Right On The Right

IT WAS A GLITCH MORON!

The 'glitch' keeps deleting my comments... as shown in a copy of this page as it was after my last post here, made yesterday morning. A very selective 'glitch', it seems, is intent on deleting just my comments (so far as I can tell). Funny how that works, isn't it, RT?

Open and honest debate is impossible in any forum where certain statements are capriciously edited out.

I already explained, and it only deleted ONE COMMENT. It was accidental, as I was deleting spam at the time.

Also meatbrain, it's perfectly relevant that her identity was known around Washington. If everyone knew Plame was a CIA Agent, it's highly likely that this particular document was not behind the leak.

Where EXACTLY did I claim that meatbrain?

"It was both classified and declassified by State."

When was it declassified? What documentary evidence exists that will support your answer? Do you accept RT's claim that the document was declassified at the moment of publication?

"If Valerie Plame-Wilson was ANY sort of

meat...

What documentary evidence supports that the document ihas been declassified? Please don't take this as an insult if you are....but are you blind? What level of intellectual dishonesty must you reach before you can blatantly ignore the obvious word "UNCLASSIFIED" at the top and bottom of every friggn' page of the document that you are challenging?

Declassification date was most likely the date in the add-on at the bottom of page 1, "31 March 2006"....and no, I do not believe the document was classified and declassified on the date of publication.

Irrelevant? How is documentary proof that the US State Dept. knew both Plame-Wislon's name AND that she worked as a "WMD manager" for the CIA irrelevant to prove the fact that Plame-Wilson was NOT a protected covert operative? Her name is right there in a State Department document...if she WAS a "covert operative" just how in the world would the US State Department know who she was and what she did at the CIA?

There mere fact that a document is classified doesn't mean that every word in the document is some state secret. The word "This" is contained in that classified document...is the word "this" now classified? What about "the", "in", "and"? Are those classifed now, too?

A little application of logical thought clearly suggests that only certain information in any classified document is "classified"...and if you look at the document in question, certain informaton has been clearly redacted from the "UNCLASSIFIED" document that was released into te public domain so it can be safely presumed that the redacted information is still, in fact, "secret"...no?

Now, please...surely even YOU can admit that Valerie Plame-Wilson's name and CIA status were not redacted from the "UNCLASSIFIED" document...ergo, that information is NOT "classified" or "secret", or anything else.

The Administration didn't "leak" anything...especially the name of a "covert CIA operative". I understand how upset that you and your ilk must be that the Administration defended itself from the lies told to and by the press...I understand to that you would rather only your lies be heard...but that just isn't the way things work.

There are several statutes that specifically define what "covert status" is and how it must be protected...my name isn't "Google". look them up for yourself just as I did...and Plame-Wilson does not meet ANY of those definitions.

No one was outed! She wasn't covert!

[reposted at the explicit invitation of the site owner]

MikeN asked:

"What documentary evidence supports that the document ihas been declassified? Please don't take this as an insult if you are....but are you blind?"

No. But you may wish to speak with your optometrist. Go back and read what I actually wrote. I didn't ask "What documentary evidence supports that the document has been declassified?"

I asked: "When was it declassified? What documentary evidence exists that will support your answer?"

"Declassification date was most likely the date in the add-on at the bottom of page 1, '31 March 2006'..."

Thank you. If the document and its contents (which includes Valerie Plame's identity) were not declassified until March 2006, then her identity was classified in July 2003 -- when it was revealed in Novak's column.

"if she WAS a "covert operative" just how in the world would the US State Department know who she was and what she did at the CIA?"

Is it now your claim that the CIA never shares information with the State Department until said information has been declassified?

"Now, please...surely even YOU can admit that Valerie Plame-Wilson's name and CIA status were not redacted from the "UNCLASSIFIED" document... ergo, that information is NOT "classified" or "secret", or anything else."

Are you arguing that the fact that Valerie Plame's name was not redacted in 2006

meat,

Using the your logic...where is the proof that anything was "leaked"?

meat...

A few additional facts for your consideration...

Fact 6: The document in question here is a State Department document

Fact 7: It was both classified and declassified by State

Question: If Valerie Plame-Wilson was ANY sort of "covert CIA operative" and thereby worthy of protection, how in the hell did the United States Department of State come to know that she worked for the CIA, to include in her explicitly identified capacity as a "WMD manager"?

