtful Bush was even aware of her employment before Novack outed her in July 2003.

With respect to your insistence that I prove Plame wasn't covert at the time of her outing, once again you display your utter ignorance of the facts, but again I'll try to educate you.

First, there's evidence that Plame's cover as a CIA agent was blown repeatedly by the government during the 10-year period before Novack's article. If this is true, then outing Plame on July 14, 2003 couldn't possibly have been a crime because the Intelligence Information Protection Act creates a complete defense if an agent's status was already compromised by the government. A key source for these facts is an amicus brief filed in the Judith Miller case by 36 news organizations including the NY Times. Here's the link:

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

See especially pages 5-13 of the brief.

Second, the definition of "covert agent" in the Intelligence Information Protection Act is as follows:

(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....

SOURCE: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html

Based on this statute, Plame could not possibly be "covert" unless she had served overseas within 5 years before her outing. But Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth" (sic), shows that Plame did NOT serve overseas during that period. According to a July 14, 2005 article in USA Today:

"In 'The Politics of Truth,' former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

"The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a 'covert agent' must have been on an overseas assignment 'within the last five years.' The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"'Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage,' she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities....Like Sanford, [Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982], doubts Valerie Wilson...qualified as a 'covert agent' under that law."

Here's the link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

The above facts indicate that Plame had NOT served overseas during the 5 year period prior to her outing on July 13, 2004, and that she was therefore NOT covert on that date. Fitzgerald's failure to indict Libby for outing Plame, and his refusal to say that Plame was "covert" at his October 2005 press conference, also support the conclusion that she was not covert in July 2004. Finally, to date NO ONE has produced ANY EVIDENCE to show that Plame served overseas at any time during the 5 years prior to her outing. It's therefore highly unlikely that Plame was "covert" on the relevant date.

You got any evidence that Plame DID serve overseas in the 5-year period, genius? If so, produce it or shut up.

n July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place."

That law has since been amended. Those physicalsearches are no longer legal.

Barneyg2000,

You truely are a moron. Back at 5:37 p.m., you posted: "The reason Fitzgerald did not charge Libby with outing a covert agent, was due to the perjury that prevented Fitzgerald form (sic) finding the truth." Are you trying to get us to believe that with dozens of investigators, virtually unlimited subpoena power, and after spending millions of dollars, Fitzgerald wasn't able to get information from the CIA or other sources that would confirm or deny Val's status at specific times during her career with the CIA? If he was incapable of determining Val's covert status because Libby had conflicting recollections about what he told reporters (which had absolutely nothing to do with her "covert" status), he needs to be fired. All he had to do is subpoena Val and ask her what she was doing when. Just for the record, she had be "outed" twice before. Once by Ames to the Soviets in 1994, and once by the Cubans. Kinda tough to remain covert when the Ruskies and Castro know who you are and who you work for.

After all the proof that Joe Wilson is a serial liar (including the Senate Intelligence Committee), was attempting to damage the Presidency by concocting a story about his trip then writing an op-ed in the NYT filled with documented lies, and the fact that it was common knowledge around Washington that his wife worked for the CIA (hell, he even listed her in his "Who's Who entry), I cannot believe that you still are trying to portray Wilson as a courageous whistle-blower who was attacked by the evil Bush/Cheney/Rove cartel. It was Wilson that was attacking the President and the War on Terror with lies and administration members were simply trying to warn off reporters that Wilson's stories were lies and he was not to be believed.

I also cannot believe you cannot get it through your thick skull that if the President has the authority to de-classify the NIE and order it released, it is not a leak. The Dims and the MSM are falsely calling it a "leak" so the average American will equate it with the criminal leak of the NSA intercept program. That was a leak. It was illegal to leak the existance of a highly classified program. Were is your outrage about that leak?

One final comment. You also stated "Until you prove otherwise, I think I will believe a federal judge." What federal judge are you willing to believe? Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald? He isn't a federal judge, you moron. He is a U.S. Attorney. How are you expected to present a viable argument if you don't know any of the basic facts? Oh, right. You're a liberal. Facts don't matter. Kinda like "fake, but accurate". You are pathetic.

Hume's Ghost,

Five seperate federal judges have ruled that the President has the Constitutional authority to order warrantless intercepts to gather foreign intelligence. That makes it legal, until a higher court overrules the lower courts. If it is a Constitutional authority, Congress cannot make it illegal. Case closed.

