| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"grinder" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2005 01:46:49 PM |
| Object: |
Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse. I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
14 Jul 2005 03:36:25 PM |
|
|
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:tqyBe.3440$dU3.996@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
He left in 89, end of story.
Next bit of fantasy?
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
14 Jul 2005 02:10:44 PM |
|
|
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse. I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat
spying for the Soviets back in 1994. She was brought back to the
states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and
went in public. So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken
the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target. Dead
end for the Democrats on that one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 02:39:22 PM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge. Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 03:11:11 PM |
|
|
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge. Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it. Oh well, maybe you can
get Rove on spitting on the sidewalk or some other crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 05:46:02 PM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121371871.866303.150090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could
be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
LOL
Like I said, you sure know a lot more than all the judges and the prosecutor
on the case. So odd that all these Republicans are trying to "get" Rove on
false charges.
Or maybe you're wrong.
BTW - Plame was active and you're fullashit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
15 Jul 2005 08:59:42 AM |
|
|
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121371871.866303.150090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could
be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
LOL
Like I said, you sure know a lot more than all the judges and the prosecutor
on the case. So odd that all these Republicans are trying to "get" Rove on
false charges.
Or maybe you're wrong.
BTW - Plame was active and you're fullashit.
I know that the special prosecutor has already said Rove is not a
target of the investigation. "Fullashit" seems to eb something you
know a whole lot about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
15 Jul 2005 10:10:48 AM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121435982.521736.18420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121371871.866303.150090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official
at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a
CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife
that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency
on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas
could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could
be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big
deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the
field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with
the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man
all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
LOL
Like I said, you sure know a lot more than all the judges and the
prosecutor
on the case. So odd that all these Republicans are trying to "get" Rove
on
false charges.
Or maybe you're wrong.
BTW - Plame was active and you're fullashit.
I know that the special prosecutor has already said Rove is not a
target of the investigation. "Fullashit" seems to eb something you
know a whole lot about.
Than what are you so worried about? If Rove is innocent why are you guys so
afraid of an investigation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
15 Jul 2005 10:30:02 AM |
|
|
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121435982.521736.18420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121371871.866303.150090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official
at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a
CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife
that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency
on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas
could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could
be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big
deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the
field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with
the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man
all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
LOL
Like I said, you sure know a lot more than all the judges and the
prosecutor
on the case. So odd that all these Republicans are trying to "get" Rove
on
false charges.
Or maybe you're wrong.
BTW - Plame was active and you're fullashit.
I know that the special prosecutor has already said Rove is not a
target of the investigation. "Fullashit" seems to eb something you
know a whole lot about.
Than what are you so worried about? If Rove is innocent why are you guys so
afraid of an investigation?
I'm not worried about a thing. If Rove is found to have broken the law
then he ought to be prosecuted. So far, the evidence doesn't point to
that. What I find (not surprisingly) strange is the outrage by the
left over outting a desk jockey while people like John Kerry get a pass
when he blew the cover of Fulton Armstrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
15 Jul 2005 03:22:17 PM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121441402.555795.202250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121435982.521736.18420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121371871.866303.150090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism
official
at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a
confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has
been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested
a
CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I
was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife
that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the
agency
on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and
that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for
certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas
could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could
be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big
deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this
was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas
and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand
the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken
states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the
field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting
his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with
the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the
information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it -
man
all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
LOL
Like I said, you sure know a lot more than all the judges and the
prosecutor
on the case. So odd that all these Republicans are trying to "get"
Rove
on
false charges.
Or maybe you're wrong.
BTW - Plame was active and you're fullashit.
I know that the special prosecutor has already said Rove is not a
target of the investigation. "Fullashit" seems to eb something you
know a whole lot about.
Than what are you so worried about? If Rove is innocent why are you guys
so
afraid of an investigation?
I'm not worried about a thing.
That would explain all your hysterical hyperposting!
LOL
If Rove is found to have broken the law
then he ought to be prosecuted.
Any fool in the WH who goes around telling reporters that someone is in the
CIA without even checking on their status ought not be in the WH, period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
15 Jul 2005 04:01:09 PM |
|
|
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121441402.555795.202250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121435982.521736.18420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121371871.866303.150090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism
official
at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a
confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has
been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested
a
CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I
was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife
that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the
agency
on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and
that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for
certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas
could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could
be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big
deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this
was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas
and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand
the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken
states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the
field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting
his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with
the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the
information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it -
man
all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
LOL
Like I said, you sure know a lot more than all the judges and the
prosecutor
on the case. So odd that all these Republicans are trying to "get"
Rove
on
false charges.
