Agreed. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle these leakers are on - they're harming vital national security assets and should be held accountable for such leaks.

It's about time that we had a few public hangings to give the rest of these idiots the message. They just don't get it. How many Al Quaeda operatives might there be in Mesopotamia?

Just a thought (and Christopher Hitchens hinted at it as well) there may be no insider. This could be a psyop to divide AQIZ and cause AQ at large to cut off ties. No way to know for sure. But if the effect is the same, in this one single case, hurray for the "leaker" if it keeps these guys from knowing who to trust and ruins their support from the AQ at large. That might actually have more of an impact than any further targeting this informant could provide.

The way I heard it described, someone told us who his religious mentor was and we followed that guy around for two weeks until they showed up at the same place. If that was the way we were lead to him, along with the fact that we rolled up 17 other not-so safe houses (presumably also on this informant's information) his usefulness was probably done. BTW - he collected $10K up front and will be receiving the balance of his reward - $24,990,000 - well, probably now.

Everything I described was "open source" - on the radio yesterday.

NED

ABCNEWS blog is reporting that a captured aide told on Z.

ABC Blog

As early news and matured news gets reported on this, the rest of the weekend is going to be really interesting.

If the report you cited is true, the leaker needs to be dealt with with extreme prejudice. QED

Probably a sanctioned leak. If so, do your criticisms stand?

I also thought it was psych-ops as well: claim an insider helped so everyone who survives distrusts each other. But that is too complicated. A little reflection leads to the realization that to get the guy always required someone on the inside. So the "leak" only confirms the obvious.

Yet allowing cheney/libby and others to out valerie plame who was working on Iran wmd is ok...hypocrite!

What the ever-loving Hell does the unrelated revelation of Virginia-bound CIA desk-jockey's name have to do with this crrrent incident whatsoever? The correct answer, for those of you with Daou Syndrome, is "nothing."

As for "special" people like matt, my stance on Plame was and is this:

I'll take everything I hear regarding "Plamegate" with a mine full of salt until Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald lays out his case, at which point I hope justice is served.

Hypocritical? I think not.

newenglanddevil: News story I read this morning said the person we followed perished in the raid along with Zarqawi.

I'm also more of the opinion that this "leak" was psyops than anything else. If in fact it was an unauthorized leak, though, lock him/her up.

I hadn't thought of that. If this was just a case of loose lips someone needs jail time.

One other possibility though: maybe the asset essentially revealed his identity while betraying Zarkawi, or perhaps he requested a relocation as part of the deal.

Lex, if you read my post carefully, you'll note that the informant did not meet with Zarqawi. The informant told us who to follow. And the guy we followed is dead. The informant is... ???

NED

It was reported BEFORE Z got nailed that he had become a loose cannon in al Qaeda and was about to be wasted, either internally or externally. So, once again, BushCo is doing bin Laden's bidding, just like we did when we pulled our basis out of Saudi at bin Laden's demand. You who think that there actually is a "war on terror" have so drunk the Koolaid.

Folks, I wish you'd put just a little more thought behind your comments. There is already a tremendous amount of distrust within al Qaeda, and adding more simply makes it more difficult to recruit, infiltrate, and turn assets.

This does not pass the sniff test to be a sanctioned leak. Any disruption more suspicion could cause, is in no way near as valuable as a senior member that could have rolled up all of al Qaeda's senior leadership in Iraq.

Now, as McCarthy notes, the leaker provided enough information about him to threaten this asset's life. He will mostly likely be pulled if we can get to him, or killed if we can't, and in either event he is of no futher use.

This was a bad leak.

CY - is the information I described information that came from the leak or is it information which was open source? If what I described was part of the leak then I agree with you. If the DOD made it a press release - then even if it's a stupid press release, it isn't a leak.

NED

tinhat,

just what was your source for "pulled our basis out of Saudi"? As far as I know, we never had permenant bases in Saudi Arabia. Just some room to work in Saudi bases. At least from what I heard when I was there. But I am sure your source will be much more informed than a guy who was actually there, as you libs usually think. BTW, your other problem, the z meister was not an AQ loose cannon. If OBL wanted the z meister gone, he would have been gone. Al that Juan Cole crap is really beginning to stink up the place. The z meister had a long relationship with OBL who saw him as uncouthed and brutal, the exact guy he needed in Iraq. Do not mistake an order by OBL to tone things down a bit as an order to stop slaughtering Iraqis. Or else al Qaeda would have stopped it. Sorry for the harsh reality check.

NED, I refer you back to the article quoted [my bold]:

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia provided the critical piece of intelligence about Mr. Rahman's meeting with Mr. Zarqawi.

The Pentagon official knowingly leaked classified operational intelligence. It was no press release.

Careful what you wish for -- it might be Rumsfeld.

Who may have done so on super-secret orders from the Vice President.

Dick just loves outing secret agents, don't ya know.

Daeth to the leakers!!

Death to Karen Hughes!!!

I don't see how the Valerie Plame scandal pertains here.

On the other hand, as NewEnglandDevil pointed out, there was a huge reward, so likely the informant was an opportunist, not an asset. In that case nothing of value was leaked.

Actually make the $26 million -- Bruce Willis pledged to kick in another million.

Looks like somebody decided to get his 72 virgins in this world instead of the next.

