 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Vallely exclusively interviewed on Hannity and Colmes tonight. Colmes got first jabs....kept wanting to know why he, Vallely, did not take this to Fitz. I don't think Vallely every really did directly answer, just keept saying that they questioned the validity of the investigation by the special prosecutor. Vallely said that wilson told him, in casual conversation, that his wife was a CIA analyst. Vallely said an analyst is not covert. Then Hannity talked with him, but I missed part. Can anyone update? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47306
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PLAME GAME
Vallely 'outs' Wilson
on national television
Army general says on 'Hannity & Colmes' he has 'no personal vendetta' in CIA leak
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 8, 2005
11:49 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely on Fox News 'Hannity & Colmes' tonight
Calling it "a potentially explosive development in the CIA leak investigation," Fox News analysts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes grilled retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely tonight about his claim that Ambassador Joseph Wilson "outed" his wife as a CIA agent in 2002, a year before her identity was exposed by a political columnist.
"There's no personal vendetta here," Vallely told the pair, "I want to make that clear. It all came about questioning why the special prosecutor did not include in his inquiry bring under oath Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame or anybody in the CIA as far as we know, so the question is out there to be answered."
The interview on Fox News was the first time Vallely addressed the revelation on national television. A search of Lexis-Nexis newspaper archives reveals major media outlets including the Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times and Washington Post have not reported a single story about Wilson's alleged 2002 disclosure.
As WorldNetDaily first reported over the weekend, Vallely claimed Wilson revealed wife Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA to him in a casual conversation in the Fox News "green room" the year before she allegedly was "outed" by columnist Robert Novak.
"As we talked about our families, he did not say she was an agent, only that she was employed by the [Central Intelligence] Agency," Vallely reiterated on TV tonight.
Vallely's disclosure of Wilson's comments first came during ABC Radio's John Batchelor show last Thursday night, and once WND interviewed the general about his remarks, both Vallely and WND received demands for retraction and legal threats from attorney Christopher Wolf, who represents Wilson.
"WorldNetDaily and I both were absolutely a little shocked on Saturday evening when we got an e-mail from Joe Wilson's lawyers in Washington really asking us to 100 percent retract our statements that were made on the radio show," Vallely told Fox. "I'm not gonna back down on the fact we had a casual conversation. The fact is we were there together, we didn't agree on a lot of the things about the war, but we can agree to disagree."
When asked by Hannity if he knew if any other person was told by Wilson himself that his wife worked for the agency, Vallely responded, "I have friends back in Washington, D.C., [who] have told me that on the social circuit back there, the State Department, the social circles, also in CIA that it was very well known she worked for the agency. She was an analyst, not a covert agent."
Widely known?
At least two veteran reporters say Valerie Plame's association with the CIA was widely known, and a prominent analyst on military and political affairs, Victor Davis Hanson, told WorldNetDaily his own green-room encounter with Wilson revealed a man who is unusually free with personal information to strangers.
Valerie Plame appeared in Vanity Fair magazine with her husband Joseph Wilson in January 2004
Former Time magazine correspondent Hugh Sidey told the New York Sun in a story published Sunday. "[Plame's] name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."
NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, in an appearance on CNBC's "Capitol Report," Oct. 3, 2003, was asked how widely it was known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger," she said.
Hanson, a Hoover Institution fellow and National Review columnist, told WND that like Vallely, he had a casual but unusually frank conversation with Wilson in the Fox News green room before appearing on the air with the ambassador some time, he believes, in early 2003.
But contrary to a report, Hanson said Wilson did not disclose his wife's CIA employment.
Nevertheless, Hanson found the first-time encounter to be revealing, describing Wilson as being very "indiscreet" and "unguarded" with personal information, rambling in a "stream of consciousness" manner.
"It was almost as if he were bored; he was non-stop talkative and sort of self-absorbed," Hanson said.
"When I left, I seemed to know a lot about Joe Wilson that he had spontaneously offered to a stranger."
While Wilson did not tell Hanson anything of his wife's CIA connection, Hanson was a witness to an intense 30-minute conversation between the ambassador and The Nation magazine Editor David Corn, who apparently were meeting for the first time.
