So, judy, are you taking the position that, when it comes to whether or not publically announcing that an NOC CIA employee can be announced publically without doing harm to nationally security, the decision should be left to a politically-motivated assistant to a VP, rather than to the CIA?

I take the position that Joe Wilson outed his wife.

VANITY FAIR

Could you explain how National Security was harmed? Fitzgerald didn't think that Valery Plame was outed by Libby.

Wilson says it's been 27 months of Hell, but it looks more like 27 months of fame. Wrote articles, wrote a book, got on TV, put him and his "spy" wifey on a magazine cover. What else? Sure is Hell.

Could you explain, please, where and when Wilson outed his wife, and what your evidence for the claim is?

And does it matter of national security was ACTUALLY harmed? The question was whether or not it was Libby's decision to make. (Though so far, there's not even any sign he considered possible harm to national security, beyond his one comment (alleged comment) that outing here would cause problems.)

first she wasnt covert, then no crime was commited and now Wilson outed her.

Why in the hell are you trying to converse with that brain dead bushlover?

These are questions which need to be answered and carry far more risk for our nation than does the alleged perjury by Louis Libby concerning the non-outing of a non-clandestine employee of the CIA.

1. Given that we know Valerie Plame/Wilson’s cover had been blown before, and that she was no longer classified as a NOC operative, why did the CIA call for the investigation in the first place?

2. We know that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, enough so that Louis Libby felt compelled to comment about it to a CIA briefer. Why was the CIA selectively leaking information to the press?

3. Who were these so called (according to Fitzgerald’s definition) “classified employees” who were leaking?

4. Is there an anti-Bush cabal of Left-leaning bureaucrats within the CIA seeking to damage the Bush Administration?

5. Is this Leftist Cabal within the CIA actively working against the interests of the United States?

6. Why are they seeking to bring down this administration?

One more very interesting question which has occurred to me. If it is true that Valerie Plame “recommended” Joe Wilson for the job, citing the fact that "my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger] (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." [my emphasis] And if it is true that the forged document was conceived of by the French and executed by the Italians in an effort to embarrass the Bush administration and counter their call for intervention in Iraq. Then is it not at least reasonable to ask if Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, “friend of the French” and known anti-war campaigner, might not have been involved with the forging of this document? Just asking. Will Malvern

Joe Wilson's speech

A month before Robert Novak wrote his column supposedly outing Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson gave a speech in which he talks in the third person about a person who is obviously himself, allows Valerie Plame to be identified as his wife, and discloses his intense opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as his anti-Israel sentiments. He makes clear that he is the source of the Kristoff/Pincus leaks about his mission. He even says that “this thing has legs,” that it will take two or three months, but it has legs – implying, perhaps, that he had already been working with the Kerry campaign to make this issue big – attacking the President’s credibility on the war.

Clifford May noted this Wilson speech in July 2003, but only to show that Wilson wasn’t credible because of the kind of groups to which he was speaking and how easy it was to find out from non-Administration people who his wife was and where she worked because he, in fact, had done so. He did not go into the substance of the speech or the important fact that his wife was already listed there on the website bio.

The speech was given at EPIC, the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a left wing organization, which has, a least for the moment, an audio file of the speech on its website A poster at the Free Republic website named “Fedora” transcribed parts of the speech.

Here are some highlights:

“Let me just start out by saying, as a preface to what I really want to talk about, to those of you who are going out and lobbying tomorrow, I just want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government-not of the CIA but of the government-and came back in February of 2002 and told the government that there was nothing to this story, later called the government after the British white paper was published and said you all need to do some fact-checking and make sure the Brits aren’t using bad information in the publication of the white paper, and who called both the CIA and the State Department after the President’s State of the Union and said to them you need to worry about the political manipulation of intelligence if, in fact, the President is talking about Niger when he mentions Africa. That person was told by the State Department that, well, you know, there’s four countries that export uranium. That person had served in three of those countries, so he knew a little bit about what he was talking about when he said you really need to worry about this. But I can assure you that that retired American ambassador to Africa, as Nick Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off, and has every intention of ensuring that this story has legs. And I think it does have legs. It may not have legs over the next two or three months, but when you see American casualties moving from one to five or to ten per day, and you see Tony Blair’s government fall because in the U.K. it is a big story, there will be some ramifications, I think, here in the United States, so I hope that you will do everything you can to keep the pressure on. Because it is absolutely bogus for us to have gone to war the way we did.”

