To: Kerretarded
If he does not even know this basic question, WHY THE REST OF THE INVESTIGATION? FIND THE ANSWER TO THE BASIC QUESTION! GET THE INFO! The CIA is really pissing me off here more than anything else. If she was outed, it MATTERS whether she was COVERT or not. If she was covert, crime. If she was not covert, no crime. The CIA should be MADE to answer this simple question.I believe the CIA may have taken the position that Plame's status is classified. This whole excercise is, IMO, a hit piece against the white house and the President.
To: afnamvet
But he asked the wrong question.
This investigation should never have even have gotten to the point of trying to learn who said what to whom in June, 2003, because:
1. Plame doesn't fall under the class of people covered by the law.
2. She was already "outed" long before the events in question.
2,544 posted on
10/28/2005 12:05:46 PM PDT by
B Knotts
(JRB for SCOTUS!)
To: afnamvet
I believe the CIA may have taken the position that Plame's status is classified. This whole excercise is, IMO, a hit piece against the white house and the President.
That is my problem. Classifying the status NOW means nothing. Everyone knows who she is. Whether she was COVERT at the time or not is meaningless in the present time as far as the CIA and their work is concerned. SHE IS OUT. Anyone that dealt with Valerie Plame as a COVERT know who she is now. Anyone who dealt with Valerie Wilson know that she once was Valerie Plame. We already know that she WAS COVERT. We now want to know when. Giving that info does not bring harm to her.
To: afnamvet
I believe the CIA may have taken the position that Plame's status is classified. This whole excercise is, IMO, a hit piece against the white house and the President. From what I've read, she was still listed with the CIA as NOC (non-official cover, meaning that her cover -- such as it was -- was as a businesswoman), although since she may have been outed by Aldrich Ames in 1994(?), she hasn't actually worked undercover since then. Sloppy bookkeeping? And the relevant statute seems to refer only to someone who has actually worked undercover outside the United States in the preceeding five years. Which she hadn't.
2,780 posted on
10/28/2005 12:27:05 PM PDT by
maryz
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson