Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
From the articleAnd this should prove once and for all Libby outed Valarie Plame as a...oh wait a minute...that was Richard Armitage.
And this should prove once and for all that Richard Armitage outed Valarie Plame as a sooper sekrit undercover CIA operative...oh wait a minute...she wasn't a sooper sekrit undercover CIA operative.
OK, this should prove once and for all that...that...I need a drink!![]()
Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame's identity and whom he told.
And this should prove once and for all that Richard Armitage outed Valarie Plame as a sooper sekrit undercover CIA operative...oh wait a minute...she wasn't a sooper sekrit undercover CIA operative.
According to everyone Skepteical.
The woman was NEVER a secret undercover CIA agent. And lets not forget she admitted herself to bladding after she f8cked her future husband on the first night they met!
However, what concerns me is this. The MSM have had a field day accusing Libby of uncovering this so called agent YET where is the outcry at how the MSM has released details of rendition pilots??
Double standards...you bet!
Mailman
Libby's trial was on the issue of his obstruction of justice and perjury during the investigation of who outed Plame. His trial was not a prosecution of her outing.Sorry, sometimes my sense of humor gets away from me...the point I'm making is, if Richard Armitage outed Plame, why no charges against him?
I thought the whole thing started over who outed Plame.
But they did not have too rig the jury. An appeal and a pardon are probably what is in store for him.
Although how much time should he get for what he did?
But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
It SHOULD depend on the repercussions of his actions. But we'll never know how deep it went.
COLLINS: And remind me, Wolf, there was also quite a bit of discussion about whether or not her identity was very well known in the circles of Washington, D.C., and the level of covertness that she held.
BLITZER: I can speak as a reporter here in Washington for 30 years. I did not know that Valerie Plame-Wilson was a covert officer. I didn't even know that Joe Wilson was married at the time.
I'm not sure it was all that widely known what she did, what she didn't do. The fact of the matter is, she had been what they call a knock.
She was not working undercover as a U.S. espionage officer, a CIA clandestine officer working overseas. The CIA had, years earlier, established fake businesses, fake companies for her to go out and recruit spies, foreigners who would help the United States in various capacities. And as a result, she was not working at a U.S. embassy pretending to be a scientific attache or a cultural attache or something else.
COLLINS: Right.
BLITZER: She was out there on her own, working as a clandestine officer, pretending to be an energy consultant, a private citizen, when, in fact, she was an employee of the U.S. government. She was a clandestine officer working for the CIA.
COLLINS: OK.
BLITZER: And that's very dangerous work. And to release that kind of information obviously not only can compromise her, but can compromise a lot of people who might be working and cooperating with the CIA.
She was not working undercover as a U.S. espionage officer, a CIA clandestine officer working overseas.
....
She was a clandestine officer working for the CIA.
Huh?
She was not working undercover as a U.S. espionage officer, a CIA clandestine officer working overseas.
....
She was a clandestine officer working for the CIA.
Huh?