“I remain of the view that we will find chemical and biological weapons, and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons—not surprising if you live in a part of the world where you do have a nuclear-armed country, an enemy of yours, which is just a country away from you….”

[snip]

“But I do know. . .that in order to have a liberation strategy, you have to have people who are willing to fight for their own liberation. Otherwise you will never get that liberation bounce that Ken Adelman promised us—that Richard Perle promised us, when he said that Iraqis would be cheering us from the rooftops at our marching in there.”

[snip]

“Evidence of that can be found in the Habbaniya gold market today. The price of gold jewelry in Habbaniya is cheaper than it is anywhere else in the world. And that is because the middle class has had to liquidate all their assets. In Iraq, like in many other parts of the world, people keep their assets, their wealth, in gold….”

[snip]

“The real agenda in all this, of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum which was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90s, which was called ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm’. And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, or some of these governments, that are antagonistic to Israel, then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions on the Palestinian people. . .But that is the real agenda. You can put weapons of mass destruction out there, you can put terrorism out there, you can put liberation out there. Weapons of mass destruction got hard-headed realists on board, through a bunch of lies. . .”

And this is from the Website about the program:

He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children. Source

The Valerie Plame Outing: Fear and Loathing at the CIA?

By Jim Kouri
Oct 31, 2005

I am deeply troubled. I'm troubled over the liberal-left's newfound love for the Central Intelligence Agency. I guess we should be glad that they're not calling for more restrictions on the CIA or trying to inflict further budget cuts on the beleagured agency.

But when I see a political party whose members liken our military to Nazis and offer aid and comfort to our enemies -- intentionally or unintentionally -- defending people they otherwise regularly condemn, it causes me to pause and reflect upon the reasons for the CIA suddenly being protected by the leftists in the Democrat Party and their echo chamber in the news media.

Since Friday, the news media coverage of the Libby indictment has reached the level of absurdity. Even Fox News Channel decided to add a new twist to the alleged outing of CIA bureaucrat Valerie Plame by the Bush White House: fear at the CIA over agents being outed.

Personally, they have nothing to worry about. Our enemies know that the CIA's ineptness is an asset to their Jihad, so why would they wish to harm members of that agency? It's in the best interests of those who wish Americans harm to have the same ineffective people operating a dysfunctional intelligence service.

This may shock the reader, but I believe Valerie Plame deserved to be outed, covert or not covert. The woman was running her own covert CIA operation to undermine the Bush Administration's war plans and she used her husband, Joe Wilson, to do it. We still have no information on who at the CIA actually dispatched Joe Wilson to Africa. Lewis Libby's mistake was not telling the American people that indeed he told reporters about Plame and perhaps there should have been a televised press conference announcing the deceit of Wilson and Plame and illegal operations being conducted within the continental United States by an out-of-control intelligence agency.

When Wilson came back from Niger, Africa, he began a campaign to cast doubts on British intelligence reports that were quoted by President Bush. It was repeatedly discovered that Wilson told lie after lie after lie. For example, he claimed he was sent on his fact-finding mission by the Vice President. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Cheney never heard of the man prior to his rantings. He claimed that no one knew Valerie Plame worked at CIA. Lie. Wilson routinely introduced his wife at Washington's elitist functions and parties as his "CIA wife." Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with his Niger assignment. Lie. His wife recommended him for the job. Even his New York Times op-ed denigrating President Bush turned out to be a pack of lies when compared with what he told congress.

The lies continued before the 2004 election until the conservative media proved Joe Wilson to be a pathological liar. Even presidential candidate John Kerry removed Wilson's bio and picture from his campaign website. Kerry dropped him like a hot potato. Cheney, Libby, Rove and even President Bush should have sounded the alarm instead of holding their tongues about a renegade operation being conducted by members of the CIA and John Kerry's foreign affairs advisor Joe Wilson.