Either that was widely-known information to include knowledge that her identity and status was not "protected" information, or the CIA formally and explicitly identified her and her capacity to State without asking State to protect either her identity or her status.

Regardless of how she became known to State, I state again...the clearly provable fact that her identity and status were released into the public domain by means of the declassification of this document proves well beyond any reasonable doubt that she was not an sort of "covert CIA operative" by any rational definition of the term at ANY time relelvant to her being identifed to the press.

No covert status (as defined by statute, not your wishes) = no crime

Because! The document! Was secret! AND declassified! At! The same time!

Keep repeating the mantra, RT. The trance helps prevent you from thinking about the absurdity of what you have actually claimed.

Patrick Fitzgerald is an extremely thorough prosecutor. He wouldn't be investigating this case if no crime actually occurred. The issue at this point is not "whether" a crime occurred but who was involved in it.

It's interesting to note that Valerie Plame was gathering information on Iran's nuclear program at the time she was outed by the Bush administration. In their petty, partisan, vengeance they jeopardized our national security.

And since the wonderful G. Bush said it, I automatically do not believe it. After all, the "man" lied, people died and he never won the election, anyway, he stole it.

The claim that RT is making -- that the memo was both marked 'secret' *and* declassified AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION -- is ridiculous on its face. Explain why the State Department would do such a thing, RT. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the document was, in fact, declassified *at the time Plame's identity was revealed by Novak*.

MikeN: The CIA did not declassify this document. They had no say in what was not redacted.

And while no, I do not believe everything the CIA says, I find it quite easy to believe that the CIA is serious about protecting the identities of its covert agents. If there is an alternative, credible explanation of why Tenet requested the investigation, I have yet to hear it.

Forgotten in all this is the reason *why* Plame was outed. She was outed for one reason only: to punish her husband for daring to disagree with Our Sainted President. This is how the Bush administration operates: not on logic and reason, but on spite.

I have to agree with you there MikeN. As a whole, I originally thought this proved more than it did. Afterwards, it still assists in proving that no leak occured, but it does so in a more subtle and assisting way. This isn't a smoking gun, but it's a piece of the case.

meat,

The obvious facts speak for themselves..."military intelligence analysts" or not.

Fact 1: Clearly, the memo was classified "Secret" at some point (probably at publication)...witness "SECRET" document markings.

Fact 2: Clearly, the memo was declassified at some point...witness "UNCLASSIFIED" document markings.

Fact 3: Even after declassification, certain information was determined to be too sensitive for release...witness the redacted passages.

Fact 4: Valerie Plame-Wilson was explicitly identified in the UNCLASSIFIED document when, if the CIA was truly trying to protect her identity, that section could have been quite easily redacted along with all of the other passages.

Fact 5: The request for/presence of an investigation proves absolutely nothing. Objective investigations reaffirm INNOCENCE much more often than they prove guilt.

Meatbrain, nice to meat you. Two questions--do you believe everything the CIA says? And do journalists have any more credibility when they cite information from "anonymous sources" as opposed to your "pseudonymous somebodies"?

Admin--I like the fact that you noticed the little details. Maybe your initial analysis gave a premature verdict, but none the less you getting closer to the truth. Props to you.

What "military intelligence analysts"? I see a lot of pseudonymous somebodies making claims -- like "I am a retired Military Intelligence Analyst". Where are the experts who are willing to put their opinions over their names?

What you're trying now is called "argument from authority", RT -- and it's a well-recognized logical fallacy. Of course, you consulted NO ONE before making your original claim that the paragraph that contained Plame's name wasn't marked secret at all. Alas, you got called on that little fib. Thus the sudden change in tactic -- oh, look, a whole bunch of folks with no names agree with you!

And you still don't dare touch the fact that the CIA requested the investigation into the leak of Plame

Ya, I had to reword some of it my update to be more clear.

Bah...I'm so slow sometimes...

If your position is that even AFTER explicit declassification (by whatever authority/at whatever time) the Plame info remains while other sensitive info was redacted is proof that she wasn't what Lyin' Joe claimed...I now concur.

Good work!!!

Admin...

The good Lord knows I wish you were right, and I concur to a degree...obviously the doc was DECL at some point prior to hitting the public domain...but the "E.O....Guidance" doc linked to clearly indicates that the original classification authority (and memo author) Carl W. Ford Jr. believes that the memo should remain classified longer than the 10-year manadatory/automatic declassification period because of a "1.6 X 1" exemption/reason.