I detect a pattern amongst the looney left. Whether it be "fake, but accurate", "its the seriousness of the charge, not the weight of the evidence", changing the definitions to suit their needs (what the definition of "is" is or calling foreign intercepts "domestic spying"), or "I don't have to prove he's doing something wrong or illegal, you have to prove he isn't", the left is always assuming the worst in our President. Everything the do and say is rooted in their hatred of the President.

In their eyes, he can do not good, only evil. If he were to personally discover a cure for AIDS and gave the miracle drug free of charge to all AIDS victims, they would say he dragged his feet in discovering the cure to punish gays and drug users for their immoral behaviour. If he were to invent a car that achieved 200 miles per gallon, ran on water, and produced no pollution, they would accuse him of causing auto workers to lose their jobs. If he were to discover the "Mother Lode" of gold, worth $9 trillion, and donated it to the US Treasury which would erase the National Debt, and then abolish all income taxes, the left would scream about more tax breaks for the rich.

A10 wrote… ”One final comment. You also stated "Until you prove otherwise, I think I will believe a federal judge." What federal judge are you willing to believe? Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald? He isn't a federal judge, you moron. He is a U.S. Attorney. How are you expected to present a viable argument if you don't know any of the basic facts? Oh, right. You're a liberal. Facts don't matter. Kinda like "fake, but accurate". You are pathetic.
Posted by: A-10 at April 9, 2006 01:31 AM
Go back to my post…Her status was covert you dumbass:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counter proliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at April 8, 2006 12:39 PM

Read the federal judge's opinion. Maybe you should do a little research before you make such a stupid mistake.

JPL:
This is Page 2 from Libby's indictment:

"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

I noticed this morning that MSNBC is hot on the non-leak story. I realize that they have less viewers/readers than the attendance at small town high school football game, but they keep trying. Are the US media really as stupid as the seem, or are they so consumed by their insane hate for Bush that they have completely lost their perspective and ability to reason? I suspect the latter.

I noticed this morning that MSNBC is hot on the non-leak story. I realize that they have less viewers/readers than the attendance at small town high school football game, but they keep trying. Are the US media really as stupid as the seem, or are they so consumed by their insane hate for Bush that they have completely lost their perspective and ability to reason? I suspect the latter.

"Read the federal judge's opinion. Maybe you should do a little research before you make such a stupid mistake."

No, Barney, YOU do the research before posting here. The opinion you're referring to is Judge Tatel's February 15, 2005 decision in the case of In re Grand Jury Subpeona, U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (though the part you're referring to was only made public in February 2006). That part of Judge Tatel's opinion reads as follows:

"As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as 'a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years' — representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support."

Contary to your breathless claim, Judge Tatel's comment is NOT a judicial "finding" that Plame was covert on July 13, 2003. In fact, it's not a finding of anything. All it is is Judge Tatel's hope that Fitzgerald isn't lying when Fitzgerald says Plame was covert. But Judge Tatel's comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what Fitzgerald actually represented to the court. The ONLY representation about Plame's status contained in Fitzgerald's affidavit to the court was the following statement (which I quoted in a previous post):

“In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.”

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/libby-fitzgerald-affidavit-20060203.pdf

That's IT. That's the ENTIRE discussion in Fitzgerald's affidavit on whether Plame was covert as of the date of her outing. NOWHERE did he represent that Plame was covert. ALL he did was state the requirements of the Intelligence Information Protection Act. Judge Tatel may have assumed Fitzgerald was making a representation about Plame's covert status, but a plain reading of the affidavit shows Fitzgerald wasn't doing that.

In addition, such a representation by Fitzgerald would contradict all other public statements Fitzgerald has ever made on Plame's status. For example, at his October 28, 2005 press conference, Fitzgerald said, "Let me say two things. I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert . . . And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."

More recently, in a letter dated January 23, 2006, Fitzgerald refused to say whether Plame had been covert during the five years before her outing. Referring to the Supreme Court's Brady decision (which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence showing the defendant's innocence), Fitzgerald wrote, "[I]f there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson [was not undercover] in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny), [then we do not agree] that any such documents would constitute Brady material [because] Mr. Libby is not charged with [outing a covert agent]."

See http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp

Thus, contrary to your breathless claims, Barney, ALL the evidence to date shows that Plame was NOT stationed overseas at any time within the 5 years before her July 13, 2003 outing (meaning that she wasn't legally "covert" at the time of her outing); there's been NO judicial finding that she was covert at that time, by Judge Tatel or anyone else; and AT NO TIME has Fitzgerald ever claimed that Plame was covert during the 5 years prior to her outing.

