05/02/2006
Intelligence officials: CIA operative Valerie Plame working on tracking Iran's nuclear program when she was outed. AmericaBlog: "Karl Rove personally set back this nation's efforts to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. We are at war. And we are about to get involved in our third war, specifically because we don't have enough information about Iran's nuclear program, and part of the reason we don't is Karl Rove. What Karl Rove did is an offense worth of treason. And what is George Bush's response to the fact that one of his top aides intentionally and maliciously hurt our ability to stop Iran from getting nukes?? Nothing. Rove is still working out of the White House, with George Bush's blessing." Crooks & Liars: "If Iran is such a threat, why does Bush still have on his staff a man (Rover) who betrayed the identity of a CIA agent that was working on this very serious issue?"
Posted 11:55 AM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is clearly the fault of the liberal media.
Posted by: David | May 2, 2006 12:17:03 PM
If the CIA is so poorly staffed that the "outing" of one person sets back a program critically then the agency should be scrapped and we should out source our intelligence programs to Mossad.
Posted by: James | May 2, 2006 12:19:56 PM
I'm amazed.
Clinton's BJ caused a witch-hunt.
Bush's top advisor outs an agent for political smear and is on government payroll. Torture, domestic spying, Jeff Gannon, Katrina....all under Republican leadership. What a joke. I have never been more ashamed of the way our country is run.
One solution: VOTE DEMOCRAT
Posted by: Shorty | May 2, 2006 12:21:20 PM
Well, James, when Valerie Plame was outed, we lost more than just one person. Ms. Plame had worked for years in a front business that had been set up by the CIA for the purpose of tracking WMDs and the spread of nuclear technology. Not only were there employees at this company, the company and its employees had contacts throughout the middle east. That is how we were to gather information on the threat.
However, when Plame was outed, the front company for which she worked had to be shut down. What's worse is that each and every secret service organization in the world then started tracking each person that Plame and company worked with. Those persons lives were put in extreme danger, and it is not beyond the pale to think that folks were killed because of it. In short, there existed an entire network of folks who could right now be providing us with the information we need to avert a war with Iran. But that network was sacrificed so that the GOP could win the election in Nov 2004.
Now, imagine that you are a NOC agent for the US, even if it is something wholly unrelated to the middle east. It is your job to make contacts and get information. How easy must it be to do that when everyone in the world nows that the President and his ilk are willing to sacrifice that NOC agent and his contacts for mere political purposes. Gotta be tough, don't you think?
Also, given your comment, there is the chance that you don't know what a NOC agent is. It is a agent under Non-Official cover. That means if another country finds that agent spying and arrests him, the US will admit to nothing regarding the person. He is a person without a country. Agents under official cover will be deported back to the US, but a NOC agent is left to the good graces of the country on whom he was spying. That is, he will likely be shot.
How comfortable do you think our NOC agents are right now?
Posted by: Kyle Childress | May 2, 2006 12:53:41 PM
Whatever ... blah blah blah... you hate Bush, you hate Republicans, tell me something new. If it isn't this, it's something else. How about arguing about ideas, instead of these bitchy pointless go-nowhere fights?
Posted by: GayDissenter | May 2, 2006 1:15:31 PM
Thank you for that bitchy, pointless response to a substantial and well-considered comment.
Now perhaps Shorty will enlighten us about how voting for Democrats will solve everything...
Posted by: 24play | May 2, 2006 1:20:44 PM
I think Kyle *was* arguing ideas. The ideas he was talking about are about national security and foreign policy. Kyle's comment never mentioned hating Republicans or even Bush... it was about seriously flawed decision-making that did not have the best interests of the United States at heart. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I could concede the fact that he was pretty much all talk where gay rights were concerned. Funny how many Republicans find it impossible to be objective regarding Bush and his staff. I think it might have more to do with Republicans basing their support for Bush not on opinions (which can be changed easily given new information), but rather on belief (which is much more difficult to change because it's based on emotion rather than evidence). It's fascinating. While it's not great for the country, it's a brilliant strategy on the part of the GOP.
Posted by: Brian | May 2, 2006 1:24:51 PM
Oops, instead of "he" I should have typed "Clinton" (being all talk about gay rights). I should preview my posts more often. :-(
Posted by: Brian | May 2, 2006 1:26:49 PM
I can't speak for Shorty, but I think at a minimum it is valid to point out that Democrats, in general and pretty much across the board, are opposed to treason. That alone would put us one step ahead of the folks running the GOP.
Posted by: Kyle Childress | May 2, 2006 1:28:59 PM
Yes, of course, Kyle.