Corn's July 16, 2003, column was the first published mention of Wilson's claim that the White House intentionally had "outed" Plame as retaliation for the Niger report.
Entitled "A White House Smear," Corn's column said, "Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad, the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.
Corn claims Wilson never confirmed whether his wife was a covert agent, yet he writes:
Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames."
Corn concluded: "The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security."
(Note: To view the "Hannity & Colmes" segment, click here.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Brit Hume has the facts on Vallely and Wilson appearences / Andrea Mitchell tries to take back what she said about Plame
FoxNews
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire?
Thursday, November 10, 2005
By Brit Hume
| Quote: | from the Political Grapevine:
Former CIA officer and one time FOX contributor Larry Johnson is calling retired general and FOX military analyst Paul Vallely a "right wing [hack] making up facts,” after Vallely said former Ambassador Joseph Wilson told him his wife worked at the CIA as both waited to appear on FOX programs.
This as liberal Websites say they have proof Vallely is lying, saying research service LexisNexis shows Vallely and Wilson never appeared on FOX on the same day. But in fact, Vallely and Wilson appeared on the same day nine times in 2002, and on the same show twice — on September 8 and September 12, when both men appeared within 15 minutes of one another.
Taking it Back?
Meanwhile, NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell now says she never meant to say that it was "widely known" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA before the fact was publicized by columnist Robert Novak. Mitchell says online bloggers took her words out of context, telling a talk show host that she merely said people knew that a secret administration envoy, which turned out to be Wilson, had been sent to Niger.
But in a 2003 interview, Mitchell was asked specifically about how many people knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Mitchell answered, "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the Foreign Service community was the envoy to Niger." |
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1451
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vallely was on a Fox show the other night... would have had to be Hannity or BOR.
I'm so glad to be backed up by someone as honorable as Major Gnrl Vallely ! (I really like that guy!)
I've been saying that Wilson outed her himself (if it was possible to 'out' someone who wasn't undercover) for the past year!
and yeah, people have thought I 'm a nut case!!!
I thought it was pretty obvious myself!
as far as her neighbors, out of the 6 different neighborhoods I have lived
in the past 20 + yrs, I have worked for local courts and tax depts.
You probably couldn't find 3 neighbors who could have told you where I worked or what I did for a living. And I certainly wasn't undercover!
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Update from RedState
Joe WIlson and the Spooks
By: John Batchelor · Section: Diaries
JOE WILSON AND THE SPOOKS. American Spectator's Jed Babbin rang up retired CIA officer Larry Johnson in the past days and conversed at length and most resourcefully about the Wilsons and my colleagues Maj. General Paul Vallely and Lt. General Tom McInerney.
You will recall, over the last week, Johnson has inserted himself in the simple episode that General Paul Vallely learned from Joe Wilson that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA, and that Vallely learned this fact in a casual conversation in a green room at FNC in Washington D.C. in 2002.
Last week, Johnson wrote rudely to Vallely's colleague Tom McInerney, calling Vallely a "liar" for having said on my show twice that Wilson told him the truth about Valerie Plame in 2002. Later, I puzzled about Johnson's univited, busy-body rudeness in an exchange with Jed Babbin, who came on my show to comment on Wilson's unusual way with facts.
Soon enough, Jed Babbin was on the phone with Johnson, and Johnson was strangely revealing. For example, Johnson confirmed that he had known Valerie Plame personally since she joined the CIA in 1985. Also, Johnson plunged into a dispute from elsewhere, that Valerie Plame's supervisor at the CIA, Mr. Rustman, was not to correct when he said last summer to an investigation inquiry that Plame was under very light cover at the CIA. There was more palaver from Johnson, mostly to do with Johnson's certainty that he is right, everyone else is wrong, especially Vallely and McInerney; and then Johnson became vulgar and Jed Babbin ended the communication.................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the website where Mr. Rustman is currently employed.