With all due respect, I find it hard to believe that Valerie Plame was frightened after having her so-called cover blown. Having her photo in Vanity Fair and going to events with her husband is hardly the behavior of someone frightened by having her identity blown. Instead of looking for the closest safehouse, she's now a Washington celebrity. Look for a movie to come out about her and her hero husband: "All The President's Men Part II."

As far as CIA agents living in fear of being outed, perhaps they should start doing their jobs instead of leaking information to the news media and playing political games. Their track record on intelligence gathering and analysis hasn't been all that stellar. New York City endured the death of over 2,700 people because the CIA couldn't catch a cold in the dead of winter, much less capture terrorists plotting death and destruction in American cities. Perhaps CIA director Porter Goss and the new intelligence czar John Negroponte should accelerate house cleaning at the CIA.

In a previous article, I alleged that the CIA has morphed into a liberal-left think tank. Now more than ever I suspect this deadly transition has occurred within the intelligence community. And why this newfound love for an agency they once detested? The Democrats HATE George W. Bush. Apparently the CIA shadow government isn't that crazy about Bush either. In Mao's Red Book, he says, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It may be as simple as that.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
Article

EVEN KERRY DROPPED JOE 'LIAR' WILSON LIKE A HOT POTATO

When Wilson came back from Niger, Africa, he began a campaign to cast doubts on British intelligence reports that were quoted by President Bush. It was repeatedly discovered that Wilson told lie after lie after lie. For example, he claimed he was sent on his fact-finding mission by the Vice President. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Cheney never heard of the man prior to his rantings. He claimed that no one knew Valerie Plame worked at CIA. Lie. Wilson routinely introduced his wife at Washington's elitist functions and parties as his "CIA wife." Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with his Niger assignment. Lie. His wife recommended him for the job. Even his New York Times op-ed denigrating President Bush turned out to be a pack of lies when compared with what he told congress.

The lies continued before the 2004 election until the conservative media proved Joe Wilson to be a pathological liar. Even presidential candidate John Kerry removed Wilson's bio and picture from his campaign website. Kerry dropped him like a hot potato. Cheney, Libby, Rove and even President Bush should have sounded the alarm instead of holding their tongues about a renegade operation being conducted by members of the CIA and John Kerry's foreign affairs advisor Joe Wilson. http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publi..._27261406.shtml

I'd suggest you see http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html That's a chronology of events so far, with links to original sources.

As for your specific questions:

1. We DON'T know that her cover was blown before. As for your citation of Wilson having blown his wife's cover himself, it doesn't pan out. That her name was Valerie Plame and she was married to Ambassador Wilson, a consultant for an energy company as an expert in nuclear energy issues WAS her cover. Telling or referring to that cover story isn't "outing" her, it's reaffirming her cover story.

2. So, the CIA "selectively leaking information" pissing off Libby so bad justifies Libby blowing her cover?

3. Fitzgerald isn't going to tell us, unless Libby cuts a deal. It's Justice Department policy to refer to such individuals only by title unless and until they become targets, and to refer even to a target by such a euphemism as "Official A" unless and until indicted for something. (That's why Cheney is referred in the indictment as "the Vice President".) Some of the identities are, of course, easy to figure out. There's only ONE "Vice President".

4. Yes, it's possible there a "left-leaning cabal" trying to damage the Bush Administration. OTOH, it's also entirely possible that there's a group of loyal career analysts who're pissed as hell at having their cautions overridden and the country taken to war based on shaky (later shown to be flat-out wrong) intelligence, who were and continue to be patriots desperately seeking to prevent their country from making a catastrophic mistake and invading Iraq on a wrong pretext. Mileage obviously varies greatly on this subject, but it DOES turn out that the "left-leaning cabal" was correct on the reliability of the intel, and the Bush Administration was wrong.

5. See above. We appear to have a serious difference of agreement. Myself, I'm pretty sure starting wars based on questionable intel is generally not in the best interests of the United States.

