I know what Bush wants for X-mas

<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1603933,00.html”>A new Scooter</a>.

I’m really suprised Sin or SK haven’t jumped on this story. I’m kind of wondering where this all will go now. The prosecutor has said he is still investigating so there may be more inditments. Seems like the corruption in this administration is catching up pretty fast.

The guy in the photo looks like he’s saying something like “Excuse ME? I’m too arrogant for this crap!”

Yes, this is far from over. It’s not just about revealing the identity of a CIA agent, but also about the motives for doing so, which relate directly to the neoconservatives’ push to get us into a war with Iraq. Nor was Libby the only one involved. The indictment also describes an “Undersecretary of State” (probably Bolton) and someone called “Official A” (apparently Karl Rove), and some passages appear to indicate Cheney’s involvement.

I’ll quote some quote I read somewhere “Lying to a grand jury is serious, if true. The rest is Martha Stewart stuff”, “According to Fitzgerald, Libby tried to soft sell his involvement in the Plame leak while he was under oath and now he’s paying the price. That’s really too bad, because it sounds as if Libby would have walked had that not happened”, “Unless Rove gets the double-secret indictment later, which seems unlikely, this should be the bounce that Bush is looking for”.

The point is even though apparently some of these are right wing blogs, they’re right. This doesn’t resolve anything about the act itself. This is anticlimatic. No one has been charged yet of being the asshole that triggered this shit and there aren’t any details about who did what with whom or who said what about who. I don’t have any doubts about Fitzgerald (yet) but I’m kinda disapointed.

One of the reasons I’ve heard for the confusion over all of it is that you have to knowingly out an undercover agent to be charged with treason. There are reports that she was not undercover at the time of the leaking.

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an “undercover agent,” saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency’s headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm

So to charge someone you have to first wade your way through all the crap and possible lies of the people being interviewed to get at the root, which the Libby indictment may help with or may have ruined, and then you have to prove that they knew/figured she was undercover at the time.

It is a whole mess. Right now my inkling is that Rove does get charged, but from all that has happened before I find me doubting that notion every time I get it.

Yes, of course, “reports” coming from the Washington Times, that quality publication funded by a crazed Korean cult leader, no less. Fortunately, the text of the indictment is quite helpful in resolving this supposed issue:

define common knowledge

In this case, information that is open and easily accessible to people in the general public who do not have security clearance.

If a couple friends know is it then considered common knowledge? I don’t believe that it is by their definition which leaves the scenario of her telling a friend, then that friend not knowing the information is supposedly confidential reads about her husband and says to another friend “oh! I’m friends with his wife. I know she works for the cia.” The information can get around without knowing whether she is supposed to be undercover or not. Since every government official isn’t SUPPOSED to know undercover agents when they hear so-and-so works for the cia their first inclination will probably be that she isn’t undercover unless told otherwise. I’m just saying that is another kink in the indictment.

I’m saying your argument is flawed in 2 ways hypharse:

Firstly, no CIA agent or anyone related to a CIA agent would do that. I personally read that she had another identity where it was that she lived, so she was indeed undercover.

Secondly, it would be silly for an idictment to define what is common knowledge in those terms as it would make any concept of under cover irrelevant.

The only people I heard say that she wasn’t officially undercover are politicians trying to downplay the significance of outing the agent so that people wouldn’t get fucked. It isn’t because she’s not in Iran gathering information on how far ahead their nuclear program is that her covert status bears any less meaning.

I’m sure CIA agents reveal their identities while gossiping with their non-agent friends all the time, but Plame was working for the Counterproliferation division in the Directorate of Operations, or in other words, the part of the CIA where the spies work. When she was exposed, CIA operations were exposed as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

What I find indecent is the way she was exposed - as petty revenge for political reasons.

We can argue against what you read and what I read all day long as to which is right. I don’t claim 100% fact. I have read in more than a few places that people around her knew she worked for the CIA. If I remember right she was even at a government function that was on C-Span as herself before she was outed.

There are many levels of undercoverness. If only you and your spouse knows then that is certainly not common knowledge. Also if you tell someone who you assume has little to absolutely no chance of coming in contact with those you are trying to stay undercover from then telling them is not doing much of any harm. In that case it is still not “common knowledge.” I can tell you guys about a girl I have a crush on because the chances of you actually coming in contact with her and telling her are so slim that it doesn’t mean anything.

Nah, I’m pretty sure that CIA agents have to keep their identity a secret,e ven to their closest friends. The reason being is that if their identity is known, it can compromise future operations or even make them a target.

I would love to see all of these indictments go up to Cheney.

I’ve been hearing a lot of people comparing this to what Nixon did and the general consensus is that this is far worse on all levels. Kinda makes me wonder that maybe if it goes up the chain far enough we’ll see another president resign or get impeached.

Exactly. And implying that its better to out someone who’s less covert than someone else because of your own personal opinion of the work they do is irresponsible. Unfortunately, I’ve been hearring that this isn’t as bad as Watergate, or at least, it won’t be until someone says “Bush wanted to discredit Wilson”. People are going to need a smoking gun.

It’s not good to out an undercover cia agent at all, but if you don’t know they are undercover and talk about them working for the CIA you are not committing treason which is my whole point. You have to knowingly out them. CIA agents are most likely to be classified, but similar to that link sephiroth posted earlier I have heard her main undercover work ended in 1999. Since then she may have been classified, but humans aren’t perfect. Since she felt she was safe and not really undercover she may have let it known she worked for the cia. I don’t say this is what happened, but you guys are asking why this investigation is taking so long and I am offering a reason i have heard.

On a side note I think 99% of this board is more liberal, including me. You don’t expand your politics that much by arguing politics on a board where people agree with you. I post a lot on a very strong conservative forum. It has opened my eyes and clued me in to some fallacies I have had.

I don’t think anyone asked why this was taking so long in context of this discussion. I really don’t believe that she’d advertise she worked for the CIA and more specifically, what’s important in this context is the kind of work which she did do for the CIA because that would’ve been classified and no one would’ve known that. Furthermore, SK pointed out that indictment 3 said her work was classified at the time where this was going on so she would still be under cover.

Unless, like, you know, that person you told turns around and like, tells the press or something. But that would never happ…

Oh.

Wait.

Of course it can and will happen. Cuz, like, that’s exactly how we know about all this happening and are thus discussing it now, n’ stuff.

That’s why this shit is CLASSIFIED. Because anyone starts talking, to anybody, and it has a way of getting out. That comprimises operations, and the lives of the agents.

Gee, think the CIA can use this lady as an agent anymore, anywhere, now that the cat is out of the bag and she can easily be identified as such? And that’s exactly the problem. You out an undercover agent as such, whether they’re currnetly on a mission or not, you make it that much harder to use them again.

This is essentially the same thing as broadcasting the details of our troop movements where the enemy could intercept them (like Geraldo Rivera’s stupid ass almost did at the beginning of the Iraq War when he was embedded with that unit); it’s reckless endangerment at best; treason at worst (you’re stooging them off and making it that much easier for the enemy to kill them, in BOTH cases).

And they did it all because her husband said some critical things about the administration that hurt their widdle feewings. So they leaked info about his wife in order to scare him/shut him up. Mobster-style intimidation tactics. What a bunch of punk ass bitches. Take 'em down; All The President’s Men.

Since we’re mentionning the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801721.html

I liked that article.