CTC International Group, Inc
| Quote: |
NOC NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent
Time Magazine
Michael Duffy and Timothy J. Burger
October 27th, 2003
It's not every woman who runs a background check on a guy who's asking her out on a date. But if you were a secret agent working undercover, you would be extra careful too. In 1997 Valerie Plame was being courted by a man who had served as a U.S. diplomat in nine countries, many in Africa, and possessed about as high a security clearance as any spy could hope for, but Plame was taking no chances. It was only after several months of dating Ambassador Joseph Wilson that Plame, supposedly a private energy analyst, revealed the name of her true employer: the CIA. Hearing this, Wilson had a question for his future wife: "Is Valerie your real name?"
Security agencies all over the world are now quietly running Plame's name through their data banks, immigration records and computer hard drives as the White House leak scandal continues to percolate. Officials with two foreign governments told TIME that their spy catchers are quietly checking on whether Plame had worked on their soil and, if so, what she had done there. Which means if one theme of the Administration leak scandal concerns political vengeance — did the White House reveal Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson for his public criticism of the case for war with Iraq? — another theme is about damage. What has been lost, and who has been compromised because of the leak of one spy's name? And who, if anyone, will pay for that disclosure?
Officials in George W. Bush's Administration were able to show progress by the Justice Department into who might have leaked Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak back in July — whether they really wanted to get to the bottom of the matter or not. Government sources tell TIME that the FBI has interviewed more than two dozen officials in several Washington offices, including White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bush political adviser Karl Rove as well as other West Wing aides. The FBI has obtained desk diaries and phone records and is examining the network server that handles White House e-mail. So far, the initial face-to-face interviews, which are typically not done under oath, have been somewhat informal. In a sign of high-level interest in the leak case, several of the interviews were conducted by veteran G-man John Eckenrode, the lead FBI official on the investigation. Agents asked interviewees to keep mum about their chats so as not to disclose the government's strategy. Both McClellan and Rove declined to comment on the probe.
Plame was outed as part of a longtime dispute between Bush moderates and hard-liners over the strengths and shortcomings of the agency's prewar intelligence on Saddam Hussein. Wilson, who had been sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out rumors that Saddam was seeking nuclear fuel there, went public with his skepticism about that charge in a New York Times op-ed piece in July. Because Wilson's article was the first deep dent in the Bush team's claims about the justification for war, Administration officials were soon working quietly behind the scenes, steering reporters away from his conclusions, dismissing his work as shoddy and charging that he got the Niger mission only because his wife worked on proliferation issues at the CIA. It was that last detail — and the added fact that his wife worked undercover — that sparked a federal criminal probe into disclosing a covert officer's name.
Some Bush partisans have suggested that the outing of Plame is no big deal, that she was "just an analyst" or maybe, as a G.O.P. Congressman told CNN, "a glorified secretary." But the facts tell otherwise. Plame was, for starters, a former NOC — that is, a spy with nonofficial cover who worked overseas as a private individual with no apparent connection to the U.S. government. NOCs are among the government's most closely guarded secrets, because they often work for real or fictive private companies overseas and are set loose to spy solo. NOCs are harder to train, more expensive to place and can remain undercover longer than conventional spooks. They can also go places and see people whom those under official cover cannot. They are in some ways the most vulnerable of all clandestine officers, since they have no claim to diplomatic immunity if they get caught.
Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is."
For decades, a varying number of NOCs (the exact figure is classified) have been installed abroad in big multinational corporations, small companies or bogus academic posts. The more genteel rules of traditional espionage do not apply to NOCs. When the Soviets caught a diplomat doing spy work during the cold war, they roughed him up a little and sent him home. Unmasked NOCs, on the other hand, have met with much harsher fates: CIA officer Hugh Redmond was caught in Shanghai in 1951 posing as an employee of a British import-export company and spent 19 years in a Chinese prison before dying there. In early 1995 the French rolled up five CIA officers, including a woman who had been working as a NOC under business cover for about five years. Although the NOC caught in Paris in 1995 was simply sent home, "it might not have been so easy in an Arab country," says a former CIA official familiar with the matter. "[NOCs] have no diplomatic status, so they can end up in slammers."
