Posted on 07/14/2005 3:04:54 PM PDT by hispanarepublicana
"The rest of the office staff thought Valerie was the donut fetcher and coffee maker. The only secrets were who took one lump of sugar in their coffee, and who preferred two-who preferred glazed donuts and who preferred jelly."
Yep--she was basically an admin asst. to Alan Foley. Apparently her name was all over documents she would prepare for him for distribution. There were probably plenty who had no idea she was undercover.
Assuming she ever did work under cover.
"It doesn't matter whether she was or wasn't."
Hmmmmm?? Well .. if it really doesn't matter .. you seem to be making a big issue out of it.
I'm puzzled. Could you please define what "covert" means in this context? What obligations does a "covert" CIA employee have? What expectations does the CIA have of such a "covert" employee?
You got me to thinking. My "token liberal friend" served in the Peace Corps in the mid '70s. He says the CIA attempted to recruit him enroute to his assignment, and several of his fellow Peace Corps hippies had the same thing happen to him. He's sure some of them went for the deal and is certain one of them did. That one that he's certain of is still a liberal democrat.
" "It doesn't matter whether she was or wasn't."
Hmmmmm?? Well .. if it really doesn't matter .. you seem to be making a big issue out of it. "
I'm certainly not TRYING to make a big issue about it. I'm just responding to other comments.
There seems to be a huge misunderstanding about what a covert employee is and lots of speculation about whether or not she really was or wasn't covert based on all these other things going on.
It's not a case of analyzing all these other factors and determining what her status was. You're not covert based on what job you're doing, what type of work you're doing, whatever other things about Valerie Plame there are to analyze.
It's as simple as this: your employee file is stamped "open" or "undercover". It's really that simple.
We know for a fact that she was at one time covert. We know this because she was overseas and because Ames blew her cover. If the agency never re-classified her as an open employee, she was still covert, no matter what she was doing or where she was working or how long it had been since she was overseas or any other factor. File stamped "undercover", she's undercover. Don't know how else to explain it.
"I'm puzzled. Could you please define what "covert" means in this context? What obligations does a "covert" CIA employee have? What expectations does the CIA have of such a "covert" employee?"
All agency employees stationed overseas are covert. They go overseas under the cover as employees of other government agencies, no matter what their job. They wouldn't be very welcome into those countries otherwise.
If you're asking what obligations or expectations they have regarding their cover--well, don't tell anyone you work for the CIA.
Your cover may get blown, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be a covert employee anymore. For example, your child mentions to a playmate while you're stationed overseas that his or her parent works for the CIA. Your cover is blown and you'd probably get pulled out of the country, but you'd still be a covert or undercover employee. You would just be assigned somewhere else, probably not overseas anywhere, though.
Is my understanding correct that Plame worked daily at CIA headquarters? Did she commute there in her own car? Is it easy to enter such a place unnoticed? Are foreign intelligence agencies so weak as not to be able to spot the vehicle? Is the vehicle also covert? Will you have to kill me if you tell me these things?
"Is my understanding correct that Plame worked daily at CIA headquarters? Did she commute there in her own car? Is it easy to enter such a place unnoticed? Are foreign intelligence agencies so weak as not to be able to spot the vehicle? Is the vehicle also covert? "
I don't know if WINPAC (Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center) is located at headquarters. It is openly under the Directorate of Intelligence so my guess is that it is. It was created in early 2001--3 staffs of analysts and engineers/scientists were merged together. I don't know if Plame was already on one of those staffs, but you would have had a mixture of open and covert employees on those staffs.
Headquarters at Langley are not right off the road, not visible from the road, but it's no secret where you turn off the road to go in. Clearly Mir Aimal Kasi, who shot the agency workers as they sat in their cars waiting to turn in, knew exactly where they were going, where they worked.
Certainly anyone, individual or foreign agency, can sit and monitor who's going in day in and day out. But that info is not going to be all that useful to them. Wilson, Plame and all their indignant buddies know that she wasn't doing business with any outside folks under the name of Wilson or Plame. None of her work would be compromised because neither name should be attached to any outside contact involving her job. They all know that and are getting people whipped up over nothing.
I was only try to say originally that it's kind of a waste of energy to devote much time to analyzing was she covert or not. If she wasn't, it wouldn't have gone beyond the first day. Anyone could look at her file and see yes or no. It's that black and white. It diverts attention from the real story and makes it look like we're hiding behind a technicality. She clearly was undercover.
"Will you have to kill me if you tell me these things?"
Just don't track me down. ;)
Thanks. This is the part I missed. I thought that she had some cover corporation and that it was operated under her real name. It sounds like she has to leave her home and identity behind to do the covert work. That would mean she needs some way to transition into that role unobserved.
This all reminds me of the "meaning of is" BS from a few years ago.
SSND
I think its great that the libs are attacking Karl. Bring it on. It takes the heat off the Supreme Court appointment. Let them continue to bark up the wrong tree.
the democrats have "misunderestimated" again, I think.
Look further down the page for the January, 2004 date for primary appearances.
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.