If you have actual evidence that Plame worked overseas in an undercover capacity at some point during the 5 years prior to July 13, 2003 -- i.e., while she was raising young twins in the Virginia suburbs -- please produce it now, or shut up.

jpl, "ALL the evidence..."

You have still failed to produce any evidence she wasn't covert in the last five years as of the outing. I'm still waiting.

jpl, what part of your statment don't you understand...“Bush authorized releasing information about Joe Wilson's trip to Africa. He obviously had to do this, to counter the lies that Wilson was telling about his trip in the press.”
Posted by: JPL [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 8, 2006 07:59 PM

Commander and Leak Bush

JPL - This is from Page 3 of the Libby Indictment:

"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

Longz--Your posting is simply Exhibit "A" in the case proving that you're ignorant about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Here's why:

1. Although you correctly point out that the indictment says Plame was "employed by the CIA," for your information, employment by the CIA is NOT enough to make one a "covert" agent within the meaning of the IIPA.

2. Although you also correctly point out that the indictment says Plame's employment by the CIA was "classified" and "not common knowledge outside the intelligence community," NEITHER of those facts is sufficient to make Plame "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA.

3. In order for Plame to have been "covert" as of July 13, 2003 under the IIPA, she would have had to have served OVERSEAS in an undercover capacity at some point DURING THE 5-YEAR PERIOD prior to July 13, 2003. PERIOD. SORRY, BUT THAT'S HOW CONGRESS DRAFTED THE STATUTE. END OF STORY. (See statute that I quoted in an earlier post, or go to SOURCE: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html.)

4. Finally, Joe Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth" (sic), shows that Plame did NOT serve overseas during the 5-year period prior to her July 13, 2003 outing. As noted above, this was pointed out in a July 14, 2005 USA Today article available at this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

End of story, Longz. So either produce evidence of Plame's overseas mission while she was raising twins in suburban Virginia, or get lost.

JPL,

I never said anything about covert, JPL. Don't need to. This is not an Intelligence Identities Protections Act case.

Releasing classified information (Plame's employment in the CIA) is against the law. Whether she was covert or not is up in the air, at least to the public. But what's not up in the air is that the classified information was exposed.

Nice hysterics, by the way, JPL. Always entertaining to watch someone try to win an argument by using caps lock.

Barney -- Your last 2 posts are Exhibits "A" and "B" in the case proving that you're a complete jerk. Here are your posts and my responses:

1. "You have still failed to produce any evidence she wasn't covert in the last five years as of the outing. I'm still waiting."

Bullsh*t. The proof that I already cited is Joe Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth" (sic), where he indicates that he and Plame lived in northern Virginia raising their twins for the ENTIRE 5-year period prior to her July 13, 2003 outing. This proves that Plame did NOT serve overseas during that 5-year period, and that she therefore doesn't meet the statute's definition of "covert." See July 14, 2005 USA Today article available at this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

2. "jpl, what part of your statment don't you understand...'Bush authorized releasing information about Joe Wilson's trip to Africa. He obviously had to do this, to counter the lies that Wilson was telling about his trip in the press.'

Yo, idiot, that first sentence referred to the fact that Wilson had confirmed Saddam's attempt to buy uranium in Niger, thus contradicting the lies Wilson had been writing in the NY Times. The sentence obviously had nothing to do with Plame, because IN MY VERY NEXT SENTENCE I wrote, "[Bush] did not authorize identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee." A-hole.

Go back to Kos or DU or whatever other lying, leftist hell-hole you came from, Barney. You have no intent to seriously debate anyone here, and only come here to spy and spread lies.

"Releasing classified information (Plame's employment in the CIA) is against the law."

Nice try, a-hole. Cite me that statute that makes it a crime to release classified information. Or shut up.

"Nice hysterics, by the way, JPL. Always entertaining to watch someone try to win an argument by using caps lock."

Nice sarcasm, jerk-off. Try winning an argument with law and facts instead of sarcasm next time. If you can.

JPL,

Didn't you start this thing out by saying what a hot lawyer you are and no one should question you? Do you really think there's no law against releasing classified information?

Why, JPL, do you think Libby would have lied to Fitzgerald in the first place? If you'd stopped to think about that, you wouldn't have been embarrassing yourself here. At any rate, try 18 U.S.C. 793 for starters. There's lots more if you need me to give you a legal education on how our government works.