A NOC's ability to run silent and deep has led Ohio Republican Mike DeWine, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to press the CIA to invest more heavily in NOC officers, adding that the CIA's traditional spies, posing as diplomats and trained to infiltrate governments, are not well positioned to penetrate stateless gangs of terrorists who don't go to embassy parties. DeWine called for a larger NOC program in a report issued by Congress in July — and many ex-spooks were surprised when the CIA cleared the document for public consumption. But the agency has resisted such efforts before, arguing that NOCs are too expensive and too dangerous to expand the program by much.
Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat. Plame all but came in from the cold last week, making her first public appearance, at a Washington lunch in honor of her husband, who was receiving an award for whistle blowing. The blown spy's one not-so-secret request? No photographs, please. |
SBD
Last edited by SBD on Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| any thoughts on that SBD? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
re the NOC NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent from above 2003 article
| Quote: | | In 1997 Valerie Plame was being courted by a man who had served as a U.S. diplomat in nine countries, many in Africa, and possessed about as high a security clearance as any spy could hope for, but Plame was taking no chances. It was only after several months of dating Ambassador Joseph Wilson that Plame, supposedly a private energy analyst, revealed the name of her true employer: the CIA. Hearing this, Wilson had a question for his future wife: "Is Valerie your real name?" |
Wilson, again, can't keep his stories straight. It's all over the web now that he tells it differently in his own book.
| Quote: | VanityFair
The Wilsons live in the Palisades, an affluent neighborhood of Washington, D.C., on the fringe of Georgetown. In winter, when the trees have no leaves, the back of their house has a stunning view of the Washington Monument. They'd first seen the house in 1998, when it was still being built, and they had instantly fallen in love with it. Even so, Plame took some persuading before they made an offer. "She's very frugal," explains Wilson. "My brother who's in real estate had to fly in from the West Coast and explain that a mortgage could cost less than our rented apartment in the Watergate."
Plame also told Wilson that she'd be moving with him into the new house only as his wife. Records show that Wilson and his second wife, Jacqueline, to whom he was married for 12 years, were divorced in 1998. By the mid-90s, Wilson says, that relationship had pretty much disintegrated. "Separate bedrooms—and I was playing a lot of golf," he says.
He had met Plame in February 1997 at a reception at the Washington home of the Turkish ambassador. He says that when his eyes fell on her from across the room he thought he knew her. He realized as he drew near that he did not—and that it was love at first sight. From that moment on, he says, "she did not let anyone into the conversation, and I did not let anyone into the conversation."
At the time, Wilson was based in Stuttgart, serving as the political adviser to George Joulwan, the U.S. general in charge of the European command; Plame was based in Brussels. Meeting in Paris, London, and Brussels, they got very serious very quickly. On the third or fourth date, he says, they were in the middle of a "heavy make-out" session when she said she had something to tell him. She was very conflicted and very nervous, thinking of everything that had gone into getting her to that point, such as money and training.
She was, she explained, undercover in the C.I.A. "It did nothing to dampen my ardor," he says. "My only question was: Is your name really Valerie?" |
More from RUSTMAN, in this July 2005 interview on
Fox News
<couple snips>
| Quote: | HANNITY: You were an agent from 1966 to 1990, and you said that in the Washington Times today she made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee. Her husband was a diplomat. Quote: "Her friends knew this. Her friends knew this. They told them." In other words, this was not a secret of anybody that they knew.
I mean, actually he describes in his book how, after a make-out session on like the third or fourth date, that she told him. But putting that aside, everybody knew?
RUSTMANN: Well, I don't know that everybody knew. I do know that her cover began to erode the moment she started dating Joe Wilson. The thing that I said was that, you know, when you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, and look like a duck, you're probably a duck.
And at the point in time that this all broke, Valerie Plame had been working at headquarters for a long time, several years. She went to work every day to headquarters. She was married to a high-profile former ambassador. She had a couple of kids, she was living around the beltway. |
| Quote: | COLMES: So she went back into cover. But for example, didn't they expose a front operation that she helped run, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, this made-up company. And wasn't that exposed as a result of all this, and can't this damage intelligence operations and our security?