A pentagon based leak like this came either from:
A civilian appointee
or a military officer under orders from a superior and/or a civilian appointee.
Still comes down to selective leaking from someone put there by Rumsfeld or one of his people...sure you want a firing squad? Go ahead.

"I'll take everything I hear regarding "Plamegate" with a mine full of salt until Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald lays out his case, at which point I hope justice is served...

Hypocritical? I think not."

Right, because you will take everything you hear regarding this leak with a mine full of salt until a special prosecutor lays out the case against the leaker, at which point you hope justice is served.

Both get the mine full of salt treatment, right?

Hypocritical?

Craig, the people in Plame case all profess innocence, and indeed, semo are speculating that Fitzgerald may eventually drop the case at this point because of the apparent lack of evidence.

In this case, the official told to the reporter that he was passing along classified information that he wasn't supposed to. That is a confession.

Do you, or do you not understand the difference?

In case I was too subtle for Confederate Yankee:

For this case:

"This man should be hunted down ruthlessly, exposed, and imprisoned, or if allowed by law, executed as a warning to others. I’m talking, of course, about the “Pentagon official” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified.”"

For Plame, did he write:

"This man should be hunted down ruthlessly, exposed, and imprisoned, or if allowed by law, executed as a warning to others. I’m talking, of course, about the “Administration official” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because the identity of NOC's are classified.”

Or, did he write:

"I'll take everything I hear regarding "Plamegate" with a mine full of salt until Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald lays out his case..."

Last I checked, no Bush administration official has been charged with leaking Plame's identity. BTW, did it ever occur to anybody that may be because it wasn't a Bush Admin official? Seems if Fitzgerald had so a strong case, we would have seen that by now. Libby was charged with lying to the FBI, but it seems that is not really a big deal to dems anyway.

Time

"A VOICE FROM THE PAST (2/28/01 [a.m.]): Former housing secretary Henry Cisneros, who was among those granted last-minute pardons from the former president, tells the Dallas Morning News that Clinton granted his pardon in part to remedy the "extremes" of the independent counsels. Clinton reportedly told Cisneros (who was accused of lying to the FBI about payments he allegedly made to a former mistress) that he suspected the HUD chief was investigated because he was close to Clinton."

So if Libby gets convicted of lying to the FBI, it is only fair that he get a pardon......right? heh

This is plain stupid.

None of us know about internal Pentagon matters or if this was an unoffical or offical leak. We can sit here and speculate and call for firing squads, but all that's going to do is get us nowhere. Let the Pentagon handle this. If this is as serious a leak as CY's sensationalist post makes it out to be, the Pentagon will handle it.

I have a response, but for some reason it's getting a 'questionable content error'.

No, there's nothing profane or name-calling in it.

So, I can't post it.

It's entirely possible that the "leak" was a deliberate falsehood planted by the CIA to confuse the enemy. Suppose the CIA does not have a source in the enemy camp: wouldn't it make sense to pretend that it did in order to sow confusion and mistrust? Granted, the CIA's past record of conducting black ops does not inspire confidence that they could act with this degree of subtlety, but it's possible.

The same tactic has been used by US intellegence regularly for at least 40 years in both foriegn and domestic actions. The fastest way to break up a conspiracy is to ensure that the conspirators can't trust each other. I think the leak was deliberate.

Perhaps he or she could have shortened the war to some extent, and in doing so, could have saved the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, or more likely, save the lives of the Iraqi soldiers, police, and civilians who have been the ...

Dude, please. Are you serious? Zarqawi was the *justification* for conflating Al Qaeda (which he was not even involved with at the time we invaded) with Saddam Hussein.

We had multiple chances to take him out, and it's been documented that we let him continue to run around in northern Iraq, where Saddam had no influence or power, so we could use the fact that he was there (in opposition to Saddam, no doubt) to justify the inane Bush/Cheney theory that Saddam was working with terrorists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Spare us the crying about loose lips.

I am inclined to think it is psy-ops myself. CNN is now reporting that some of the data came from satellite phones. The NYT reported this am that the terrorists use them because they think they cannot be traced, or as easily traced. they even know the name of the manufacturer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/world/middleeast/09raid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin By saying we can track them, we may reduce their ability to use those phones.

It is hard to fathom this kind of leaking at this level of specificity unless we want that information in the open.

Stupid liberals at the NYT just gave our latest tricks away! Now they won't use cell or sattelite phones or the internet and will have to use carrier pigeons!
Oh, wait - maybe that weakens their organization.

Nevermind.

A little reflection leads to the realization that to get the guy always required someone on the inside. So the "leak" only confirms the obvious.

Of course -- but you'd like it to be crafted so someone else you'd like to see get dead gets to take the blame rather than your guy.

Gotta love all the TinFoilHats comin out. It's another conspiracy dreamed up by Rove to take the heat off, right? What a bunch of maroons....

Zarqawi Snitch in Custody of Jordanian Police for Months

The U.S. does not approve of torture, claims President Bush. Does anyone have any doubt that Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, the Iraqi customs inspector who turned on Zaqarwi after being arrested and held for months by the Jordanian police, talked as a result of being subjected to torture? Connect the dots. More here.

An Iraqi customs agent secretly working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror cell spilled the beans on the group after he was arrested, Jordanian officials tell ABC News. Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly was arrested by Jordanian intelligence forces last spring.