But the fact that you Bush people don't think there's anything wrong with releasing classified information says a lot more than your CAPS LOCK ever did.

jpl, "Wilson had confirmed Saddam's attempt to buy uranium in Niger," ... Again, point out in Joe's Op Ed where he confirms that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger?

Please mister legal dude.

jpl, this is your evidence(from the link you provided).. "They APPEAR to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins"

They appear? Where is the "Val and I stayed in the US for the next five years, and Val was never stationed overseas in that time..."? Can't find it can you?

And you are a lawyer?

jpl, since you can not be trusted to link to any data that has any relevance to your wild accusation or claims; here is the Op ed for your pleasure. Please point out all of Joe’s documented lies, and where he CONFIRMS (your words, see I can do CAPLOCK too) that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.
I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.
But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Barney, thanks for suporting my post by ignoring most of what I said and focusing on a small part of it---where you are still wrong.

How can you possibly keep claiming that Plame's CIA employment was not well-known? It was not a secret. Maybe the CIA wanted it to be, maybe they didn't----but she and Joe not only made no effort to hide it, they talked about it.

Based on the folk wisdom that "even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes" you did manage to say something accurate. You said:
"CIA agents do live normal lives. They just don’t go around telling people they are CIA. That is why they have a cover."
Again, thanks for making my point. They DO NOT "go around telling people they are CIA..." IF THEY ARE COVERT. Therefore, telling people you work for the CIA is a pretty good indication that you are not covert.

But if you do go around telling people you work for the CIA, or your loudmouth husband does it for you, you had better not simultaneously claim to be working for another company---not unless that story will stand up to the scrutiny it is bound to attract.

Having ONE job fits in with that "normal life" you mentioned. Having two jobs, one you talk about (the CIA ) and one you don't (ABC Inc) is a pretty good way to get people wondering what is going on.

As it was pointed out to you, Plame was recalled to the US because her covert cover had been blown by Aldrich Ames. That means, Barney, that she was identified to the Other Side as a covert agent. Given the whole idea of 'covert' this means she was NOT 'covert' any more. A position which is supported by the casual attitude she and Joe had about keeping her CIA employment a secret---because they DIDN'T. Theyt talked about it. She was well-known to be working for the CIA as an analyst.

It is the having of two contradictory employment stories that shows her to be an inept idiot, and which guarantees that someone along the way is going to look into the discrepancy to see why she claimed two very different employers.

And when that snoopy someone discovers that ABC Inc doesn't have a current phone number, and has no paperwork to prove it even exists, she is the one who led the snoopy person to look into it in the first place. If she and her husband had not been such self-impressed, self-important, twits, seeking attention, the cover story and the front company might not have attracted any attention and slipped by under the radar.

Barney, Barney, Barney----puhLEEZE try to keep up.

You ask "jpl, "Wilson had confirmed Saddam's attempt to buy uranium in Niger," ... Again, point out in Joe's Op Ed where he confirms that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger?"

This is the crux of the whole matter, Barn. Because it was Wilson's oral report to the CIA that confirmed that agents for an unnamed country had been trying to buy yellowcake in Niger---and officials in Niger believed these agents to be working for Iraq. That is what Wilson's report said. It esentially confirmed what the Brits had said---that they believed Iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake in Niger.

It was the gross misrepresentation of his original report, in his Times piece, that got Joe's heinie in a crack. Because what he said in the Times story was a direct contradiction to what he told the CIA in his report upon his return from Niger.

Got it? He lied. He did not say that something happened in March and then say ooops, it was in April, I remember because it was closer to Easter. He said he learned that the officials in Niger felt the report to be accurate, and then he said the officials in Niger said the report was false. Flip-flop. Reversal of story. Change of direction. Opposite stories. He lied.

Oh, and while he tried to cover that heinie by commenting that his trip was not "secret" he dodges the fact that he got no permission from the CIA to reveal the trip or why he went or what he found. Sounds like the same Joe Wilson who mouthed off so often about his wife working for the CIA.

Once again,I am thankful that both of the inept and deceitful Wilsons are out of the 'keeping secrets' business.

Longz -- Ignoring your snide commentary for a moment, the statute you cited does not criminalize the mere leaking of classified information. It only makes a leak criminal if:

1.) the leaked information "relat[es] to the national defense;" and

2.) the leaker had "reason to believe [the leaked information] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation;" and

3.) the leaker "willfully communicate[d]...the same to any person not entitled to receive it."