I'm sure if you polled 100 Republicans, they'd all agree that theirs is the Party of Treason. (As opposed to, say, all those anti-war, free-speech lovin', givin'-comfort-to-the-enemy, cut-n-run Democrats.)
I'm sorry, but weren't you being absolutely reasonable--thoughtful even--just a handful of posts ago? What happened?
Posted by: 24play | May 2, 2006 1:40:45 PM
Was it ever really established that Plame was NOC at the time she was "outed"? I understand that she was openly-working at CIA-Lamgley at that time; that would make her "formerly NOC". I would think that proper tradecraft would be to have rolled-up her covert contacts first before having a NOC openly-work at CIA-Langley. And since she doesn't seem to be very "professional" about her tradecraft; I can't see the woman as any-sort-of critical linch-pin in the issue of Iran's WMD. Especially as she was outed years ago at this point.
She's just the media darling of the liberal MSM, and a stalking horse.
Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | May 2, 2006 1:40:55 PM
Dude, the Plame thing is crap. In 3 years Fitzgerald hasn't managed to charge a single person with leaking her covert status, because she wasn't covert & it wasn't leaked. She was so covert the CIA had no problem with her husband writing a NY Times oped about a trip she herself had sent him on. As Hitchens says, you can't deny your wife sent you to Niger, then claim the proof she did is a state secret. How Aravosis pulls Rove out of his ass into this mess is unclear, but then Aravosis still thinks Jeff Gannon was some sort of conspiracy, which even the ultra-lib Nation scoffed at.
The only charges are Martha Stewart charges against Libby, ie, crimes invented while investigating a non-crime to justify an investigation, except in Libby's case, he'll be acquitted. However, I'm pleased to see liberals upset about leaks, as I'm sure you'll all support the prosecution of Mary McCarthy. Oh wait - we like THAT leak...
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | May 2, 2006 1:46:47 PM
Mary McCarthy didn't leak anything. She was fired and then the republikkkans went out to smear her. She wasn't in a position to have the information they claim she leaked. It's another Rove lie. She was fired, not prosecuted, stupid.
Posted by: Brian NYC | May 2, 2006 2:01:37 PM
I'm SO tired of you right wing-nuts who show up on this board expecting to find more of your tired right wing bullshit! Do you bother to read this board? Or are you only looking for a fight? This is liberal at it's best, and it's gay to boot, and while I certainly believe that everyone in America has a right to free speech, I'm really beginning to question why your speech is so hateful and pointed positively towards those attempting to support your rights as a gay person. How can you continue to support a President and his regime (it's a regime, not an administration) who so badly wants to discriminate against you?? I'm at a loss as to why you guys feel that you must continue to defend this moron. And yes, I do believe he's a moron! I thought that when he was governor of my state, Texas, and I've never voted for him in any race.
I feel sorry for you.
Posted by: Wayne | May 2, 2006 2:09:37 PM
>>that network was sacrificed so
>>that the GOP could win the election
>>in Nov 2004
No way. Outing Plame did nothing to help Bush win the election. In fact, I might even say "the 16 words" did nothing to convince people on Iraq. After the SOTU speech, how many people and papers were talking about those lines? None. It was all about bio/chemical weapons.
Posted by: huh@huh.com | May 2, 2006 2:32:37 PM
Some responses:
To 24Play: You will note in my comment that the reference to treason was to the folks running the GOP--Bush, Rove et al. No, I would not anticipate that very many Republicans would list treason as the reason they stay with the party. Nonetheless, the party appears to be full of apologists (which seems to include all GOP senators and house members) who are willing to overlook what I think is treason, or worse, like some folks on here, they try to discount the facts and dismiss the crimes that were committed. For example, there is no question that Plame was a NOC agent--NONE. But still, the GOP talking points get out there and the poor idiots who are too lazy to read the facts just push them along in some desparate attempt to postpone the day when they have to admit to themselves that they have been duped.
To Huh@Huh.com, according to Murray Waas, the outing of Plame was in retaliation to her husband's comments in the NY op-ed piece about the Niger uranium. They feared the piece would reveal the specious evidence that was used to take us to war, and feared that if that evidence was revealed it would be difficult to win the election. Whether it was ultimately useful or not is beside the point. The point is that that is the reason they did it.
To Bueautifulatrocities:
You poor dear.
Posted by: Kyle Childress | May 2, 2006 3:18:44 PM
No suprise. Not in our lifetime have we seen this dangerous level of arrogance and corruption. It will all come home to roost very soon.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | May 3, 2006 8:24:50 PM