CIA operative - HAH!

webtaz99 · **Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:25 am CIA operative - HAH!**

Can anyone provide evidence that the "CIA operative" whose name was "revealed" ever did anything besides make coffee and copies (if she even did that)?

Republican_Man · **Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:23 pm**

No one can. Everyone who knew her HAD to know that she was in the CIA--her former boss testified to that. She was NOT doing anything covert operations, and therefore there is no real story behind this. And that's why the Left is going after Rove not for that crime, but for pergery--since they can't pin him on the crime, they're trying to show that he lied.

IntrepidIsMe · **Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:25 pm**

I don't know if her job was important or not, but does it matter? Afterall, if her name was leaked, why not somebody else's? Somebody who could have really had their life threatend? Its still a problem.

Republican_Man · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:59 pm**

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:11 pm**

Uh, you totally missed the point.

I was trying to say that if her name was leaked, than somebody else's could be too, and that could be someone who does fall under the 5-year statute. Hence, its still important.

Republican_Man · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:24 pm**

I don't see how it means that someone else's name would have been leaked as well--especially since it WASN'T really a leak, considering that almost EVERYONE knew about it--even during the 90s and stuff, it seems.
Besides, Kerry leaked the name of a male CIA agent a few years back ON THE SENATE FLOOR and never faced any trouble over it.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:59 pm**

Okay, so Kerry did the same thing and didn't get in trouble, so we shouldn't care this time? I don't see how that matters. He should have been punished for it, but since he wasn't, why obsess over it now?

If somebody's name was given out, then there is clearly a flaw in the system, be it a particular person or whatever. If it could happen once, it could happen again.

Republican_Man · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:05 pm**

It was the person. It was Plame and Wilson's fault, I'm quite sure of. EVERYONE knew it, so it doesn't matter. Yes, we have to be more careful, it means, but in this case, it doesn't matter. And the obsession over Kerry's true leaking is because of the double standard the Bush administration is getting here, when even if it WERE a leak (which no one can prove), wouldn't really be a horrible thing or a security threat. It's only agents that in the last 5 years were overseas or doing covert opertations are protected. Now, mind you, I do think that NO CIA agent's name, regardless, should be let out, however there WAS no crime here, and no one can prove that there was, and this is a horrible double standard that BUSH has to face but Kerry didn't.
Now, mind you, if the agent WERE covert or overseas in the last five years, then it would be a security threat. But this was not, and there is no reason for Rove or anyone else to be facing this trouble for it.

Arellia · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:24 pm**

Perhaps there is a double standard, but you're falling into the fallcy of two-wrongs. So Kerry didn't get the heat. He should have. Now that it's falling on the other side, they should get scrutinized, too. It doesn't change what needs to happen because last time people left it alone. I'm told the investigation is on completely bogus grounds... thing is, I don't know who to trust in the media any more. Heck if I can tell. Would rather leave it to a judge, but a political case in a courtroom? Oh, the mess I see coming...

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:25 pm**

I don't understand how just because nothing happend, that someone shouldn't be punished. People are put in jail for attempted murder all the time. Sure, they didn't kill anybody, but was what they did wrong?

Republican_Man · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:33 pm**

Arellia · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:39 pm**

If this problem has no basis for trial in law, would it not follow that Rove and whoever else will not be indighted (sp?)? I would put at least that much faith in the legal system. Maybe this will turn out to be pointless, but really, does it matter that people are trying anyway? You go into politics, people are going to chase after you. If there's a problem here, it'll be proven. If there isn't, we found that out for "certain" (as "certain" as you get in the legal system). Right now I hear a lot of pointless posturing on both sides of the aisle. Why not relax and wait for the outcome from more rational, better-informed sources?

Republican_Man · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:43 pm**

Arellia · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:50 pm**

Well, then, if they're not indicted, I don't see a problem here. I see proof that you're not going to get away with making false accusations, and a slam in the face for those who are doing this to be political jackals. *shrugs* I think things would go a lot better if people would relax and let the judicial system run its course, so we can stay focussed on more important matters. Whether this one or that gets indicted tomorrow will not change the fact that somebody is going to be in office, and somebody is going to have to affect substantive changes in the country. Whoever it is or becomes, those issues are the most important.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:53 pm**

Republican_Man · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:00 pm**

Regardless of whether or not you think this is important, I enjoy the debate over it and am going to be trying to get into the commentating business soon, so I do find it important and worth discussing and debating--especially considering it's quite clear that this is attempt at creating a Bush Watergate scandal, and shows how hypocritical the Left really is (what, with all the Clinton scandals (both of 'em) and other Democrat scandals and all, and the Kerry leak).

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:03 pm**

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this isn't important, it clearly is. I'm just saying that if her name was leaked, than whoever's fault it was should of course be punished. Its looking like (at least from the current media) that somebody is to blame.

Republican_Man · **Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:39 pm**

Theresa · **Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:27 am**

Republican_Man · **Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:55 pm**

I think Hannity said it very well tonight, and I quote him:
"If the threshhold is so high on the 1982 law that Victoria Tungsing drafted, and we're going back to the 1917 statute, which is what we've been reading about, the question that you've gotta ask is if we can't get the indictment in that arena, which was the original purpose of the special prosecuter here, and then you go back to if in fact it's about a conversation two and a half years ago, what does that say about where we are in terms of this law, where we are in terms of this law, where we are in terms abuse of power, prosecutorial abuse--where's the discretion in this?"

It's not sufficient, one guest on Hannity and Colmes said tonight, that if he can't remember the alleged conversation two and a half years ago, to get him on pergery. If he can't remember, it's not pergery. I'll speak about Clinton and forgetting things and stuff many times after desert.

webtaz99 · **Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:11 pm**

My reason for posting this was:

If she only did office work, she wasn't an "operative", and therefore "leaking" her name was NOT a violation of the law. But I have yet to see any evidence that she did ANYTHING for the CIA. And there are LOTS of civilian contractors to the CIA who do work for the Company but are not "operatives".

Republican_Man · **Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:25 pm**

Oh, she DID do stuff, during the 90s and earlier. That's a fact, actually, and her former boss testified to that on Hannity's program a while back that she did stuff. She was overseas and stuff, but not in the time period within this statute's requirements.

Bill Clinton, btw, in his deposition on January 17th, 71 times said "I don't remember;" 62 times said "I don't know;" 267 in some way, shape, or form, he didn't recall anything and we know he wasn't indicted and we know he lied under oath.
So, for the prosecution and democrats/liberals to be going after him for lying--for not remembering something--just completely contradicts what happened to Clinton, is unfair, and means that he didn't commit pergery.
To quote Jon Sale, former Watergate prosecutor, "Pergery has to be intentional...Forgetting a conversation wouldn't be sufficient"

Republican_Man · **Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:15 pm**

webtaz99 · **Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:34 pm**

There was a reason:

The CIA is ticked off by the reorganization following 9/11, and they have jumped in bed with the Democrats to damage the Bush administration.

Republican_Man · **Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:54 pm**

I now agree with that, after all I've seen. And I think it was Plame herself who suggested that her husband go on the assignment--an older man who was retired.