6. Again, mileage varies. We do not as yet know that this unproven "cabal" is indeed trying to bring down this administration, much less their motives. Though believing the administration lied us into a war is probably a pretty good motive. I mean, "this administration is committing treason" is one damnfino explanation for trying to bring it down.

But those are larger issues. That Senate Intelligency Committee Report you were citing earlier promised us a Phase 2 investigation into the USE of the intel, and the other questions you're raising, but that second phase investigation hasn't been forthcoming.

But the Fitzgerald investigation isn't going to answer your questions. Fitzgerald, bless his non-Ken-Starr heart, is sticking only to his original instructions--to find out who leaked Plame's status as a CIA employee.

(And oh, PS, what's with all the Vanity Fair references? The Vanity Fair thing was 9 months AFTER Novak's outing.)

Judy,

Rocco's gentle post about you started with an explanation of the reason you hold such bullshit beliefs. Your brain has been turned to mush by the right wing zealots you listen to.

From Rocco's post:

"Everyday we are bombarded with very clever sound bites that resonate ever so logically. The whole idea of a psychological deception is to present a view that is persuasive, yet illusionary. We have all seen it and fell prey to it."

"If you hear something often enough, you believe it, even though you have no real way to ascertain the truth or validity of it; particularly if it comes from a source you have come to recognize as an authority."

Instead of listening to the ravings of the right wing, try and broaden your reasoning by LISTENING to the TRUTH.

What was it turned your little brain to shit, Sherry dearest? Was it. ... ... ... satan?

FERGAWDSAKES!!!

Yes. AFTER Novak's column put Plame on the front page of every newspaper in the country, Wilson took up jokingly introducing her as "my CIA wife."

Do you or do you not have an instance to cite of Wilson outing his wife BEFORE NOVAK DID IT?

He's your pal, ask him.

I'm not a member of your anti-Christian, andi-Jew gang.

Valerie Plame had been outed twice before, once by Aldrich Ames circa 1994 and once by the CIA in Cuba somewhat later. That’s right, the CIA itself, in a move apparently all too common place in the Agency, failed to take proper measures to secure classified documents sent to the Swiss Embassy in Havana. Supposedly sealed from Cuban eyes, these documents among which were papers identifying Valerie Plame/Wilson as a then covert agent, were subsequently read by Cuban intelligence revealing the secrets contained therein.

You're going to make Franken's next book, Bigger Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them.

How Covert was Valerie Plame?

Click here

Judy,


On the first page of the indictment it shows that leaking Plames name would not only blow her cover but would harm America's security and endanger lives. Try reading the actual indictment, not what some scumbag rightwing zealot tries to DCeive you with.






http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/document...nt_28102005.pdf

That was not your claim. Your claim was that WILSON outed his wife, before Novak did. Would you perhaps like to withdraw your assertion?

And yes, I was aware (though it's not widely known in the midst of this current embroglio) about the two earlier instances. As far as they go, we can only assume that the CIA considered the damage enough controlled that Plame was still useful to them as an NOC, since they continued to use her in that capacity.

I thought we had arrived at a point of agreement that "how covert was she?" and whether/how large were any national security dangers in outing her wasn't Libby's
decision to make.

Agreed... I'm a slow poster.

What missions was she on? What countries? What revelations did her covertness bring to the CIA?

Yes, it does say that in the indictment, but the indictment is only restating the CIA's flat statement back when they requested the Department of Justice investigate the leak. The extent and nature of any harm is outside the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation.

Standard procedure is that the CIA itself investigates the extent and nature of any harm, but you can pretty much guess (as Fitz said at the news conference) that outing is a major harm in and of itself, regardless of how much or how little actual damage to ongoing intelligence efforts results.

It's a very, very dangerous precedent to set to have politicos outing agents for political motives, period, end of story. To much risk that a politico some day WILL out some other agent that -will- cause catastrophic damage.

But since we're here in the ethics thread, let's take up the central ethics question: Libby abused his power when he took information obtained via the security clearance he was entrusted with and spread it to reporters. Whether doing so was actually a crime or not, it was an ethical failure of monumental proportions.