Or maybe you're wrong.
BTW - Plame was active and you're fullashit.
I know that the special prosecutor has already said Rove is not a
target of the investigation. "Fullashit" seems to eb something you
know a whole lot about.
Than what are you so worried about? If Rove is innocent why are you guys
so
afraid of an investigation?
I'm not worried about a thing.
That would explain all your hysterical hyperposting!
LOL
Not really. I just enjoy rubbing your face in the facts of this
leftist created non-story.
If Rove is found to have broken the law
then he ought to be prosecuted.
Any fool in the WH who goes around telling reporters that someone is in the
CIA without even checking on their status ought not be in the WH, period.
Would the same hold true for US Senators from MA?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 03:39:31 PM |
|
|
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge. Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
Cite? Oh, and be sure to include her access to all the evidence.
Oh well, maybe you can
get Rove on spitting on the sidewalk or some other crime.
lol "it ain't illegal!" - the cry of the party of personal responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 03:46:23 PM |
|
|
Server 13 wrote:
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge. Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
Cite? Oh, and be sure to include her access to all the evidence.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ews/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=452 66
How am I supposed to include access to all her evidence? Keep pushing
the goal post back further and further. Call us when you get an
indictment.
Oh well, maybe you can
get Rove on spitting on the sidewalk or some other crime.
lol "it ain't illegal!" - the cry of the party of personal responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 05:47:55 PM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121373983.229988.97380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Server 13 wrote:
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that
I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man
all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
Cite? Oh, and be sure to include her access to all the evidence.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ews/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=452 66
How am I supposed to include access to all her evidence? Keep pushing
the goal post back further and further. Call us when you get an
indictment.
worldnet daily?
LOL
You realize they aren't a news organization?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
16 Jul 2005 08:39:46 AM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vYBBe.10479$aY6.6957@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121373983.229988.97380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Server 13 wrote:
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official
at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a
CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I
was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my
wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency
on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas
could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big
deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand
the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the
field sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may
have already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting
his time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with
the three judges who said the reporters had to give over the
information because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it -
man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it.
Cite? Oh, and be sure to include her access to all the evidence.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ews/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=452 66
How am I supposed to include access to all her evidence? Keep pushing
the goal post back further and further. Call us when you get an
indictment.
worldnet daily?
LOL
You realize they aren't a news organization?
Small wonder "Jeff Gannon" has a job
waiting there........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Diddy Pop" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 03:22:21 PM |
|
|
It only shows the desperation of the idiot left to get Rove out at any
cost...including trumping up nonissues.
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge. Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it. Oh well, maybe you can
get Rove on spitting on the sidewalk or some other crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 05:47:07 PM |
|
|
"The Real Diddy Pop" <whodey1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121372541.810442.268990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It only shows the desperation of the idiot left to get Rove out at any
cost...including trumping up nonissues.
Gee, so it's a leftist who is prosecuting this case?
It was three leftist judges who deemed this national security case so
important that they've threatened to toss one reporter in jail and another
is rotting in jail?
You're logic is infantile and you're an idiot.
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official
at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a
CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that
I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency
on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man
all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it. Oh well, maybe you can
get Rove on spitting on the sidewalk or some other crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
16 Jul 2005 08:38:56 AM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:LXBBe.10478$aY6.9192@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
"The Real Diddy Pop" <whodey1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121372541.810442.268990@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It only shows the desperation of the idiot left to get Rove out at any
cost...including trumping up nonissues.
Gee, so it's a leftist who is prosecuting this case?
It was three leftist judges who deemed this national security case so
important that they've threatened to toss one reporter in jail and
another is rotting in jail?
You're logic is infantile and you're an idiot.
It's all Clinton's fault.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 03:40:13 PM |
|
|
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
It only shows the desperation of the idiot left to get Rove out at any
cost...including trumping up nonissues.
lol Tell it to the DoJ, the three judges, and the Supreme Court.
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge. Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it. Oh well, maybe you can
get Rove on spitting on the sidewalk or some other crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If GEO is right, SCOTUS, judges and prosecutor must be wrong |
14 Jul 2005 06:06:42 PM |
|
|
"Server 13" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:db6ilf$6ae$3@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
It only shows the desperation of the idiot left to get Rove out at any
cost...including trumping up nonissues.
lol Tell it to the DoJ, the three judges, and the Supreme Court.
You might as well talk to a stone - these Republiloons only know the talking
points they hear read over the AM airwaves. Even "respectable" David Brooks
is repeating these lies on NPR.