This statute (and the others like it in the same Chapter of Title 18) only applies to situations in which major national defense information is passed to the enemy, such as locations of troops or battle plans. It does not apply to the identity of a single CIA agent. (If it did, Congress would have had no reason or need to pass the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.) The "wilfulness" requirement of this statute also creates an extremely difficult burden of proof for a prosecutor, which is one reason there have been so very few prosecutions under this or related statutes. Why do you suppose Fitzgerald didn't indict Libby for violating section 793 or 798?

So please get lost with your "legal education on how our government works." I don't need smug jerk-offs like you to explain statutes I've long been familiar with.

longz---related, by any chance, to 'shortz'?----what IS it with you people? You keep telling us you simply cannot understand the simplest of things---and you seem proud of it.

You say: "But the fact that you Bush people don't think there's anything wrong with releasing classified information says a lot more than your CAPS LOCK ever did."

First, skip the allusion to "you Bush people" as the basic understanding that the President has the legal authority to declassify any information is not limited to the so-called "Bush people". Rather, it is limited only to those with the mental capacity to understand what "classified" means.

I keep seeing people trying to explain to you that once the President DEclassifies something, it is then NOT classified. Not any more. Maybe we are confusing you. Maybe we should say UNclassified. But in any case, once that document has been deemed to be NOT classified any more, by the man who has the legal authority to make that decision, then it cannot be "leaked" it can only be "released".

Because a "leak" is an unauthorized violation of classified status. Which status does not exist any more if the FORMERLY classifed is now officially UNclassified. UN as in 'not any more'. "Used to be but ain't now." "Was but isn't." Past tense. Water under the bridge. Changed status. OK to talk about. Not restricted.

Sorry, but you just don't get to reinvent words, or reassign new meanings to old words. It's tempting, I know---hell, it's all you libs have. If you can't argue the facts, redefine them. Kinda Animal Farm-ish, but then that's exactly what Orwell was writing about.

When new data come in to intelligence agencies, those data are often given "classified" or "confidential" or "secret" status---because the data are new, and there is a desire to keep them close to the vest.

However, over time, much of this formerly secret information becomes fairly common knowledge, at least among intelligence groups, and not by 'leaking' from the classified files but through other sources. When that happens, the status of the information is not necessarily relevant any more. These files usually retain their original status merely because it isn't worth the time to go back and review them and reclassify them. It's yesterday's secret, and yesterday's news.

The information on the attempts to buy yellowcake from Niger falls into that category. While it probably made sense to classify it as "classified" or give it some other rank in the secrecy rankings, by the time that the Brits had been talking about it, and Ol' Joe mouthed off about it, that cat was out of that bag.

So it is not as if the President DEclassified (or UNclassified) any top secret information. He did not reveal any secrets to gain any political advantage.

All he did was take some old information, by that time pretty well-known information, declassify it, and talk about it. Which would not have happened if Joe had not lied in the NYT.

Nobody "discredited" Wilson. Wilson "discredited" himself by lying. A few people just pointed it out.

Almiranta,

Whoa, whoa. Slow down there a sec. The discussion of disclosing confidential information was in the context of the disclosure of Plame's work for the CIA. As far as I know, Bush has never been implicated there and never authorized it. If you have other information, please let me know, because that's a huge development.

But if he didn't authorize it, then it was unauthorized - and that's illegal. Or...maybe you also think disclosing confidential information is not illegal?

"But if he didn't authorize it, then it was unauthorized - and that's illegal."

So if outing Plame was illegal, Longz, why didn't Fitzgerald indict Libby for outing Plame? Maybe because it wasn't illegal? Maybe because there's NO statute in the entire United States Code that criminalizes the mere leaking of classified information, without more?

longz, you quote from Libby's indictment.

You do know, don't you, that an "indictment" is merely an accusation? You are aware, aren't you, that an "indictment" is just a statement that the prosecutor has produced enough information to make the grand jury believe there is enough evidence to mount a prosecution?

You do know, don't you, that the accused mounts no defense at all? That the grand jury hears only what the prosecutor tells them? That any and all exculpatory evidence is only presented at the trial? So the grand jury only hears one side when it makes its decision?

You are not confusing the word "jury" in "grand jury" with a panel which actually RULES on the evidence, are you? Which actually seeks to determine guilt or lack of guilt? Because that would be really really stupid.

So an accusation is worded as an accusation. And this is significant, how....? But all it is is a claim by someone who wants us to find Libby guilty of