Posted on 05/30/2007 12:35:06 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
I think Fitzfong is lying. Look at this nonsense:
Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
When Novak called the CIA, they readily confirmed that she worked there!! And he has the gall to claim that they were taking affirmative measures to conceal her relationship with the CIA?
Add to that ole Joe's admission to Wolf Blitzer that she was "not a clandestine officer the day Bob Novak blew her identity" and Fitzie is just plain unbelievable. He ought to be disbarred.
Here is the definition of Covert agent under the law. See if Fitzfong’s claim makes sense to you.
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
LLS
Not true. When you have non-official cover, you do use your real name. I was under NOC for a number of years.
The SECRET was that Joe was the envoy and Valerie was his means to the free trip with UNDOCUMENTED RESULTS.
And by the way, all Joe ever said was that they weren't seeking yellow cake through LEGAL channels. Well, I could have told you that without a trip.
P.S. It was just a little over 5 years after their marriage when Joe stepped to the podium and said he was the secret envoy. He outed his own wife.
Frankly I find it convenient that the info wasn't available during all the time this was being investigated.
Still, they have a parking permit, and you could have seen her driving in to work.
She was traveling as a USG employee. She was far from being a covert agent. She is no more undercover than a CIA employee assigned to one of our embassies as she was at one time in Athens.
They have two gates—a front gate and a back gate.
That roof is just made for identification isn't it.
I think the "back gate" (as you called it) is more often used to send out the trucks that stock the "safe houses) than as a means of entry or exit for semi-undercover office workers.
The folks with exceedingly deep cover never visit the area, or are flown in from Eisenhower field at Fort Belvoir (20 miles or so to the South).
That’s not what I said. Read my post more carefully. I was correcting something that someone said about non-official cover.
Don’t read into things what you think people are saying, actually read what is written.
Val gal was a willing pawn IMO but I do agree that her hubby most likely orchestrated his charitable sleuthing. These that opposed the removal of Saddam appeared to be a global network. Personally I believe that those 'Soviet' advisers that high tailed it out of Iraq early on are responsible for the missing WMD's.
Exactly!
If you are going to and from a CIA facility to work daily , you are NOT COVERT.. anyone could see you coming and going... its a joke to claim she was covert while working daily at CIA headquarters.
Not really. Most of the regular employees use that gate. Visitors use the front gate along with employees.
I read what was written. Read what I wrote.
Your point has nothing to do with my point. I don’t disagree with you. But what you are pointing out has nothing to do with what I said.
My point was that your real name isn’t a cover name for us civilians.
Isn't that the point of being covert? You hand your real life out there with all it's wart and quirks. The ones that are fully ingrained and can't be questioned down because they are real. With details so unique that they don't hint at being constructed.
The one thing that is concealed is the relationship to an organization.
It was my understanding that truly covert agents go by their real names.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.