Officials say Karbouly confessed to his role in the terror cell and provided crucial information on the names of Zarqawi commanders and locations of their safe houses. Karbouly also admitted to his role in the kidnappings of two Moroccan embassy employees, four Iraqi National Guards and an Iraqi finance ministry official.

In a videotaped confession, Karbouly said he acted on direct orders from Zarqawi.

So now we use information gained from torture to murder our target. What makes us different from them?

One more time for the freeking retarded left wingers. Plame was nothing but a 'clerk' at the CIA. She drove in and out of the facility daily in an open vehicle. Everyone in D.C. old enough to have a drink knew who she was and what she did. Her and traitor Joe were out and about showing off and bragging every weekend. Get a life. forget about the clerk.

How many times must we be lied to and misled by the powers that be for you wingnuts to realize that this "leaker" was putting out just exactly what the Pentagon and White House WANT YOU TO BELIEVE?? This wasn't a leak, it was a f*ucking press release. You guys are so gullible that you probably believe Saddam: a) had something to do with 9/11 b) had weapons of mass destruction c) being overthrown made the US safer rather than more dangerous. You lot need to question authority, including Fox News and Rush.

Jesus Christ, but that is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on the Internets. Could you be more of an ignorant clown?

Wait, I already know the answer to that. Of course you can. There is no lower bound to conservative stupidity.

He wasn't an asset, he wasn't an informer, he was a stoolie.

I don't think our side gives a lick about him now that he's served his purpose.

The problem with conspiracy theories, is that for there to be a conspiracy it requires too many people know about the conspiracy. They might be ignorant of the outcome, but they are part of the conspiracy. It takes very little to out them. ZAK! was engaging in conspiracy, thats why, once it was exposed, and operational info was gathered that it was easy to destroy him, and engage in the fruitful raids that followed.

He wasn't an asset, he wasn't a sell-out collection $25 mil, he was a stoolie begging not to be executed in Jordan.

Scrapmetal, I DO agree with your well argued and cogent point that there is no lower bound to conservative stupidity. I am also impressed with the conciseness of your moronic name calling. It truely adds to the discussion at hand.

Again, some far from erudite blogger calls for hanging a leaker on the pretense that he or she is harming national security. And ConYank does this without having the slightest notion of how contrary to American principles his imbecilic rant is. 10 to 1 ConYank has never left the bench/sideline in his life to serve his country in any capacity.

Iraq's National Security Advisor and a Jordanian official confirmed that an inside source was the key. I hardly think the Pentagon "leak" gave away anything.

So you people are conspiring to MURDER a Pentagon official? I will enjoy giving this information to the FBI. As luck would have it, one of my friends is married to an agent. I hope all you traitors enjoy what you get.

Posting in multiple parts to fit in size limitation.

"So now we use information gained from torture to murder our target. What makes us different from them?"

You have to understand, that for the right wing, that is not the issue.

The real issue is that they enjoy feeling powerful.

It's why they contort situations into creating an enemy, with only one solution - to imprison, kill, or at least dominate them. They'll frame issues in ways there's only one answer; how can you 'trust' an enemy not to attack you? You can't, so you must kill him first.

It's why they are so worhipful of the military power, the big weapons, the troops - because they think of all that as part of their own power, protecting them. It feels good, and nyone who raises any issues of the just use of power, the overspending on the military, is taking away their feeling of power, and so that person will be attacked blindly. They're a coward, they're supporting evil and terrorists, they're naive fools who would cause the fall of our country, whatever the attack of the day is. It's why they have to neutralize any military figures who challenge them - swift boating Kerry so he's not a 'real' war hero but a creep who faked his own injuries and wrote the reports for his medals, the generals who are selling out to write a book for money, and so on.

Part 2:

It's why the right will always accept any excuse about something the enemy does wrong to say we're justified in attacking; even if you could prove the enemy was 'better' than us in the issue at hand, it just wouldn't matter because the bottom line for them is the desire for the power.

Now, it'll never be put so nakedly to them - there are always propaganda messages to tell them that that's not the case, they only the most noble principles are being served, and that we have the highest standards for our conduct - but it's a nudge nudge wink wink situation, where real reports of things like secret CIA prisons and extraordinary rendition for torture - even the president hiding the info from Congress - Just Don't Matter to them, becuase it's part of their power.

It's not that they're evil people who knowingly support wrong; it's that they are locked into the propaganda giving them a perfectly reasonable way to look at the issues, and they don't really look at the contrary facts.

This is why even the greatest nations doing evil, becoming tyrannical, is so damned easy.

The right doesn't see who is really their enemy, and so they support the wrong policies thinking they're opposing a real threat when they're really just being manipulated most of the time to support things for completely different reasons.

Part 3:

Of *course* Reagan invaded Grenada to 'protect American Medical students'. Of *course* drug offenses were the real reason for our invading Panama and removing Noriega. Of *course* we weren't involved in the aborted coup against Chaves in Venezuela.

The right wing just pays their taxes to support the machine, which is their only real role to play in the system, and accepts the messages designed to keep them complacent in doing so.

So, the argument of 'since we torture, how are we different' doesn't really carry any weight with them; the answer need be no more than 'it's for our side, not theirs'. If we're the ones in jeopardy of being tortured, we can get on our high horse about how wrong it is and use it as an issue; when we're the ones doing the torturing, out come the explanations that the saving of innocent lives justifies the torture of those who choose to do evil.