If Fitzgerald can't indict on the outing of an agent (because of the high bar, knowingly outing, etc) he should indict on the classified information being given to reporters. A lesser crime but indictable. All names of CIA officers is CLASSIFIED even if not covert.

You saying Fitzie doesn't know what he's doing?

Well, yes, but I could give him a few tips.

This is the beginning of the soon-to-be long string of indictments served on the fascists that have taken over the United States. These haters of the Constitution and destroyers of anyone that gets in their way deserve that special place in Hell where they can continue their Texas barbecues fired by the flames of the people's disgust of them. I'll settle for them occupying a nice cozy jail cell in one of those for-profit-prisons that they set up all over the country in the past few decades. Having Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., i.e., the entire "cabal" behind bars in one of their prestigious palaces of neo-liberalism's incarceration would go a long way toward letting the world know that the situation in the United States is not completely hopeless.

... ... ...

Richard Nixon eventually fell and George Bush's time is coming. Bush will be held accountable for his crimes just as Richard Nixon was. And so, the stage is set for a 2006 equivalent of a Barry Goldwater coming forward and convincing George W. Bush that he must resign or face impeachment and certain conviction by the Senate. We are fast moving toward the scenario where unless George W. Bush resigns he will go to jail along with Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and the rest of the criminals.

http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2005/...-in-plames.html

Exactly why alarms bells have been going off for me since this all started. I've been following politics for decades, and posting on political boards for a good five years now and I've NEVER seen lefties say anything good about the CIA. Most aren't openly hostile, but many are and the conspiracy theories involving the CIA are numerous. How come lefties can believe the CIA killed Kennedy, but they couldn't have the slightest political motives in going after a sitting administration to cover their own asses?

Sorry, I just am not ready to believe lefties are really upset over national security outside of the political opportunity involved.

as if bush was

LOL checked the borders? BIG NO

checked yer grannies undies at the airport though

get a clue av

Surely you are not referencing this paragraph.....

Excellent post. This article also is in line with your remarks. Give it a read.

Spy Valerie and the rogue CIA
July 18th, 2005

...
The charge against Rove is based on a blatantly forged document, purporting to show that Saddam tried to buy Niger yellowcake uranium. We now know that the document was forged by the French government to embarrass Secretary Colin Powell, and undermine the American case against Saddam at the UN. It was classic disinformation bait. Powell flourished the Niger forgery at the Security Council, and the very next day “European intelligence agencies” leaked word that it was a laughable fraud.



Months later, the London Telegraph published the fact that it was all a French disinformation ploy.



The CIA has to know all about the French forgery, just as it knows that Joseph Wilson’s famous trip to Niger was pure bilgewater. Nobody sends a has-been diplomat to Africa to drink mint tea with corrupt old President Tandja Mamadou, expecting to discover whether Mamadou has secretly been selling nuke materials to Saddam.



That’s pure Inspector Clousseau.


Valerie Plame’s CIA bosses took care not to ask Mr. Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement, routine in such cases, almost as if they wanted him to make a public fuss. They were not surprised, one might think, when Mr.

Wilson promptly took his story to New York Times Op-Ed Editor Gail Collins, one of the great Bush-haters of all time. As Joseph DiGenova, former US Attorney for DC, recently said, “The CIA isn’t stupid. They wanted this story out.”



It was a publicity stunt from the get-go. Wilson’s “confidential trip” to Niger gave him the superficial credentials to publish his “expose” in the Times. He’d gone there, talked to the top officials face to face, and by gum, they told him it was all a lie! Not even Gail Collins could possibly believe this banana sauce, but Wilson’s charges provided a useful stick with which to beat the White House.


...
The farcical “outing” of Valerie Plame therefore raises a genuinely frightening monster from the swamp: A subversive alliance between the intelligence bureaucracy, the Democratic Party and the media. The common thread among all the characters in this low-brow comedy is hatred of President Bush and American power. Joe Wilson’s eyebrows go ballistic when he talks about the White House. Just watch him sometime.



The sneering media mob is on display on C-SPAN whenever the White House holds a press briefing. The Left is apoplectic: “Karl Rove + traitor” brought up 97,000 entries on google three days ago, and 124,000 this morning.



