Plame did great today. FOX must really be nervous that they may have to cover more of this story to be considered a reputable news source.

You say that as though Faux Noise cares about being a legitimate news source.  It's a propaganda channel, and everyone there knows it.

True. But maybe they are scared since the Nevada Debate issue?

In fact, CIA director General Hayden absolutely, unequivocally confirmed to Chuck Schumer she was covert, her status was classified, and divulging it was in violation of an executive order. Now, where's the "skirt" in that?

Would somebody please, please, put Novak in prison?

And AP writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis is a Republican flak, apparently: "no new light was shed at hearing," and it was all about Plame's appearance and the "stir" it created. Not a word about Victoria Toensing, who was floundering desperately. You could literally hear the anxiety in her voice, knowing she was caught in a lie.

Sorry, but Hayden isn't a lawyer.  Fitzgerald was a prosecuting attorney and he couldn't find a case -- even though he knew who leaked it to Novak from day one.

OK, Leather, Yes or No.

Whether it is criminal or not, do you think that an undercover CIA operatives identity should be leaked for political reasons during wartime?

So, Leather, you think that Director of Central Intelligence can't be relied on as an authority on the covert status of CIA operatives because he isn't a lawyer?

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not lettin you off the hook leather helmet. That's CIA Director General Hayden to you maggot. He might know a thing or 2 about who in the CIA is covert or not... f*ckin idiot. Obviously, your "leather helmet" is too thin too protect from the Hannity CLUB Bashing in your pea-size brain.

That is all...

There are other elements to the crime than just the exposing a covert agent part. Perhaps had Libby not LIED about it there would have been enough evidence to prosecute someone but since he DID LIE, we will never know.

But Leather, Alberto Gonzales IS a lawyer and was White House counsel at the time that CIA Director George Tenet demanded an INTERNAL investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity to the press.

Upon conducting that investigation, why did Alberto Gonzales never assert this "she wasn't covert" defense for the White House? Furthermore as the next Attorney General why did he allow the SP investigation to continue if Gonzales could easily verify that she was not covert?

Is Alberto Gonzales ALSO in on the plot to git the Bush WH too - along with George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden and John Ashcroft? 

Fitzgerald even claimed she was covert.  Face it, you and the rest of the GOPigs are on the wrong side of issue....yet again.

i heard extensive clips of her testimony on both ed shultz and randi rhodes today. she made it very clear over and over that she was covert, and how it affected her when she saw novak's column for the first time. she said she thought of all the time and training she had put into her career and she worried about the well being of all her overseas contacts. i don't doubt that some of them ended up dead. and if i remember correctly novak actually did call a contact at the cia to ask about her and was told not to reveal her name, his excuse afterward was that he felt the warning was not strong enough. lying belly crawling worm. and all those who excuse him.

Agreed.  Novak is as low as one can get.  The article talks about his misinformation, but he has long since graduated to disinformation.

I have some praise for David Gregory today.  As sub host on Hardball he asked if those in the WH, with security clearances, hadn't 'failed to do due diligence?  Weren't they obligated to find out if she was covert before they talked about her?"  YES, THEY WERE!  I've been screaming about this for years, and this is the first reporter who's touched on it.  All these people had security clearances, as I did during Vietnam.  If you have a security clearance you are oath-bound obligated to PROTECT classified information.  That's a higher level of responsibility than just "not divulging."  When it comes to an employee of an intelligence agency, a government official without a security clearance should assume classified status.  A cleared official must make that assumption, until he knows the facts.  "I didn't know she was covert" is a weaseling excuse.  Even if the act is written so narrowly that prosecution under it is impossible, none of those people who leaked her name should still have their security clearances, or their government jobs.

Not only that, but these Repubs blew the cover on her classified operations, and brought IT down as well. Because she was exposed, the entire operation was ruined, and everyone who ever dealt with her now knows she was CIA.

That's treason, in my book, especially during "wartime."

well, we all know what FOX is made of, a bunch of comedians who scream over each other never completing a coherent sentence.

Also, in 1999, she gave a $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential campaign and listed the fictitious -- supposedly -- cover organization that she was using for the CIA as her place of employment as an analyst.

Imagine that.  An agent using a "cover organization" in public.  The mind reels...

Seriously, how dumb is this guy?  I'm not being rhetorical, I really want to know how dumb he is.  Because I'm thinking there may be a government program or aid organization, or clinical trials going on that he would qualify for.

Imagine that.  An agent using a "cover organization" in public.

I'd been having the same reaction. Just how nutso can these people be?

She "outed herself" by listing her cover-story employer on a political donation? Say what?

The point of a cover story is - to cover. It's what you say, it's what you tell people, it's what you live by. What the devil did these nitwits expect her to say?