Part 4:

What we have here is the textbook illustration of just HOW 'power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'. What we should do is to question how to pursue just goals with just means, and use our power with such limits, more than we do.

But all those nicities fall by the side, as noted above, much of the time as our country lets the crooks and the evil lead us to harm and problems because of the lack of vigilence by too many citizens to preserve our principles and to restrain our leaders.

Principles move from being something we follow, to something we claim to have to justify our wars.

What can we do? Try to spread the truth, and get 51% of voters to see things clearly.

Visiting lefty here; thanks for a great blog.
Coupla quick points -- first, if this really is a case where info that could have been gained only by torture, then it was bloody well worth it. It would be better, though, if the current administration at least didn't make it so obvious to the entire world -- and to our enemies -- that we're engaging (at one remove, by way of "rendition") so much in this torture. It takes away the single most valuable weapon our country has ever had: our moral authority as the beacon of freedom and righteousness that we have historically at least tried to portray ourselves as, and often been viewed as being. We enjoy much greater success in the world in all our legitimate aims (the ones that have to do with spreading freedom and democracy; not to mention the ones that have to do with securing markets, resources, or strategic alliances for the sake of power alone, rather than to further the spread of liberty) when we do so in ways consistent with the stated intent of those aims. Our moral force is the equal or superior of an awful big chunk of our armed force -- and is a force multiplier when they are used together.
I may have it a space linit; second point in next post.

Second point: Isn't it interesting how nobody here has yet brought up that time (I think it was August '04?) that the Bush administration outed an Al Qaeda double-agent in Pakistan (name was Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan; google it), choosing to take the political benefits of a major intelligence success, at the price of burning the source. While it would be nice to believe that this leak/press briefing/whatever were part of a sophisticated psy-op on our enemies (yes, they ARE our enemies to almost all of us on the left, too; if you claim otherwise, you’re either lying, stupid, or deluded. This isn’t 1968, and ain’t nobody here chanting for Osama the way a small bunch of deranged psycho hippies chanted for Uncle Ho.), it's at least as likely that it's just the same old "let's make political hay" move, even if it comes at the cost of future triumphs.

Smartalek, with all due respect, you are not sounding like a 'lefty' when you suggest a policy of continuing torture, but just hiding it better for pr reasons. I would't even assign that nasty view to the right, other than the corrupt few of them.

There's a reason why the 'moral advantage' has benefits, it's because we're behaving morally.

The point is not to play a Machiavelli wannabe and use the issue of morality for political gain.

That's the point that involves choices: do we value 'effectiveness' more and an 'ends justify the means' approach, or do we value certain standards of human decency which lead us to make some sacrifices for them?

You want to have your cake and it it too, but that is not only dishonest, it undermines the very ability of nations to 'do the right thing' and get anycredit for it, as suspicions are increased about anyone claiming to do so when some lie.

What we need is more transparency to what our government is doing, not less.

If we need to do something, let's stand behind it, and argue for it. Others can disagree.

But we'll get some credit for the honesty. And it's the right way to do things, including for a democracy, where the peopel are supposed to have some choice about the policies tey vote for rather than be lied to and denied the information on what the government does in their name.

I do not support the torture, period. My position has a cost, and I think it's worth paying.

smartalek makes a good point. The administration has outed one of its own moles before to reap political gain. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a similar situation.

If that turns out to be the case, I look forward to reading CY's "execute Bush" post.

Scrapmetal, I DO agree with your well argued and cogent point that there is no lower bound to conservative stupidity. I am also impressed with the conciseness of your moronic name calling. It truely adds to the discussion at hand.

This is a perfect example of what is expected by the wing nuts after the introduction of the unwritten false equivalency policy of the purported liberal MSM a couple of years ago.

You see, dude - when a post is so stupid as to preclude any "discussion" on the basis of merit, there simply is no reason to debate one can only make sense of the lunacy by humor and name calling.

And, truely [sic] even you can see that, right?

For god's sake, even the author of the blog entry here has quit defending his inane theory. And that says quite a lot, don't you think?

(The earlier blocked post, part 1)

"Craig, the people in Plame case all profess innocence, and indeed, semo are speculating that Fitzgerald may eventually drop the case at this point because of the apparent lack of evidence."

Yes, Scott McClellan assured us that Rove and Libby said they had NOTHING TO DO with the leak.

That was false, we now know.

"In this case, the official told to the reporter that he was passing along classified information that he wasn't supposed to. That is a confession."

So, when Rove and Libby discuss Plame's identity with reporters, that's not a confession, even though they then lie about having done so until they are caught; but when a Pentagon official discusses the leaker's identity with a reporter, that's "a confession".

(Part 2)

Identity of a NOC, identity of a source - both are things that are not supposed to be leaked.

Harm to our non-proliferation efforts, and exposing the people who co-operated with Plame to danger, and undermining the confidence of future people in their identity being protected; harm to our anti-terrorism efforts, exposing the source and his family, undermining future trust of sources in their identities being protected by the Pentagon.

Administration official discusses NOC id with reporters; Pentagon discussed source id with NBC.

