Posted on 07/10/2005 7:53:23 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
I can't figure it out from heads and tails, but as soon as the hubby started appearing on TV, her cover was dead in the water, anyone, anywhere, with half a brain would have been looking to check out his background and would have seen that he was married to someone in the CIA.
So the press knew that she was CIA and they knew the CIA sent him and they didn't think that was important to the story?
"They don't bother with this any more Ash. You know why? Because they don't stand for anything, and they know it..."
I totally disagree with you. How dare you say the Democrat party stands for nothing. They stand for the right to kill unborn children and the right for gay people to marry. Despite the fact that 2/3's of America stands against them and it should not be by judicial caveat but by state legislative process.
God I depise the libs. hehehe...
It's the story that is not a story.
The only 'fact' important to the story was damage that they thought they could do to W last year. Now that he has won reelection, their template is
Bush = Nixon
Iraq = Vietnam
Yesterday, Russert advertised his guests for next week - Woodward and Bernstein on their new book about Mark Felt.
I sense the drumbeat is not without choreography ---
Nixon evil = Bush evil
They cannot believe that they have not been able to cripple W to date. They will not stop trying.
Oooh, you mean Andrea Mitchell has a..... a..... a..... a credibility problem?! Gee, who'da thunk it?
Economy -- A-Ok
Employment -- A-Ok
US attacks outside Iraq -- None
Iraq -- Liberated/Elections/Constitution
The Dimwits are melting down.
Interesting.
I think it's a big story that a faction of rogues at the CIA sent the likes of Joe Wilson to Niger (why?) and then manufactured a trumped up "Bush lied" story which was then (and continues to be) promoted by a deceitful media and dem party.
Perhaps you think such is a mundane run-of-the-mill happening...
That's not the story, though. That story was printed 2 years ago. The story they are printing now is that Rove is the source for this nonexistent crime.
Um, the story started with Rove doing the (non) crime.
That is not new news.
And the factual points I've made have never been "the story" in the media as they ought to have been.
To this day as the Times,WaPo, TIME, Newsweek, etc, report it, they say with indignation that the WH was trying to undermine Wilson without pointing out Wilson's credibility by all that is sane and rational was in tatters long long ago.
The tack they take is the WH had no right to dispute the lies Wilson was spreading (with the help of his rogue cohorts).
I have the correct perspective.
I'll go ahead and add that your post earlier about "our side" muddying the waters by presenting facts was so much nonsense.
The reason why the false story lives on, though, is that our side keeps bringing up stuff that is neither here nor there, and is at least arguably false. We spend our time arguing that she was not covert, for example, which is not true. She's not covert now, but she was classified as covert when she was based in foreign embassies years ago. Why argue about such things when you can simply throw the knockout punch:
Rove never told anyone she was covert.
There is no real argument about that. Even Cooper does not claim that he did.
It doesn't matter whether or not it was common knowledge, it matters whether or not the CIA was taking active measures to keep secret her role as a covert agent.
In other words, it depends on the meaning of is. :)
"We" don't argue she was not covert. It is relevant to the law at issue as to when that aspect of her employment ended.
As to Rove's role, he's but one in a cast of characters despite the current renewed focus on him. Of course he had nothing to do with outing a covert agent. That was obvious back in the beginning of this nonsense.
From what I understand, the press only knew she worked for the CIA.
I don't know if they knew anything else about her or him.
National Review knew who she was, but they never really said how much, just that they knew she worked in the CIA, but that it was common knowledge.
The secrecy doesn't end just because you're no longer covert, though. Why go down that road? Rove did not say she was covert. That's the end of it, unless and until they can prove that someone else outted her.
Let me tell you where this is really leading, and where the prosecutor is headed. He's hoping that he can catch someone in a lie. He doesn't give a damn whether she was illegally outted or not. It's a crime to lie under oath to a grand jury, and even if Rove did not out Plame, he can be prosecuted if he told a lie to the grand jury.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the hubbub in the media. They have no idea what Rove told the grand jury.
"The law protects the identity of previously covert operatives, as well"
I think there's a five year limit on that, and WIlson/Plame had passed that 'statute of limitations.'
There is a time limit, but I am not sure you are correct that it had passed, and I doubt that we will ever get the details on that because they aren't going to discuss the details of her covert service.
One thing about all this is that both the media and the prosecutor are dancing around the question of whether she was a covert agent at all because they know it's illegal to disclose the identity of a covert agent. Nevermind that the law does not apply to the media and the fact that her cover is already blown. The media will not discuss the question of whether she is covert because of the law against disclosure, and also becuase they don't have the details since the government won't talk about it.
And that, by the way, is one of the reasons why this whole sordid episode happened to begin with. Someone from the CIA could easily have told Novak, "Hey you idiot, don't publish this because she's a covert agent."
But if they'd done so, they would have been violating the law, so they just settled for begging him not to print the story, without explaining why. He obviously was not smart enough to read between the lines.
My suspicion is that the time limit had not passed, though, because if it had, there would have been no grand jury.
The law recognizes a timeframe, that is a fact. I have personaly surmised she wasn't covert and hadn't been for a long time, but obviously am not in a position to say definitively. In addition to whether she was or wasn't and if the timeframe fit, in comes the other criteria of "knowingly", etc. I just object to your all-purpose "we" and "our side" lumping when that is not fair or true.
Rove did not say she was covert.
Of course he didn't. The idea that he would have or could have is ludicrous and always has been.
Let me tell you where this is really leading, and where the prosecutor is headed. He's hoping that he can catch someone in a lie.
The judges who have looked at this have specifically said they would not allow a fishing expedition and that the reporters needed to testify. That doesn't sound like Fitzgerald looking for perjury.
I won't be arrogant enough to say "Let me tell you where this is leading", but I do think I have a better idea than you.
LOL
They have been openly disclosing it from day one.
It wasn't Novak who identified her as covert, it was Newsday and the WaPo quickly followed.
And to this day they refer to her as such without having established beyond a reasonable doubt that was the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.