"On the same day in 1999 that retired diplomat Joseph Wilson was returned $1,000 of $2,000 he contributed to Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore a month earlier because it exceeded the federal limit, his CIA-employee wife gave $1,000 to Gore using a fictitious identification for herself."

"In making her April 22, 1999, contribution, Valerie E. Wilson identified herself as an "analyst" with "Brewster-Jennings & Associates." No such firm is listed anywhere, but the late Brewster Jennings was president of Socony-Vacuum oil company a half-century ago. Any CIA employee working under "non-official cover" always is listed with a real firm, but never an imaginary one."

These quotes are from a Novak column.  Apparently, she was not suppose to link herself with her made up fictional company, which was listed in Dunn & Bradstreet as a company at 101 Arch Street in Boston and listed a phone number and a Victor Brewster as a general practicing attorney. Problem is there is no such company, no office, no Victor Brewster. She was not suppose to identify herself with a ficticious company.  Novak I guess is saying she outed herself by tying her name to Joe Wilson and to a fictional company and that if he could find it anyone could.

http://cryptome.org/plame-brewster.htm 

The fact that you admitted you referenced Novak's (just in case you didn't know, the guy who published her name as a CIA agent and her front company) article proves to me just how gullible and stupid you are. Tell me, how does Bob Novak know the "rules" for covert CIA agents when making campaign contributions? Does he work for the CIA? She wanted to make a campaign donation to her favorite candidate, that is her right. Because she worked for the CIA and was covert, she has to do things a little differently.

In fact, she IS supposed to her CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings & Assoc. is what she put for the record, when making campaign contributions while keeping her real place of employment (the CIA), well... you guessed it!! COVERT.

here is the link,  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

The sad part is that the conservative rank and file who only watch fox news will have their views reinforced by this popoganda.

Our only hope for reaching the reasonable ones who are willing to have their minds changed by actual facts and evidence is the local news doing a good job with this story so they can see it while they are waiting for the weather report. 

I heard callers to Righty talk shows today, completely confused by the spin.The contributions to Democrats,for example, were not seen as reinforcing that Plame and Wilson might have been targets of the Bushys, but rather  as evidence of their agenda against the administration.

I admit that I laugh at the medias characterization the last few years of rational people as "Bush Haters" or "unpatriotic", but I 'll give them credit- the suckers who've been force fed that tripe for the last 6 or 7 years are very well trained.

I'm just fascinated and curious. Out of that remaininng 28%(or whatever it is now) that still thinks the GOP is swell, what is it going to take? I mean, cancel out the ones who are directly employed or paid or benefitting from their scams,the media and military and corporate whores, even if that leaves 10% of regular working Americans that still are checking "approve" on the survey;

What the hell would (will) it take to drag these cretins into the reality based world?

Sorry, HBL, it'll never happen.  These people are sub-dominant authoritarian personalities, and facts will never have the strength of faith and received "wisdom" to them.  Read John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience.  That title is beginning to look as redundant as compassionat conservative is oxymoronic.

 Thanks,Conchobhar, some more books to go on the "read someday" pile.

I agree with your view of the faith over facts crowd. Like I used to tell a preachy co-worker who wouldn't give up on my soul, when he justified his annoying attempts by saying that he would listen to my side.

I had to tell him that

A. I didn't care what he believed, and

B. The only thing that would change the mind of a true believer is if God himself came down and declared that He didn't exist

I was trying to be optimistic. I guess we concede 15% or so to the GOP, no matter what. 85% - 15% , hopefully some third parties get in and put the pressure on everybody. That should be hard to rig. 

The reasonable ones have been threatrened by the thugs populating the FOX network. If one wants their voice heard on FOX better toe the propaganda line.  

<i>Would somebody please, please, put Novak in prison?</i>

Wasn't it David Corn, not Novak, who made it public that Plame was covert?  Novak never said anything of the sort. 

Relevance?  Identifying a covert operative as a CIA agent is still blowing their cover.  It's hard to imagine you honestly believe that Novak would have to specifically say she was covert in order to do that.

That Traitor-Coward, Robert Novak...

uses a whore, whose name is "Fox."

And so do the other lying pimps.

Note: If the vulgarity or crudeness irks anyone— to bad, this is what America has become… or has allowed to happen.

I was reading one of the websites which was live-blogging Plame's testimony. They were watching on Fox News, and they said when Plame clearly stated, under oath, that she was a covert agent, Fox News had Robert Novak in their studio, and he immediately cut in to say, "THAT'S JUST ABSURB."

The Fox distortion machine is in high gear over this scandal.

Fox specifically hired the original person who leaked Plame's identity in the media to be their analyst on the very case he is involved in. What a laughable "news" organization...

