Washington Post on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame

[gjohnson5]

LOL @ your idea of sensible

Then argue sensically. And stop filling your heads with the ramblings of college bloggers. Use some credible sources.

Its amazing how you people will continue to grasp at these inane conspiracies long after they have been discredited by all the facts.

Im sure there are at least half a dozen here waiting for Rove to be prosecuted lol

 

[gjohnson5]

Larisa Alexandrovna of The Raw Story reported that three intelligence officials, who spoke under condition of anonymity, told her that "While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation." According to her sources, "the damage assessment...called a 'counter intelligence assessment to agency operations' was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt." Alexandrovna reported that while Plame was undercover she was involved in an operation identifying and tracking weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran, suggesting that her outing "significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation". Her sources also stated that the outing of Plame also compromised the identity of other covert operatives who had been working, like Plame, under non-official cover status. These anonymous officials said that in their judgement, the CIA's work on WMDs has been set back "ten years" as a result of the compromise.

 

[Mavafanculo]

LOL

You still haven't documented any damage. You found quotes from some guy who claims (in contradiction to various others) that there was damage. he was so credible that they only sources you could find for his claims were blog sites and left wing radical opinion sites.

That would tell most intelligent people, you apparently being the exception, that there was something wrong with his testimony/credibility.

The Washington Post article you quoted references a request by the CIA to have the Justice Dept. investigate serious charges, not coincidentally brought by the democrats, that damage was done. It does not document or assert actual damage done. There is no contradiction.

The only contradictio is your own who first represents that no in depth investigation was performed, even asserting that the lack was a Bush conspiracy, and that was why no credible assessment of damage is known.

You then contradict yourself by attempting to assert that the CIA did in fact investigate, and found evidence of serrious damage.


LMFAO

This all in one thread.

You can't even follow your own reasoning, never mind what is transpiring in this case.

Holy fuck.

You just threw rapid fire bullshit out there one after another. great debate tactic (Hannity-esque I would say even).

1) I said either an in depth assessment wasnt done, or it wasnt submitted for oversight contrary to SOP. Both are true. An initial assesment was done and found sufficent evidence of serious damage to warrant referral. CONTRARY TO YOUR's AND WOODWARD position. Jeez. Read the posts instead of skimming them.


2) "Some Guy" is MULTIPLE former Intel Officials.

plus common sense analysis of the breach of trust that will have long range implications when Agents try to recruit people to work with them (informants agents etc).


BTW, I've put a formal request in to Bran to arbitrate this thread.

 

[Phenom78]

Lets put a qucik end to this

k to anyone who can find the original CIA recommendation to the Justice Dept. I cant find it anywhere, but know its a standard questionaire

 

[Mavafanculo]

and just common fucking sense dude.

Plame aside - her front company was outed - it was secret, its now useless.

Agents and informants worked with that company.

The agents and informants were obviously at risk.

ALSO, lets say an assesment shows no damage was done - even tho as per above WASH POST NEWS pages reporting the CIA intial review found eveidence of serious damage. Then that makes it cool? Thats like well he shot the gun into the crowd to correct the lie, but nobody in the crowd got hit, so its OK.

Fuck you cant actually belive that can you? Are they (rove/cheney) so simple minded as not to think tru the possible (if not even LIKELY) consequences of the outing.

I give up. Its useless arguing with true believers.



-

 

[gjohnson5]

Dick Cheney shoots (and hits) his hunting buddies , so why would that be so far out of imagination???

and just common fucking sense dude.

Plame aside - her front company was outed - it was secret, its now useless.

Agents and informants worked with that company.

The agents and informants were obviously at risk.

ALSO, lets say an assesment shows no damage was done - even tho as per above WASH POST NEWS pages reporting the CIA intial review found eveidence of serious damage. Then that makes it cool? Thats like well he shot the gun into the crowd to correct the lie, but nobody in the crowd got hit, so its OK.

Fuck you cant actually belive that can you? Are they (rove/cheney) so simple minded as not to think tru the possible (if not even LIKELY) consequences of the outing.

I give up. Its useless arguing with true believers.



-

 

[Phenom78]

and just common fucking sense dude.

Plame aside - her front company was outed - it was secret, its now useless.

Agents and informants worked with that company.

The agents and informants were obviously at risk.

ALSO, lets say an assesment shows no damage was done - even tho as per above WASH POST NEWS pages reporting the CIA intial review found eveidence of serious damage. Then that makes it cool? Thats like well he shot the gun into the crowd to correct the lie, but nobody in the crowd got hit, so its OK.

Fuck you cant actually belive that can you? Are they (rove/cheney) so simple minded as not to think tru the possible (if not even LIKELY) consequences of the outing.

I give up. Its useless arguing with true believers.



-

You're right about the true believer part. The reason I ask for the original CIA referral (Ive been looking online myself) that you allude to is that it isn't what you suggest. I already explained earlier in the thread that it is a fairly standard procedure. There was no finding of serious damage. The serious damage is with respect to the nature of the charge, that of outing a "covert" agent. Not based on some assessment of the "damage" done in this particular. It is an allegation of potential seriosu damage.

The CIA does not investugate crimes, or act as a prosecutorial arm of the government. Most any charge involving a breach of national security of classified information is routinely sent to the Justice Department for investigation. more so when it involves such a high profile case and calls from legislatures to send to the Justice Department. They covered their asses and passed the buck.

More to the point the only assessments have produced contrary conclusions than you state.

If at some future point someone produces some factual evidence of damage, Ill reassess your statement then. In the interim your initial representation that the issue of seriosu damage having been beyobd debate has been proven absurd.

The mainstream media doesnt agree with your assertion, and they have hardly been patsies for Bush. In your corner you could only find unvetted and unprovable selective assertions in far left opinion sites.

Bro, you need to be somewhat more rational and less knee jerk in forming your opinions. You're too smart for this nonsense.

 

[bran987]

Lets put a qucik end to this

k to anyone who can find the original CIA recommendation to the Justice Dept. I cant find it anywhere, but know its a standard questionaire

let's see that

 

[gjohnson5]

let's see that

What recommendation is he talking about (assuming thereis one)

 

[Phenom78]

What recommendation is he talking about (assuming thereis one)

LOL @ assuming. You guys believe every rumor or shread of nonsense you read on these blogs, but quetion this lol.

It references the CIA referral of the matter to the Justice Department and FBI to investigate if any illegal activity occured.

The CIA is not a law enforcement arm of the government. They don't investigate domestic crimes. They are in fact barred from doing so. They can conduct internal investigations of their personnel, but those must then be referred to the Justice Dept as well.

They can't interview or investigate other agency personnel domestically.