Their desperation to confuse this issue with lots of "conflicts" might work,
but considering that most people in America now think of Bush as a "lying
sack of *****" I have my doubts.
Geo wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at
the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could
be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago
You ought to contact the prosecutor and tell him that he's wasting his
time
as there is no crime. He sure is stupid compared to you, along with the
three judges who said the reporters had to give over the information
because
it was such a serious crime. Even the SCOTUS went along with it - man
all
those guys know nothing compared to your broad and deep knowledge.
Amazing
how many people have to be wrong for you to be right!
Even Victoria Toensing, the woman who was largely responsible for
writing the law, says Rove hasn't violated it. Oh well, maybe you can
get Rove on spitting on the sidewalk or some other crime.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
14 Jul 2005 02:32:20 PM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat
spying for the Soviets back in 1994.
Even if this were true, how does this affect a current (well, not any
more) successful career after the soviets? Sounds irrelevant to me - the
soviets folded.
She was brought back to the
states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and
went in public.
That's what happens when you work in a front organization. Going through
15 doors and dropping through a telephone booth tends to give it away, if
you catch my drift.
So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken
the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target.
Now THAT's interesting. Any cites yet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
14 Jul 2005 03:09:33 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat
spying for the Soviets back in 1994.
Even if this were true, how does this affect a current (well, not any
more) successful career after the soviets? Sounds irrelevant to me - the
soviets folded.
She was brought back to the
states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and
went in public.
That's what happens when you work in a front organization. Going through
15 doors and dropping through a telephone booth tends to give it away, if
you catch my drift.
So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken
the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target.
Now THAT's interesting. Any cites yet?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/11/BL2005071100701.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
14 Jul 2005 03:37:02 PM |
|
|
Geo wrote:
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat
spying for the Soviets back in 1994.
Even if this were true, how does this affect a current (well, not any
more) successful career after the soviets? Sounds irrelevant to me - the
soviets folded.
She was brought back to the
states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and
went in public.
That's what happens when you work in a front organization. Going through
15 doors and dropping through a telephone booth tends to give it away, if
you catch my drift.
So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken
the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target.
Now THAT's interesting. Any cites yet?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/11/BL2005071100701.html
roflmmfao
"Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J.
Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe."
Pathetic lie, fake cite, and abject surrender noted. lol
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
14 Jul 2005 03:50:10 PM |
|
|
Server 13 wrote:
Geo wrote:
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat
spying for the Soviets back in 1994.
Even if this were true, how does this affect a current (well, not any
more) successful career after the soviets? Sounds irrelevant to me - the
soviets folded.
She was brought back to the
states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and
went in public.
That's what happens when you work in a front organization. Going through
15 doors and dropping through a telephone booth tends to give it away, if
you catch my drift.
So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken
the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target.
Now THAT's interesting. Any cites yet?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/11/BL2005071100701.html
roflmmfao
"Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J.
Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe."
Pathetic lie, fake cite, and abject surrender noted. lol
You asked for a cite. I rammed it down your throat, and from the
washington compost no less. How can it be a fake cite when you just
quoted from the very article you retartd?
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Plame was undercover and not an analyst. |
15 Jul 2005 01:16:25 AM |
|
|
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121374210.372246.263160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Server 13 wrote:
Geo wrote:
ouroboros rex wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121368243.975397.194230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
grinder wrote:
Couldn't have said it any better.
10/31/03
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism official
at the
State Department
"This is not an alleged abuse," Johnson said. "This is a confirmed
abuse.
I
worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been
undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a
CIA
analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was
undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that
I
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency
on
September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
"So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that
has
been
divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain
reasons.
One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could
be
compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even
people
who
innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations,
could be
compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal
and
if
I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was
just
an
analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and
let's
out
them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the
heat.
One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states
that
to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field
sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have
already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat
spying for the Soviets back in 1994.
Even if this were true, how does this affect a current (well, not
any
more) successful career after the soviets? Sounds irrelevant to me -
the
soviets folded.
She was brought back to the
states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and
went in public.
That's what happens when you work in a front organization. Going
through
15 doors and dropping through a telephone booth tends to give it away,
if
you catch my drift.
So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken
the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target.
Now THAT's interesting. Any cites yet?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/11/BL2005071100701.html
roflmmfao
"Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick
J.
Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe."
Pathetic lie, fake cite, and abject surrender noted. lol
You asked for a cite. I rammed it down your throat, and from the
washington compost no less. How can it be a fake cite when you just
quoted from the very article you retartd?
lol playing stupid, the #1 hobby of republicans everywhere!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