But Karl Rove is merely today’s target for a permanent state of rage so deep and hot that it is always seeking new witches to burn. As for the failed CIA spooks who are now living in fear of losing their perks, one can only imagine the steam blowing from their ears, as the day of reckoning draws closer.



I’m cheering for the good guys.




James Lewis

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles_pr...article_id=4656

"American Thinker?"



What a load of crap. The investigation has shown without a doubt that the "leak" came from the White House. The "good guys" aren't in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ignoring that and coming up with this extremely unlikely scenario is typical of the brainless hysteria of the right. Joe Wilson an "anti-war" activist? Let's rewrite history and disregard the fact that he voted for W in 2000, and that he knew full well what a jerk Saddam was having served his Country by assisting American citizens get out of Iraq before Gulf War I.

You folks like to make elaborate strawmen, but even the most elaborate strawmen get blown away when a puff of truth is blown ever-so-gently in their direction.

I'm buying stock in tin foil.

Why aren't you worried about National Security? You giving these assholes a pass on this?

WHO is being political?

The Republican loyalists/

<shakes head>

As long as no REPUBLICANS are harmed in the making of this disaster he doesn't give a flying fuck.

Administration missing dozens of security deadlines
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...rity_deadlines/

THE CABAL


http://www.tompaine.com/cabal/

Um. Surely reporting to Congress is a main function? What's the big deal with generating reports on their plans and progress? They're Bureaucrats in a bureaucracy for heaven sakes!

That's their job!

That would explain Wolfowitz's glowing eyes.

Wilkerson was not telling us it's a Jewish Cabal, but a Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal.


That makes a lot more sense.

Cheney was the personnel recruiter for the Bush administration. He and Rummy hired half of the AEI staff to begin with. Scooter and Cheney ran the communications out of the Whitehouse, with key cells inserted in the bureaucracy as needed to generate the information flow, and direct it. Cheny knew the key nodes his team would need to control and circumvent the (as Rocco would say NSDMP) or National Security Decision Making Process.

This whole neocon Jewishness thing is nothing but a distraction. Cheney and Rummy put all those folks into place knowing and supporting exactly what they, and Cheney and Rummy, wanted to do.

This guy, Abramoff, unlike Cheney's gang, didn't cover his tracks at all. It makes for interesting reading. But keep in mind it's all a liberal conspiracy.


McCain puts ex-official on hot seat
By Josephine Hearn

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called on the former No. 2 official at the Interior Department to testify before a Senate panel investigating lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his involvement with Indian gambling tribes.

The official, J. Steven Griles, who served as deputy interior secretary from 2001 to the beginning of this year, was involved in efforts to help two of Abramoff’s clients — the Louisiana Coushatta tribe and the Saginaw Chippewa tribe of Michigan — fend off casino proposals from rival tribes and may have done so while engaged in employment negotiations with Abramoff, recent news reports have said. Griles has said through spokespeople that he did not play a major role in endeavors to aid the tribes.

The development marks the first time McCain has taken direct aim at the administration during the Indian Affairs Committee’s year-and-a-half-long investigation of Abramoff, his associate Michael Scanlon and their efforts to extract more than $80 million in lobbying and public-relations fees from Indian tribes.

Abramoff was indicted in Florida earlier this year on federal wire- and mail-fraud charges stemming from his acquisition of a casino-boat chain. He remains under investigation in the District of Columbia by a federal criminal task force.

Tomorrow’s hearing marks the fourth and final one in the Indian Affairs Committee’s investigation of Abramoff. McCain, now chairman of the panel, held a hearing this summer focusing on the Mississippi Choctaw tribe. His predecessor, former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), held hearings last year on the Tigua, Agua Caliente and Saginaw Chippewa tribes.

Griles is expected to appear alongside Italia Federici at the hearing tomorrow. Federici, who was an aide to Interior Secretary Gale Norton during her 1996 Senate bid, reportedly served as a go-between linking Griles and Abramoff. Federici is president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, a group founded by Norton and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.

Griles is now a principal at the lobbying firm Lundquist, Nethercutt & Griles LLC.