RUSTMANN: Well, actually, no, because it isn't a big deal. It was a light non-official cover. There was, you know, a phone. There was very little backstopping to that company. It wasn't like she was working for a major multi-national American company or foreign company where there could be some severe blowback if that were to come to...
COLMES: Are you saying there are no repercussions of this? There's no repercussions of her having been exposed as a covert CIA agent, even though she was non-covert at one point?
RUSTMANN: There are no major repercussions to the cover mechanism, no. |
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kimberly wrote: | | any thoughts on that SBD? |
I think this article I posted a while back prety sums up the Larry Johnson weasel.
From an email Larry Johnson sent to a Free Republic Blogger.
| Quote: |
‘Hey you coward. You want to try to put a noose around our necks? We tell the truth and you threaten violence? Send your address and we will be happy to visit. You should be aware that one of our group helped track down and kill Pablo Escobar and other middle eastern terrorists. How dare you challenge our patriotism? We will be happy to meet you anytime, anywhere. Name the place.’
You can read the entire exchange on Free Republic. Being the bright Freepers they are, it was quickly verified that lcjohnso@ix.netcom.com is indeed Johnson’s email address, as listed in the Administrative Contact for the website registration of his company, Berg Associates. |
| Quote: |
To the Point News
CIA ROGUE WEASEL THREATENS MURDER
Guest Author
By Tex Manchester
Thursday, August 4, 2005
You first learned in The CIA in Deep Qaaqaa last October about a group of left-wing “Rogue Weasels” that incoming CIA Director Porter Goss was purging from Langley.
It’s important to understand that the CIA has been a left-wing outfit since the 1970s. The Watergate Scandal was pretty much a coup to oust Richard Nixon from the White House conducted in a cooperative effort by the CIA left-wingers, the Democrat Party, and the Media. This same cabal thinks it can conduct a similar coup against George Bush and Karl Rove over the ridiculous Plamegate nonsense.
Problem is, Bush is smarter than Nixon, the bloggers are smarter than Old Media, and Porter Goss is smarter than the Weasels. In fact, many of the Weasels are unbelievably stupid.
Exhibit A for this is how they have allowed a former CIA analyst named Larry Johnson to take the lead in publicly condemning the President for the “scandal” of the “leak” in the press of Valerie Plame’s name as working for the CIA.
On July 22, Johnson went before a kangaroo panel of Capitol Hill Democrats and stated that Bush’s failure to fire Karl Rove, who obviously was the treasonous leaker according to him, was jeopardizing national security. Then he said the same thing the next day when he gave the Democrat Party’s weekly national radio address.
If Larry Johnson is the best the CIA-Democrat-Media cabal can come up with, dreams of another Watergate are hippie hallucinations. For the fun question is: How stupid is Larry Johnson?
You can imagine the Johnny Carson-Ed McMahon skit:
Johnny: “So how stupid is this guy, Ed?”
Ed: “Johnny, let me tell you. Larry Johnson is so stupid that just two months before the September 11 terrorist attack on America, on July 10, 2001, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times entitled ‘The Declining Terrorist Threat’.”
Johnny’s mouth drops open in shock while the audience bursts out in laughter. Ed continues: “I kid you not. He actually wrote that Americans were ‘bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism,’ and had ‘little to fear’ from terrorists. But then that’s par for an intelligence agency that never saw September 11 coming, and whose primary objective afterwards was to make sure no one got fired over it.”
Johnny deadpans: “It’s hard to believe that anyone in the CIA could be that stupid.” Johnny rolls his eyes and mugs for the audience, which again explodes in laughter.
Ed: “But wait, there’s more! You’re not going to believe this. There’s a conservative Internet discussion forum called Free Republic. I read it all the time, great stuff. Anyhow, someone on this forum was so upset with the testimony of Larry Johnson and 10 of his ex-CIA colleagues that he wrote:
‘The best way to deal with their seditionist tendencies is to get 11 nooses and 11 nice tall trees. Not that I would advocate any sort of violence. As Richard Nixon once said, “That would be wrong.’