These sound awfully similar. In fact, the main difference now is that we know the motive for the Plame leak was the worst sort, political in nature, in response to Wilson's revealing an embarrassing truth (which the White House had to concede within the next couple days) as they tried to attack Wilson through his CIA NOC wife. We don't know the Pentagon official's motive. "Do you, or do you not understand the similarities?"

Uhhh...Craig,

You might want to study up on PlameGate before you get your shorts twisted too much further. First off - NOONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH LEAKING PLAME'S NAME. Get it yet? Why do you think that is? Could it be that it wasn't illegal to mention her name.

DO you know about UGO? Unidentified Government Official? The one who tol Woodward well before Libby talked to any reporter (weeks....)? Guess not. Why hasn't he been charged with leaking the name? Get over it.

Remember that part of either statute that would have to be used to charge illegal leaking is that the "agent" had to be posted abroad sometime in the last 5 years. Not the case here. The other thing is that the CIA has to actively attempt to protect the agent's ID. So when Hadley was called and told Cooper (was it cooper - i think so) that she worked for the agency that part got thrown out. What we have is a multimillion dollar boondoggle that ends up being he said/he said. Geez...try studying the data.

Specter,

I didn't say it WAS illegal: I'm saying it was wrong.

If you can't see that it was wrong, then you are sadly blinded by partisanship.

At best, you have remained terribly uninformed and accepted a dishonest version of the facts.

If Bush came out tomorrow and said, "Here are all the names of the democrats who are undercover for the CIA", it may not be illegal - thecan and should be able to have authority over classification exceeding the government's, since he's the people's agent - but it'd be wrong.

The 5 year requirement is for the statue - not for being a NOC who has a terrible impact if exposed.

First, you have offered no proof she was not on an overseas mission in 5 years; second, the question of whether she was is irrelevant to the issue of the harm it caused and the wrong it did. If you don't know the story on NOC's, you can get a good summary from James Bamford's latest book.

You are the one who needs to get the facts, on hw she was working on WMD proliferation issues, and how her contacts are put in jeopardy by her exposure, and the effect it has both on people being willing to trust the CIA for confidentiality and agents' trust. Agents are very upset.

And I don't want you to post the right-wing nonsensical fallacies like how exposing her name to Cuba years ago accidentally makes her useless for undercover work in, say, the Middle East. There's no 'unfriendly regimes newsletter' where they share the info.

If we can have undercover cops work for years in the samed city, getting exposed over and over as they arrest drug dealers and others, and still be effective for more undercover work, we can sure as heck have an agent exposed to Cuba and be useful.

uhhh....Craig...what contacts did she have? Do you know? Besides some MSM report? C'Mon....she was identified in the NIE as a desk jockey. Some undercover work. Same in the SSCI. No laws were broken. And you still never answered the question about UGO. So much that you know....

Specter, you are spewing nonsense to try to win a partisan point you are wrong on.

As the handy Wikipedia notes:

"Former CIA official Larry C. Johnson, who left the CIA in 1989, indicated Plame had been a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." Later, he wrote that "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.""

It also quotes the Washington Post on her role:

"The Boston Globe also editorialized: "Once before, Plame was caught up in a case illustrating how costly it can be for a CIA officer to be in danger of having her cover exposed. The agency called Plame home in 1997 in fear that Aldrich Ames, the notorious Soviet mole inside the CIA, had revealed her true identity to his KGB handlers.... Such betrayals might have been expected in the Cold War. They should not occur because political operatives in the White House want to tarnish the reputation of a critic or settle scores with a CIA they may regard as too reluctant to tailor its analyses to the talking points of a vice president or a president."

So, what contacts did she have? The ones you might expect as she is investigating WMD proliferation under a cover, working in the nuclear industry, not to mention whoever had trusted her in her work until she was recalled following her exposure to Russia.

One difference: Aldrich Ames exposed her once and is spending a long time in jail. The current officials did the same basic thing and are escaping accountability because of loopholes in the law, but that doesn't change the fact it's wrong.

As for the UGO - irrelevant. Woodward was given a lot of confidential information, rightly or wrongly; he was writing a book friendly to Bush's role in the Iraq war. Did he publish her name in the newspaper or book? No. If he had, he'd be the one in some trouble, but Libby and Rove are.

You are out not to discuss the truth, but to try to prove a lie because of your partisan bias.

Clarification: I'm not saying you know it's a lie, and are posting it knwoing that.

I'm saying it is a lie told by others, and you are believing and repeating it because you are blinded.

Larry Johnson? Have you heard of VIPs - the ex-CIA officers that advocate the leaking of national secrets? Guess not - he's a founding member. Just because he was CIA does not mean he actually knew Plame. Get a grip. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. You really need to look deeper into this whole thing. It is intriguing. What about UGO? Wasn't just Woodward - it was Cooper too. Keep up Craig.

You are irrational, in the common right-wing manner - character assassination to totally dismiss someone based on any criticism you can find of them. When Johnson lists the years Plame was overseas since 2000, you respond by saying he supports releasing national secrets, as if that disproves his statement. Your little group - well, not little enough - loves this approach. Ten people say something you don't like? Well that one was an advisor to Kerry, and the next once complimented Al Gore, and the one after was a supporter of Murtha's pull out the troops now defeatism, and so on for all ten - so everything they said is wrong. Irrational.

OK, show me where Cooper published her name beforethe officials leaked to Novak to publish.

