Since she has testified under oath I assume that she was indeed an undercover agent at the time her identity was leaked to the press.

So if this is not the case, she is perjuring herself and will be charged for this crime.

If she is not brought up on charges for perjury then we can conclude she was in fact a covert CIA operative at the time.

Anyone care to wager on this one?

Wade

PS: I now think that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney should *NOT* be investigated for leaking to the press. Protecting the idea of "confidential" sources is worth sacrificing any criminal charges or impeachment actions against Rove and Cheney. In this case, as reprehensible as these two are they are "confidential" sources due the protection all whistle blowers and inside sources are granted.

Wade

Wade,

Just when did Plame ever go under oath?

Perhaps she is not "under oath" technically but if it turns out she is making false statements to Congress this is a crime, no?

The point here is that other than right-wingers, no one is really challenging her assertion that she was undercover. In fact Bush himself promises (ha ha) that anyone involved in the leak would be fired. This to me is an acknowledgment that some wrongdoing took place.

Wade

Wade, You want Bush to fire Richard Armitage? He left the state Department in 2005.

And "undercover" is not the issue; covert under the statute is the issue.

She probably was under covers.

Oh, wait you meant covert? Right. She served with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

I want Bush to honor his statement that anyone involved in the leaking would get the boot.

It is beyond doubt that Karl Rove was involved. Of course this nefarious, amoral individual has his fingerprints on so many scandals and unethical activities anyone of which merits scorn and dismissal.

But you Bush/Rive/Cheney apologists always ignore or dismiss facts when they are inconvenient.

Wade

Wade

Wade,

"Perhaps she is not "under oath" technically but if it turns out she is making false statements to Congress this is a crime, no?"

So you'd support filing criminal charges against John F. Kerry for making false statements to Congress?

You must have missed the start Noonan as Ms Wilson was sworn to tell the truth before the proceedings began as I saw them on C-SPAN.

A-10:

What statements of John Kerry was false?

Wade

You Republicans are so far off base. She did not lie on the stand and she did not commit perjury. Give it a rest. Instead the people you should be blaming are in the Bush Administration. Revealing the identity of a covert undercover CIA agent is a crime. And to think, the Republican party claims to be the party of morality. You guys have no descency or morals. What a crock.....

"Revealing the identity of a covert undercover CIA agent is a crime." Dude

Uhhh Duuude how come Fitgerald didn't indict anyone for that aledged CRIME???

Because there was no crime, Duuuude

It certainly appeared that she was placed under oath at the beginning of her testimony.

It also appears that she was, indeed, a covert operative at the time she was exposed by your boys in the white house.

This is, very simply, treason.

"It also appears that she was, indeed, a covert operative at the time she was exposed by your boys in the white house. This is, very simply, treason." PMS

You leftists still can't answer why no one was indicted for this aledged CRIME by the SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. Until you do you're ranting is like a fart in a wind storm.

It also appears that she was, indeed, a covert operative at the time she was exposed by your boys in the white house.

Yes, but watch Noonan & Co. continue to pretend that she wasn't. Denying reality is pretty much their only trick these days.

Retaliation by outing someone's wife's identity in the CIA whether it covert or not is still jeopardizing the security of people in the CIA.
But the right-wingers here will defend their party and their beloved Bush administration at the cost of national security. All their interested in is trying to take down Joe Wilson because they hate anyone who questions their leader.

After a two year investigation, turning over very leaf, and knowing just who actually mentioned her name, all Fitzgerald could come up with was one charge of perjury over Libbys poor memory.

If there was indeed a crime and she was "outed" as she claims, why were there no charges against anyone for "outing" her?

Her husband, Wilson, was proven a lair over his assertions. No need for any retribution. Even Plames lame accounting of how he came to be selected is pure comedy in itself.

This is nothing more than more feeble attempts at painting the opposition party corrupt and undermining a sitting President as he executes a war.

Pretty dangerous 'putsch' the Democrats are playing, at the expense of the nation and our Troops.

Oh yeah, Fitzgerald said no one would be charged and everyone was going back home, case closed. That won't stop the Democrats from another taxpayer dollar wasting uselss spate of hearings in their 'putsch.'

But you Bush/Rive/Cheney apologists always ignore or dismiss facts when they are inconvenient.

Wrong again--we always ignore or dismiss Wade's post because he's a moron.