“Pretty juvenile, huh? But here’s the part you won’t believe. Larry Johnson sent him a personal email threatening to kill him! Here, I’ll read it for you:
‘Hey you coward. You want to try to put a noose around our necks? We tell the truth and you threaten violence? Send your address and we will be happy to visit. You should be aware that one of our group helped track down and kill Pablo Escobar and other middle eastern terrorists. How dare you challenge our patriotism? We will be happy to meet you anytime, anywhere. Name the place.’
Neither McMahon nor Carson nor the audience would have anything to say or laugh at after that.
You can read the entire exchange on Free Republic. Being the bright Freepers they are, it was quickly verified that lcjohnso@ix.netcom.com is indeed Johnson’s email address, as listed in the Administrative Contact for the website registration of his company, Berg Associates.
So – the ex-CIA poster boy of the Democrats’ campaign to target Karl Rove threatens in writing to have the person who killed Pablo Escobar pay a “visit” to the home of a critic, and it’s not news? Funny what Old Media finds newsworthy.
Johnson’s threat has been sent to the Maryland Montgomery County Police, Rockville Station, as that is the jurisdiction from where he sent the email. What are the odds that Johnson will be prosecuted?
By the way, Ed McMahon would have a punch line. He’d finish by giving Johnny a final example of Johnson’s stupidity: Pablo Escobar was not a “middle eastern terrorist.” He was a Colombian drug lord.
[Tex Manchester is a former military intelligence officer.] |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, well, well, look at what we have here!!
| Quote: | France to expel US ’spy’ diplomats
Evening Standard (London)
February 22, 1995
SECTION: Pg. 23
LENGTH: 467 words
HEADLINE: France to expel US ’spy’ diplomats
BYLINE: Jeremy Campbell
BODY:
FRANCE has accused four American diplomats and a fifth US citizen of political and economic spying and has ordered them to leave the country, Le Monde newspaper has reported.
Interior Minister Charles Pasqua wrote to President Francois Mitterrand that the five worked for the CIA and were guilty of “acts of interference”, including attempts to recruit aides to Cabinet ministers, the newspaper said. The letter reportedly said the five were uncovered in a “long, detailed investigation” by France’s counter-intelligence service. It was not immediately clear whether France had set a deadline for them to leave. The State Department would not comment today on the expulsion but former deputy assistant Secretary of State Ernest Preeg, who ran the White House Economic Policy Group, said the action seems unnecessarily dramatic and may have an ulterior motive. “It looks as if this may be just a little hanky-panky around the edges,” he said.
‘Every country has people trying to get intelligence one way or another. It’s standard practice, even among allies. You don’t do anything as sensational as expelling five Americans unless there is something else going on.” Mr Preeg added: “It is well known that the French are doing a lot of espionage in America, most of it commercial.”
Other sources suggest the motive for CIA recruitment of French officials may be political. France’s recent relations with Iran and Iraq have been worrying to Washington, which has focused a great deal of intelligence activity on the two governments.
One of the five, a woman, worked with “clandestine cover” outside the embassy, said Le Monde. One is considered the head of the CIA’s Paris operations and a second his deputy. The other two, a man and a woman, also have diplomatic status, said the paper. |
How do you ask for an investigation into “the investigation” of an already “outed” CIA agent that recently just was “re-outed”??
Is the CIA and the Democratic Party that dumb as to use an already “outed” CIA agent as the basis for impeachment to get the President?
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SBD wrote: | Well, well, well, look at what we have here!!
| Quote: | France to expel US ’spy’ diplomats
Evening Standard (London)
February 22, 1995
SECTION: Pg. 23
LENGTH: 467 words
HEADLINE: France to expel US ’spy’ diplomats
BYLINE: Jeremy Campbell
BODY:
FRANCE has accused four American diplomats and a fifth US citizen of political and economic spying and has ordered them to leave the country, Le Monde newspaper has reported.