If I used your bad reasoning, next I'd point out I've met Joe Wilson and heard the story firsthand, so if you haven't, then you are obviously wrong and ignorant on everything and have to meet him before you can say another word.

But why don't we not, and stick to the facts, which you have a score of zero on at the moment.

p.s. Johnson did not need to know Plame to say what he said.

Your changing the topic from what he said to whether he knew her is just another error.

p.p.s. The CIA lawyers reviewed the case to see whether there was sufficient cause for investigating a crime from the leak. The CIA that is part of *Bush's* administration.

The lawyers can read. The law says in its few sentences that the crime required overseas service in the last 5 years. The lawyers had access to her travel history. The lawyers decided the incident SHOULD be referred to the justice department for investigation.

Just a little logic shoud tell you overseas service in the last 5 years is implied.

Maybe you should get some of your info from somewhere other than make-it-up right-wing places.

p.p.p.s.

Cooper isn't exactly a guy supporting your argument that Rove and Libby did nothing wrong.

From wikipedia:
"Rove and his attorney do not dispute TIME Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's contemporaneous email and subsequent grand jury testimony, as related by Cooper himself, that he first learned Plame's identity from Rove."

Of course there's an innocent explanation for Rove's saying:

"Cooper's TIME Magazine article describing his grand jury testimony noted that Rove said, "I've already said too much.""

And from Dkosopedia:
"Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that ..."he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This ...statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

One more time for the freeking retarded left wingers. Plame was nothing but a 'clerk' at the CIA. She drove in and out of the facility daily in an open vehicle. Everyone in D.C. old enough to have a drink knew who she was and what she did. Her and traitor Joe were out and about showing off and bragging every weekend. Get a life. forget about the clerk.
Posted by: Scrapiron at June 9, 2006 09:27 PM

If she was such a low level clert, why did the CIA ask the "Justice department to agressively pursue the source of the outings? You righties like to paint this as a partisan attack on your God-boy W by pant, pant, "THE LIBERALS" but it was initiated by the CIA because a deep cover operative's cover was blown along with the background corproation set up that was bearding the whold operation. Only the CIA knows how many agent's covers were blown by this Bush/cheney/Rove dirty trick.

It is sad that there has been no mention of the fact in this blog or the mainstream media that the Bush Administration was asked three times by the Pentagon to eliminate Zarqawi when they knew his whereabouts (sources: NBC and Washington Post)in the run-up to the war due to the concern by the State Department that Zarquawi would do the things he ended up doing; and three times the Bush Administration denied permission to take him out before we invaded. The Wall Street Journal has an excellent synopis as to the why (I will let you draw your own conclusions, http://zfacts.com/p/653.html).

My conclusion based on all available reading as to why Bush denied permission on three occasions to assassinate Zarqawi prior to our invasion is that he didn't want to destroy his "link to al Qaeda".

So once again, politics trumped policy, dozens of our soldiers and hundreds of innocent civilians died because of those decisions, and everyone is running around crowing about the death of Zarqawi with a only a few knowing the history of why he stayed alive so long.

Actually, Julian, al-Zarqawi was not the primary link to al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri was. He's still around, and is rumored to be stepping into the leadership role now that Z-man is dust.

Thanks for playing.

Way to miss the point, CY.

The military having three request to go after al-Zarqawi, the administration denying them all in order to keep him around to strengthen their case for war (the war they said they didn't want, lying), and the casualties from Zarqawi are the issue; whether there was another guy too is irrelevant.

I'd say thanks for playing, but you didn't. You avoided the game.

Hold on a minute.

You've been griping since 2003 that we went into Iraq illegally even after we went to UNSC repeatedly, got the AUMF, and even had hundreds of incidents where Saddam instigated combat by firing up on U.S. airplanes in the No-Fly War, and yet all of a sudden, you complain becuase we didn't take the unilateral step of invading Iraq and dropping bombs on al-Zarqawi while we were still trying to negotiate a resumption of inspections?

At the same time, haven't many leftists been saying that Iraq had no terrorist ties?

Either al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion, or it wasn't. You can't keep changing your claims to make your cause de jour.

"Hold on a minute.

You've been griping since 2003 that we went into Iraq illegally even after we went to UNSC repeatedly, got the AUMF, and even had hundreds of incidents where Saddam instigated combat by firing up on U.S. airplanes in the No-Fly War, and yet all of a sudden, you complain becuase we didn't take the unilateral step of invading Iraq and dropping bombs on al-Zarqawi while we were still trying to negotiate a resumption of inspections?

At the same time, haven't many leftists been saying that Iraq had no terrorist ties?

Either al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion, or it wasn't. You can't keep changing your claims to make your cause de jour."

You can, obviously. That works both ways - you're saying that we had every authority to implement no-fly zones unilaterally not in any treaty or UN resolution, to keep our forces on the border, attack their air defenses, and invade the nation to remove the government, but not kill Zarqawi.

You're trying to have it both ways as much or more than the other side.

This is a common fallacy, to hold the other side accountable for supposed inconsistencies while ignoring your own, mirroning inconsistencies. So why don't we skip it, and hold people accountable to their own positions.

In that case, you cannot use any position or inconsistency by others to defend your own.

(Nor can others).

