[kabar]

The money quote of the article:

DiGenova tells this columnist, “It seems to me somewhat strange, in terms of CIA tradecraft, that if you were really attempting to protect the identity of a covert officer, why would you send her husband overseas on a mission, without a confidentiality agreement, and then allow him when he came back to the United States to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times about it.”

[pgkdan]

“It seems to me somewhat strange, in terms of CIA tradecraft, that if you were really attempting to protect the identity of a covert officer, why would you send her husband overseas on a mission, without a confidentiality agreement, and then allow him when he came back to the United States to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times about it.”

You're exactly right...that is the money quote of the piece. That little fact has been bugging me for 2 years. How covert could she have been if the CIA was willing to let him play such an overt role in this whole affair. It's not like they were a couple of shrinking violets who hid from the public. This whole thing stinks.

[pepperdog]

It has been a suspicious story from the first. Her exposing her position so very early in the dating process. Their high visibility in the Washington DC social scene. Her suggestion, promptly acted upon (very unbelievable), to send her husband on a "mission". The whole thing stinks to high heaven and upon reflection seems an obvious setup. I've never worked for the CIA, but I do know a small amount about security and government clearances and I know that a person who values their job would not tell a date ANYTHING about their job or what they were working on that was in the least bit classified. I always said I was a file clerk and watched their eyes glaze over. An even better one, if you didn't like them, was to say you worked for the IRS.

[demkicker]

That mission, he explained, leads naturally to the questions: Who is this guy? And how did he get this assignment? “That’s not the way you protect the identity of a covert officer,” he said. “If it is, then [CIA director] Porter Goss is doing the right thing in cleaning house” at the agency.

Looks like there's lots more house cleaning for Goss to do. There must be a huge nest of commies and the hate America crowd in the CIA. I want their heads on a platter.

[Ben Hecks]

The quote you use at #10 gets to the heart of the matter. This is the first time I have seen anyone confirm that Wison was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement prior to his trip to Niger (I would guess that this formality would include a security briefing before the mission and a debriefing after). This is, at best, sloppy administrative procedure and probably represents a violation of regulations.

[GOPJ]

DiGenova tells this columnist, “It seems to me somewhat strange, in terms of CIA tradecraft, that if you were really attempting to protect the identity of a covert officer, why would you send her husband overseas on a mission, without a confidentiality agreement, and then allow him when he came back to the United States to write an op-ed piece in the New York Times about it.”

Good point.

[Enchante]

That's one of the $10 million questions that everyone in the MSM is too biased or too dim-witted to ask. Let's hope that Fitzgerald has been asking it and/or that someone has been bringing it to his attention. He should have been investigating the whole "CIA rogues in war on the White House (and America)" rather than worrying about who mentioned Joe Wilson's wife to whom.