Interior Minister Charles Pasqua wrote to President Francois Mitterrand that the five worked for the CIA and were guilty of “acts of interference”, including attempts to recruit aides to Cabinet ministers, the newspaper said. The letter reportedly said the five were uncovered in a “long, detailed investigation” by France’s counter-intelligence service. It was not immediately clear whether France had set a deadline for them to leave. The State Department would not comment today on the expulsion but former deputy assistant Secretary of State Ernest Preeg, who ran the White House Economic Policy Group, said the action seems unnecessarily dramatic and may have an ulterior motive. “It looks as if this may be just a little hanky-panky around the edges,” he said.
‘Every country has people trying to get intelligence one way or another. It’s standard practice, even among allies. You don’t do anything as sensational as expelling five Americans unless there is something else going on.” Mr Preeg added: “It is well known that the French are doing a lot of espionage in America, most of it commercial.”
Other sources suggest the motive for CIA recruitment of French officials may be political. France’s recent relations with Iran and Iraq have been worrying to Washington, which has focused a great deal of intelligence activity on the two governments.
One of the five, a woman, worked with “clandestine cover” outside the embassy, said Le Monde. One is considered the head of the CIA’s Paris operations and a second his deputy. The other two, a man and a woman, also have diplomatic status, said the paper. |
How do you ask for an investigation into “the investigation” of an already “outed” CIA agent that recently just was “re-outed”??
Is the CIA and the Democratic Party that dumb as to use an already “outed” CIA agent as the basis for impeachment to get the President?
SBD |
I wonder how many of the aides Ms. Plame slept with? I guess she wasn't that good or she could have turned at least one of them.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone else run across this....ever since doubt has been cast upon Plame's CIA 'status', I run across people on the Left who use this statement by Fitz as 'evidence' that Plame's status was (they hope at least) 'classified'.
"FITZGERALD: OK. I think you have three questions there. I'm trying to remember them in order. I'll go backwards.
And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act. "
HOWEVER, I read the statement QUITE differently. Take out all the unnecessary phrases regarding Plame and go to the bare bones of the statement. What you have is:
"And all I'll say is that if national defense information was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act."
Section 793 is titled:
§_793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...93----000-.html
It would appear to me that the term 'classified' was used in reference to national defense information, NOT Plames status with the CIA.
Anyone else run across this or read it as I do?
(By the way, you are doing some awesome research SBD!!)
edit to clarify:
Is the 'classified' national defense information he is referring to something else, or is it the fact that she simply 'worked' for the CIA? Because it sounds to me like disclosure of the name or identity of ANY CIA employee, regardless of rank, would then be in violation of Section 793. Does that then negate the whole 'covert' vs. 'overt' argument making it, as Fitz implied, a non-issue? Geez, so then
So: At what point DID Fitz:
1) realize that the IDENTITY of ANY cia employee is 'classified' (IMMEDIATELY, BASED ON SECTION 793, ESPIONAGE)
2) realize that it ALREADY WAS KNOWN (although perhaps not common knowledge) that Plame was employeed by the CIA (PROBABLY WITHIN THE FIRST 5 WEEKS)
3) Since it was ALREADY known, he (or someone) decided to 'further' (clarify) the scope of his investigation (witch hunt) IMO. (WEEK 5 OF THE INVESTIGATION)
According to Fitz's website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/l...roceedings.html
From the 1st letter dated December 30, 2002
“By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law,including 28 U.S .C.§§509,510, and 515,and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§508,I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity,and I direct
you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.”
(clearly states that he was investigating the UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF A CIA EMPLOYEE'S IDENTITY (mentions nothing about her status, overt or covert irrelevant?)
Next is a letter dated February 6, 2003
Dear Patrick:
AT YOUR REQUEST, I AM WRITING TO CLARIFY (emphasis mine), that my December 30,2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity"is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure,as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with,your investigation,such as perjury,obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence,and intimidation of witnesses;to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted;and to pursue administrative remedies and civil
sanctions (such as civil contempt)that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue.Further,my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel"in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600."
Once again, no mention of her status?
So, why did Fitz request clarification of the SCOPE of his investigation just 5 weeks into the investigation? Had he already determined that it was already 'known' that Plame worked for the CIA, and is it a coincidence that this letter (prompted by Fitz) contain a definition SPECIFIC to the kind of charges needed to trip up Libby?
sign me thoroughly confused |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