Also expected to appear at the hearing are representatives from the Coushattas, including tribe Chairman Kevin Sickey, tribal council member David Sickey, former tribal council member William Worfel and former outside counsel Kathryn van Hoof.

Two people who had business dealings with Scanlon are expected to appear: B.R. McConnon, president of Democracy Data & Communications, and Chris Cathcart, formerly of Capitol Campaign Strategies. Abramoff’s former tax adviser, Gail Halpern, will also be a witness.

In a break from earlier hearings, the committee called a representative of Abramoff’s former employer, law firm Greenberg Traurig, to testify. In past hearings, the panel has not sought testimony from Greenberg Traurig and has even praised the firm’s cooperation with the committee’s probe. Greenberg Traurig fired Abramoff in early 2004 after the first news reports of alleged wrongdoing surfaced.

It was unclear whether any of the witnesses would assert their constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

After tomorrow’s hearing, the Indian Affairs Committee is expected to release a report summarizing its findings.


http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/The...0105/news3.html

judy, et al,

I think you all have a misconception on what it means to be covert, and what it means to be clandestine.

I also think you have some trouble understanding what "Official Cover" is versus what it means to have "Non-Official Cover."


(COMMENT)

There is a difference between knowing:

-- Joe Wilson has a wife: That goes by the name of Valerie Plame, and is associated with the CIA.

which is different from:

-- Joe Wilson has a wife: That goes by the name of Valerie Wilson, wife and dependent family member of a US Ambassador, but has no official standing.

which is different from:

-- A US citizen named Valerie Plame, tourist, not associated with US Government employment.

which is different from:

-- a US Government Employee named Valerie Plame, that is not associated with the US Intelligence Community.

etc, etc, etc,

All of these (and there are more) descriptions have a specific connotation (open, covert, clandestine, etc) as to the relationship with the law and its intent.

I would assume that the Grand Jury had the specifics of these various descriptors explained to them and what the differences are.

I would also assume that "Plame" is not the only "cover name" that Valerie Wilson used. But that once you make the association - it becomes more difficult to assume a new covered position.

It also makes a difference that once, the US Government acknowledges that (in fact) Valerie Plame was an active member of the CIA (as opposed to a source or contract operative),

--- that the various Internal Security Services will attempt to go backwards in time and determine who Plame contacted in the past and for what. This could expose clandestine controlled sources to unnecessary attention and will certainly get names put into a Internal Security Databases.

--- that certain organizations Valerie Plame had in common with Valerie Wilson could be associated with intelligence base support, communication or collection, and now everyone who is a member of that organization in a foreign country may also be a suspect for Internal Security.

--- that wives of foreign dignitaries that Valerie Wilson might have had contact with might be brought under surveillance by Internal Security.

The potential for damage to official mission in direct or general support of intelligence collection maybe under surviellance, that the contacts that Wilson or Plame had my be under surveillance, that locations visited maybe under surveillance, etc, etc, etc. The list of damage potentials is quite extensive, if you have a basic understanding of how HUMINT works.

Food for Thought,
Most Respectfully,

I still haven't seen any proof either one of them was doing anything concrete for national security when she set up his sightseeing and tea drinking trip to Niger.

Yeah. Someone that unimportant had the influence to "set up" a "vacation" for her hubby.

Something doesn't quite compute there. Either she was that important and a great loss--or she didn't "set up anyone."

Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

Joe Wilson was undermining the Administration's profered case for going to war against Iraq. Cheney et al got pissed off about it, and tried to undermine him. Instead of gainsaying WHAT he said, they sought to attack the rationale and mechanics of how he got to go on the trip on the basis of which he claimed to have amassed information which, in addition to independently derived knowledge about the forged character of the documents suggesting an attempt by Hussein to get yellowcake, bolstered his case against the Administration's WMD case. In the process, they combined an attempt at suggesting sheer nepotism with the broadcasting of his wife's CIA covert status.

And that's that.

Damned straight. Rocco, you are the only Republican I have heard on TV or off who is saying just that. Maybe I missed it but it seems the whole party is in denial and on permanent spin setting.



But remember, it's nothing but criminalizing politics.