"I was a covert officer".  Valerie Plame

"...never directly answering the question of whtether or not at that point she was."  ED Hill

Now, which do I believe....wait a minute.  "I WAS" vs. "NEVER DIRECTLY ANSWERING"...I go with Valerie.

Ms. Hill, we understand it is you job...after Fox there is nowhere to go especially if you are asked a question, answer it and nobody HEARS your answer.

" 'I was a covert officer' - Valerie Plame

' . . . never directly answering the question of whether or not at that point she was.' - ED Hill" - PrinceOfWheels

-------------------------

PoW, you beat me to it, LOL . . . only in rightwingnut, bats--t CRAZY bizarro world can someone say, UNDER OATH, one thing, and the wingnuts hear the exact opposite.

Methinks ED should have her hearing checked; being in close proximity to Bull OhReally bloviating for too long seems to have adversely affected it.

Though Valerie Plame was rightly the star of the show at yesterday's Congressional hearing, there was one other piece of testimony which, by implication, unmasked the total duplicity and bad faith of the White House.I forget the guy's name, but he was a lower level White House official who was asked whether, after all the bluster at the time by President "If anybody leaked I want to know, etc." Bush, there had been any internal White House investigation of what had happened.His answer?"No."And why, pray tell, would that be?Sit back, relax, and watch with depressed amusement as the Bush-Cheney-Novak (ugh!) apologists on Fox or wherever try to spin that one.  It is really difficult to imagine how even these Cirque du Soleil bad faith contortionists can somehow transform this lack of action – which speaks reams – into yet one more way of trying to blame the victim.But I'm sure they'll try.Billyblog

SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I MIKSUNDERSTAND THIS.                  

 I THOUGH THAT HER POSITION WAS SUCH THAT IF SHE WAS EVER

CAUGHT THAT THE CIA WOULDN'T AKNOWLEDGE THAT SHE EVER WORKED FOR THEM.THE REASON THAT I BRING THIS UP IS THE GUY FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY KEPT SAYING THAT IF THEY KNEW TTHAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE OUTED THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING.                   

it's correct that the cia would not acknowledge her, but that is if she was caught in another country. they would deny her, which is what made her position so personally dangerous. obviously if members of her own government out her, there's no denying it. and who do you refer to when you said they should have "done something"?

The first thing you need to correct is your sentence structure and grammar. Secondly, your essentially asking that "if she was so covert, why would the CIA acknowledge that she worked for the CIA?" and "Why didn't they do anything to stop it?"

I'm gonna try to make this as painless (for you) as possible.

1) She was "outed" in the USA, by US journalists and MAKE SURE YOUR READ THIS CAREFULLY - US administration officials. Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and other Top US officials had a hand in this. These guys are privy to practically ALL intelligence information, and to the people who gather this information

2) Admittedly, the "cover" that is CIA front company that was created (in the early 1990s) to "conceal" her position as well as a number of her associates at the CIA was pretty flimsy, the CIA dropped the ball on that. As a matter of the effectiveness, the cover sucked. But the fact that she was assigned to a front company makes all the more apparent, that she was not a mere secretary taking phone calls, but something much more well... covert.

3) As to the question of "why didn't the CIA try to stop it or do anything"; after the Novak article was released, the CIA requested the Justice Department conduct a criminal investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA officer.

Well said, DT.  I might add that prior to publication one of Novak's sources at the Agency, whose name escapes me at the moment. told him in no uncertain terms that he should not reveal her name.  Said source went as far as he could go without revealing classified information, e.g., the fact that Valerie Plame was covert.  He did everything he could do, short of holding his breath and turning blue.  If anyone reading this thinks that Novak hadn't been around D.C. long enough to read the signs, and published in all innocence, I'd like to interest you in some shares of a bridge linking Manhattan and Brooklyn.  I can get you in on the ground floor, dirt cheap.

Rhetorical question:  Why hasn't a single wingnut on Faux News, in a WSJ editorial, or anywhere else, called for a perjury charge against Ms. Plame for lying under oath to the committee for stating:  'I was a covert officer'?

Q.E.D.

This is actually a double-proof.  Also proven:  They are not just mistaken... They don't believe their own B.S.!

 I know that RW's just won't answer the question as to why former CIA Director George Tenet made the complaint to the WH and eventually Justice in the first place if she had not been covert.

I know they won't answer the question as to why subsequent CIA Directors Porter Goss and Michael Hayden never came forward with any contradiction of the claim she was covert.

But MAYBE some RW will answer these questions.

Has anyone at the WHITE HOUSE ever raised this defense of THEMSELVES?  

And if so, why would Alberto Gonzales have ever allowed the SP's investigation to continue?