I'd like to visit you someday, Wade; what's the visiting hours at the nut farm?

This is, very simply, treason.

PM(S) is, very simply, OD'ing on kool-aid...

Yes, she was under oath- she was sworn in at the beginning of her testimony. Unlike the Republicans, though, she was TELLING THE TRUTH!

There have been now 5 members of the CIA who have confirmed her COVERT status, as has Fitzgerald in MANY statements. EVERY employee at her front company (Brewster-Jennings & Associates) was indeed covert. There is NO EVIDENCE that she was not- her FRIENDS, FAMILY, and NEIGHBORS had NO IDEA she worked for the CIA.

Which reliable sources say she was NOT covert? Victoria Toensing? Was SHE ever a member of the CIA? Was SHE EVER BRIEFED by the CIA? Indeed, even Bush himself considered this a "very serious matter" of "leaking classified information".

Where do YOU get your information that she was not covert? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? CONSERVAPEDIA?!?!

"no one is really challenging her assertion that she was undercover."
.............................
Actually, Plame's status was so pivotal to the Fitzgerald "investigation" that he admitted he never even bothered to ask if she was covert at all.

Yep, Plame's status was not questioned during the "investigation". Wonder why? I don't. It was because it would have been oh so inconvenient to have it on record that whatever it was she was doing, she did not qualify for "covert" status. If it had officially come out at or near the beginning of the "investigation" that no crime had even been committed, nd th e "investigator" knew it, well gee, that would have made it a little harder to justify spending millions and two years on dragging people in over and over again to quiz them on minor details, so a staff could go over the transcripts and pick out inconsequential and insignificant contradictions to pounce on, to generate a bogus "crime".

By the time Libby had been indicted, it was a lot easier to bury the fact that Fitzgerald didn't even care if a crime had been committed when he began his "investigation"---which would have proved that the "investigation" was really just an excuse to put people under oath to testify about things that were never important to them, which took place far in the past, which were minor distractions to people overwhelmed with real, important, work, knowing that if enough petty questions are asked of enough people about enough petty occurances far enough back in time, someone will have a memory which is not 100% in line with someone else's.

Fitagerald KNEW no crime had been committed, so he set out to CREATE a crime. What a good true footsoldier for the LLL. You all seem awfully proud of him, but then he does represent the best of what you stand for. On this blog page alone you have stood up for Helen Thomas and Fitzgerald---both true icons of the radical Left.

CF, put the Kook-Aid down and step away from the table...

Fitzgerald not only did NOT make "many statements" as to Plame's so-called covert status, he admitted that he never even bothered to ask if she was covert.

You whine, about Victoria Toensing, "Was SHE ever a member of the CIA? Was SHE EVER BRIEFED by the CIA?" SHE WROTE THE LAW. No one could know better than she who was and who was not covered by that law. All the emoting in the world will simply not make Plame fit the criteria of the law, much less make those who discussed her EMPLOYMENT with the CIA guilty of breaking it.

Her husband talked about her working for the CIA. Andrea Mitchell is on tape admitting that the whole DC press corps knew she worked for the CIA. Her EMPLOYMENT with the CIA was not a secret.

Possibly, just possibly, she had taken an assignment which did have an element of secrecy. This is NOT "covert", at least according the law. She was asked to act as a secretary in a fake business set up by the CIA. If her job included keeping the address and telephone information up to date to keep the cover in place, she should have been fired anyway, as it took Novak just a few minutes on the computer to learn that it was a phony front, not a real business.

As for Brewster-Jennings, how covert could it have been, or her position have been, if she entered her name in public records as being employed there---knowing that so many also knew she worked for the CIA?

I KNOW you're upset, CF. Your pain is clear. But if you would turn off your radio and stop channeling Ranty Rhodes, and actually try to pick up and process some FACTS for a change, instead of relying on hyper-emotional (and obviously very effective) manipulation by your minders, you would not only be smarter and better informed, you could quit being so FRANTIC about things that simply do not exist.

The answer is simple. The current administration and it's supporters (Mark, Keef, Almiranta) love power more than they love America. Plame was undercover. She was a covert case officer. She was outed by the administration. NOT ONE OF YOUR PRECIOUS REPUBLICANS ON THE COMMITEE DISPUTED THAT ASSERTION. Not one. They buy it. Why don't you?

Oh. Because then what would you blog about?