The "1.6 X 1" identifies why the original classification authority believes that the document should remain classified longer than the 10-year period, NOT a reason to declassify it.

Of course, the doc could have been, and probably WAS, declassified by a separate document signed-off on by a declassification authority (i.e., The President or his designee).

Regardless, it looks like the memo was explicitly declassified on "31 MAR 2006" regadless of any other declassification order. (Which begs the question...if there WAS another DECL document, why would it have to be re-declassified on 03/31/06?)

meathead blogs standing because his ass is too sore to sit.....I've been busy meathead, but I'm gonna get to you when time permits sunshine, do not doubt that fact, or the fact that you be proven even stupider than you have been already.

MikeN, upon looking up the meaning, the 1.6 X 1 definition supercedes any date requirement, but rather gives other requirements (which were met) for the declassification of this document.

Notice what you're actually saying here, RT: that the document was classified, marked 'SECRET', and IMMEDIATELY declassified at the time it was printed.

Exercise a little critical thinking -- they do teach that at your school, don't they? -- and tell us what's wrong with that scenario.

You're also asserting, without evidence, that military abbreviations apply to civilian documents.

And, of course, you have to ignore the fact that the CIA requested the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity -- because she was a covert asset at the time. You have to ignore that fact, because it puts the lie to everything you're trying to "prove" here.

Now Randi Rhoades can shut here damned mouth about this....but then, what would she have to lie about then?

Mike, you'll see a full discussion on this very issue, in which several military intelligence analysts look into the issue at length, at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617962/posts

Any deletion in this instance is sheerly a result of a technical glitch, and you're welcome to re-post.

Meatbrain, what are you talking about? I've deleted nothing.

Meatbrain is as dumb as a rock.

Probably why the brain is floating in formaldehyde

Evidence Proves Plame’s identity was no secret

Justin has a picture of the memo that proves it.
It was already pretty clear from their pictures in Vanity Fair, and what was widely known on the Washington DC cocktail circuit–but Justin presents additional evidence.
Their claims about being ...

MikeN, I'd love to reply, but "Real Teen" has decided my questions are just too darned hard to answer. He's deleted my last comment in this thread, and failed to explain why. Ask him if I'm still allowed to speak.

Plame wasnt covert and she is married to a LIAR, joe shmoe wilson. ALOHA!

Pardon me. Upon further review, it was Ray that said, "Patrick Fitzgerald is an extremely thorough prosecutor. He wouldn

Meatbrain, based on what you said, you'd better hope that Bob Novak's recent statements are untrue:
"The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013819.php

I like your reasoning, MB. The CIA has lied before (they are, after all, both and intelligence agency and a COUNTERintelligence agency) but you easily believe them this time. But the president "lied" once (based partly on faulty CIA intelligence, by the way) and you automatically think he lies every time. Why not join the rest of us in thoughtful discussion and leave the your prejudices at home?

meat...

I reckon that you are simply choosing to overlook the inconvenient-for-your argument fact that sections of the paragraph that contains Plame-Wilsons name and CIA status have been redacted from the unclassified document. In fact, the whole sentence immediately before where she is discussed, and the whole sentence after the one where she is discussed have been redacted.

Is it too much of a logical leap to accept that THOSE sentences (and the other redacted word(s)) in the paragraph are the reason the paragraph is marked "S/NF"?

Come back to the plane of reality where rational, reasonable people reside...

There are some things that reasonable people can honestly disagree on...but this is not one of them.

Despite all the histronics, here it is in the cold, hard black and white of the printed page...Valerie Plame-Wilson was widely known to be a mere "manager" at the CIA duringthe time period relevant to her husband's BS Niger trip. That is not saying that she never was a heroic "spook" worthy of the praise and admiration of her nation at some time in the past.

However, all of the relevant information that has come to light in the recent past proves...beyond any reasonable person's doubt...that she was not a covert asset worthy of, or due any protected status when she injected herself into a political debate by offering up her lying "husband" for a phony trip to Niger.

Question back to you...do you REALLY think that honest-to-goodness "covert agents" plop their butts down in front of a Vanity Fair camera to have their picture taken so that it can be plastered all over the pages of an international magazine if they TRULY thought their life would be in danger if their identity was known?