Cheney Outed Plame to Libby

[Brassmask]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/

Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 “destroyed” a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president.

[sirs]

Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 “destroyed” a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president.

a) "alledged" that the note said WHAT?

b) SHE WAS NOT COVERT

[Brassmask]

a) "alledged" that the note said WHAT?

Got me.  The article doesn't say.  Perhaps that will come out in testimony. 

b) SHE WAS NOT COVERT

Really?  That's not what your OpinionJournal post said the other day.

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=1627.0

A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher. . . .

Odd that.

Perhaps you can pull a semantics argument out of your ass the air and spin it that way now.

[Amianthus]

Really?  That's not what your OpinionJournal post said the other day.

Sure it did. Plame wouldn't write a book about her covert career, would she? She obviously didn't think that what she was doing was covert, or she wouldn't write a book about it.

[Plane]

Ian Flemming was involved in spyng somehow.


His Novels fictionalised his work a little bit .

Peraps h didn't think it wise to ruin his secret craft by exposeing it.

[Brassmask]

Sure it did. Plame wouldn't write a book about her covert career, would she? She obviously didn't think that what she was doing was covert, or she wouldn't write a book about it.

Who said that's what she was going to do?  Maybe she is writing about how her cover was blown by the current "administration" or possible threats she feared for her family.  Has she even written one word of the book yet?

And now that her cover has been blown, maybe it doesn't matter if she writes about what she was doing.

[Amianthus]

Ian Flemming was involved in spyng somehow.

He was in Naval Intelligence during WWII. Not exactly "spying".

[Brassmask]

Sure it did.

And btw, uh, NO it didn't.

[Amianthus]

Who said that's what she was going to do?  Maybe she is writing about how her cover was blown by the current "administration" or possible threats she feared for her family.

From the article you linked to: "A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher."

So, if she wasn't going to write about her work for the agency, then she could have published her book.

[Plane]

Ian Flemming was involved in spyng somehow.

He was in Naval Intelligence during WWII. Not exactly "spying".

You mean he was not a covert agent ?

But his work would involve evaluateing infrmation gathered by secet means?

So if he were to write out the real situations he really knew he would be comprmising secrets and ruining his own work?

I see , so he was not anything like Valery Plame at all?

[Brassmask]

So, if she wasn't going to write about her work for the agency, then she could have published her book.

Thus utterly PROVING that she was undercover.  That being the whole fucking point, she being "undercover" or "covert".

Nice strawman though.  I almost chased after it.

[Plane]

So, if she wasn't going to write about her work for the agency, then she could have published her book.

Thus utterly PROVING that she was undercover.  That being the whole fucking point, she being "undercover" or "covert".

Nice strawman though.  I almost chased after it.

If she was covert she was not very good at it.

Didn' her husband publish information related to her work in his own name?

[sirs]

a) "alledged" that the note said WHAT?

Got me.  The article doesn't say.  Perhaps that will come out in testimony. 

But boy you're sure quick to assume, given the title thread.  Are we going back to Lanya's absolute expecation of seeing Rove & Cheney, carted off in handcuffs, after perhaps a more "thorough" investigation?

b) SHE WAS NOT COVERT

Really?  That's not what your OpinionJournal post said the other day.

Oh, is the OpinionJournal now the defacto rule, which supercedes Fitzgerald.  The same OpinionJournal that is routinely vilified as a mouthpiece for the GOP, by folks like yourself??  Are you now changing course and giving the OpinionJournal credibility in their opinions?  Or only the rare times they slip something in you agree with?

A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher. . . .

We already addressed that.  That was demonstrating that not only was she NOT covert, she really even wasn't undercover, or this bookdeal would have never seen page 1.  This is called "desperation" Brass.  Please try to keep up

[Amianthus]

Thus utterly PROVING that she was undercover.  That being the whole fucking point, she being "undercover" or "covert".

I said, she obviously didn't feel that her job was covert, or she wouldn't have proposed writing about it.

[Brassmask]

a) "alledged" that the note said WHAT?

Got me.  The article doesn't say.  Perhaps that will come out in testimony. 

But boy you're sure quick to assume, given the title thread.  Are we going back to Lanya's absolute expecation of seeing Rove & Cheney, carted off in handcuffs, after perhaps a more "thorough" investigation?

No, I'm not quick to assume.  I'm going on Fitzgerald's lead.  You know the Fitzgerald who apparently has conducted a thorough investigation. 

Cheney wrote note suggesting how Libby should handle FBI interview on leak; note destroyed right before Libby testified to FBI for the first time.   (According to a news report someone diaried at DailyKos.

b) SHE WAS NOT COVERT

Really?  That's not what your OpinionJournal post said the other day.


Oh, is the OpinionJournal now the defacto rule, which supercedes Fitzgerald.  The same OpinionJournal that is routinely vilified as a mouthpiece for the GOP, by folks like yourself??  Are you now changing course and giving the OpinionJournal credibility in their opinions?  Or only the rare times they slip something in you agree with?

The use of the OJ article which stated that Plame was being barred from writing about her "undercover" work at the CIA and the repeated statements that Plame was not COVERT is to call into question YOUR hypocrisy and outright disdain for reality not to give some kind of kudos to OJ.  You post repeatedly that Plame was not undercover then post an article (the act of which is generally viewed on this forum as endorsement of the jist of said article) that flatly STATES that Plame is being barred by the CIA from writing about her activities as an undercover agent. All this whirlwind about me is just like a gorilla throwing dirt in the air.  No matter how you slice it or spin or paint it or color it or try to distract from it, the fact remains that you are at a crossroads.  Was Plame covert/undercover or is the author of the OpinionJournal a lying, liberal America/Bush hater like you say I am who is just trying to nail Rove and the gang on some trumped up bullshit like they "outted" Valerie Plame?

A CIA panel has told former officer Valerie Plame she can't write about her undercover work for the agency, a position that may threaten a lucrative book project with her publisher. . . .

We already addressed that.  That was demonstrating that not only was she NOT covert, she really even wasn't undercover, or this bookdeal would have never seen page 1.  This is called "desperation" Brass.  Please try to keep up

Yes, I agree.  You ARE desperate if that is how you are reading that.  I'll just hang back and you go on out there in Crazyland.

Again.