So, why don't you try answering the issue of the White House blocking the military at least three times from killing Zarqawi, for politics, allowing him to kill many more people, only using your own positions, and not trying to mix in the views of war opponents and leave the issue unanswered?

If you're just a blind partisan who can do nothing but support one side right or wrong, say so.

Otherwise, answer the question and admit fault where needed.

And then, I'll answer for my own issues with Zarqawi and the war, but you can't hide behind it.

Remember - it's the republicans who own the White House and made the decisions, who are accountable.

Your argment is so weak, it's like answering the charge about Reagan trading arms for hostages after he said he woudln't, or pulling out of Lebanon after saying we'd not back down to acts of terror, by finding some democrat who said we should negotiate with terrorists.

It's not the point - the point is holding him accountable within his own stated views.

He's accountable both for whether his stated views are the right policy - and for following them.

In this case, the White House played politics and cost innocent lives for those politics.

Even if the democrats would have not killed him for some reason such as not violating Iraq's sovereignity - and it's not at all clear that's the case - at least they'd have said why and taken responsibility, which this president has not done. Instead, he's lied about the policy.

He wants it both ways - as you do.

So the United States "unilaterally" imposed a no-fly zone, Craig?

That must be very shocking news to the United Nations Security Council, which passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as part of a humanitarian mission to keep Saddam from using more of his WMDs on the Kurdish people. France and Great Britain also provided aircraft for this "unilateral" act.

It is also important to note that the various air forces flying in protection of the Kurdish people to the north and the Shiites to the south did not go on purposeful bombing missions against their air defenses as you imply, and they only fired when threatened. This defensive engagement of Iraqi AA sites was an act of self-preservation, and a far cry from the pre-emptive acts of aggression that you would call for with a offensive strike on ground targets in Iraq.

Even you should be able to tell the difference between defensive fire in support of a humanitarian mission, and the problems of launching a pre-emptive air strike.

That you would try to make these two kinds of missions equivalent is quite telling, and more than a little reprehensible.

So, too, is your attempt to conflate you new desire to have bombed al-Zarqawi at some point in the past with the political realities of four years ago.

At that time, we were ramping up for war, but hoping that Saddam would bow out, and either choose abdication (which was eventually refused by his Arab neighbors) or resume full U.N. inspections. We were still holding out hope of a diplomatic solution. If the President had followed your "bomb Zarqawi first, diplomacy be damned" solution, it would have been a catastrophic blow to any hopes of a peaceful resolution, not to mention an act of aggression for which you would now be calling for his impeachment.

You really need to come up with a realistic expectations, Craig. You cannot ask Bush to have been omnipotent, and go ahead and bomb targets in Iraq knowing that Saddam would chose war anyway despite his other available options.

I don't want anything two ways, Craig. I want you to be honest, and face the historical facts as they were, not to obfuscate them to match your hindsight and ideology.

"So the United States "unilaterally" imposed a no-fly zone, Craig?

That must be very shocking news to the United Nations Security Council, which passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as part of a humanitarian mission to keep Saddam from using more of his WMDs on the Kurdish people. France and Great Britain also provided aircraft for this "unilateral" act."

The unilateral act was by the US/Britain/Franch, without UN authorization.

In fact, even one of the three you cite, France, soon bailed and said "We have believed for a long time that there is no basis in international law for this type of bombing".

As the BBS reported:
"The justification was that an acute humanitarian crisis made it necessary to infringe the sovereignty of Iraq in this way.

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution."

Now, the US was awfully selective in its protection of the Kurds. After Bush encouraged their fighitng Saddam, the administration decided that it didn't like the idea of the instability after all, and the kurds were killed in large numbers by Saddam without the US stopping it.

Finally, after Kurds had fled to other unhappy nations, the US created the 'safe' areas it was protecting in the North, so the Kurds could return and be protected from Saddam. Oddly enough, the same US-protected area is where Zarqawi operated his WMD camps, without the US intervening, to the surprise of congressional visitors, but as discussed, the White House needed its lie about 'WMD terrorist camps in Iraq' implying Saddam was operating them.

Saddam was legally entitled to shoot the aircraft violating his airspace after the agreement.

"It is also important to note that the various air forces flying in protection of the Kurdish people to the north and the Shiites to the south did not go on purposeful bombing missions against their air defenses as you imply, and they only fired when threatened. This defensive engagement of Iraqi AA sites was an act of self-preservation, and a far cry from the pre-emptive acts of aggression that you would call for with a offensive strike on ground targets in Iraq."

Bull. Wikipedia lists some of the reported hundreds of civilian casualties:

"Baghdad says more than 300 civilians have died in these attacks, with the some of the most serious incidents being:

* 2001 20 January: Six killed in raid in southern Iraq
2000
* 6 April: 14 civilians killed and 19 wounded
1999
* 28 July: Eight killed and 26 injured in northern Iraq
* 18 July: 14 civilians killed in raid on southern Iraq
* 13 May: 12 killed when planes hit residential area in the north of the country
* 28 February: Oil exports cut after attack damages pipeline in Mosul
* 25 January: About 20 dead in attacks on Basorah region"

"Even you should be able to tell the difference between defensive fire in support of a humanitarian mission, and the problems of launching a pre-emptive air strike.

That you would try to make these two kinds of missions equivalent is quite telling, and more than a little reprehensible."

The American Prospect describes the use of the anti-air attacks for 'cover' for broader attacks:

"For more than a decade, the United States has played a lethal cat-and-mouse game over Iraq, carrying out increasingly provocative patrols, sometimes drawing Iraqi fire or radar targeting, and then launching widespread bombing or missile strikes. Since 1991, thousands of such sorties have been carried out. And since 1998, when fighting intensified, at least 300 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. and British attacks."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/dreyfuss-r.html

"So, too, is your attempt to conflate you new desire to have bombed al-Zarqawi at some point in the past with the political realities of four years ago.

At that time, we were ramping up for war, but hoping that Saddam would bow out, and either choose abdication (which was eventually refused by his Arab neighbors) or resume full U.N. inspections. We were still holding out hope of a diplomatic solution. If the President had followed your "bomb Zarqawi first, diplomacy be damned" solution, it would have been a catastrophic blow to any hopes of a peaceful resolution, not to mention an act of aggression for which you would now be calling for his impeachment."

You're just printing lies now, whether or not you are aware they are.

First, you conveniently completely leave out the actual language used by Bush at the time, bacause it's an embarrasment to you now, about how the requirement to avoid war was for Saddam to 'disarm' from his WMD - something we now know he was telling the truth when he said he had.

And your even worse falsehood is on the inspectors - the inspectors *did* have adequate access before the war. Hans Blix, the head of the inspection team, was the authority responsible for reporting to the UN whether Saddam was cooperating.

His messages to the UN in early 2003 were that while the cooperation was not perfect, it was sufficient for the inspectors to do what they wanted, that the inspections could be expected to be completed within a few months, and that he specifically recommended against taking any military action against Saddam over the issue of cooperation at the time. The opposite of what you said.

In fact, it's because Bush wanted war that he refused to give Blix the few months - it was precisely because Blix finishing and concluding there were no WMD would completely remove Bush's war justification that Bush had to go to war before that happened.

This is why you saw all the administration talking heads talking about the threat of 'mushroom clouds' being the first indication of whether he had WMD, and so we had to act now, not in a few months. Outrageous lies.

"You really need to come up with a realistic expectations, Craig. You cannot ask Bush to have been omnipotent, and go ahead and bomb targets in Iraq knowing that Saddam would chose war anyway despite his other available options."

Excuse me. I'm the one with the reasonable policy.

Bush himself said that the only justification for war was the WMD issue, by saying that if Saddam disarmed WMD, there were not be war. Let's take him at his word.

Let the inspectors finish the inspections for a few more months; later in 2003 we'd have known there were no WMD, and there would not have been any war. You should be able to understand that.

"I don't want anything two ways, Craig. I want you to be honest, and face the historical facts as they were, not to obfuscate them to match your hindsight and ideology."

I am, now you try.

I'm still waiting for you to hold Bush accountable for his denying the military attacks not because he couldn't do them for political reasons, but because he wanted the lie available as if Saddam had the WMD camps, with the misleading phrase 'terrorist camps in Iraq'.

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm"

So Craig,

The UN didn't approve the resolution for the no-fly zones? And the Hussein regime didn't target UN aircraft with their AA defenses while they were flying on their side of the no-fly lines? What a maroon.

"The UN didn't approve the resolution for the no-fly zones?"

No. In fact, the US wanted specific no-fly zone language in the resolution and it was removed.

"And the Hussein regime didn't target UN aircraft with their AA defenses while they were flying on their side of the no-fly lines?"

The topic is Iraq shooting at US, British and, initially, French aircraft in their airspace.

"What a maroon."

The conversation with you is over. If the next post by you doesn't begin with an apology, then I do not plan to read past that first sentence. It if it does, a strict probation may be granted. Obviously you are not able to have a rational discussion, instead acting like a four year old.

Of course, if this turns out to be disinformation designed to set terrorists at one another's throats, then the person who "leaked" the report is acting to further US goals, while those who are insisting on an investigation are imperiling the war effort

Craig,

Sorry Craig - no apology 4U. Too bad if you don't like what I say. It is no skin off my teeth to not talk with a government-Bush-hating-left-leaning-MSM- brainwashed weenie. So what? I'm so sad. Don't let the door hit you on the...behind...on your way out. LOL

But more to your points. You should take all of the UN resolutions into consideration when you opine. Have you read them all yet? Bet not. You seem to pick up a lot of your "facts" from MSM and leftie web sites. However, there are sources for information other than those.

Added together, under the UN Resolutions there was ample authority to protect the innocent using no-fly zones, and in fact many of them relied on Chapter VII of the UN Charter. One of which (but not all-inclusive) is:

RESOLUTION 687 (1991); Section H; Line 32: 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

Read it here.

Note - that under several UN Resolutions, member nations are authorized to use "any means" necessary to enforce the resolutions. Figure it out - Did the UN come out and say, "Hey - US, UK, France, and Turkey - we did not approve this so stop!" No! Russia and China objected to the no-fly zones and that was it. The UN did not condemn it - in fact the colors of the aircraft were the UN colors. Get over it. It was approved no matter how you want to rewrite history to fit your POV. Done deal.

And since you like Wiki so much, try this article:

Operation Northern Watch, the successor to Operation Provid e C omfort, was a US European Command Combined Task Force (CTF) charged with enforcing the United Nations mandated no-fly zone above the 36th parallel in Iraq. Its mission, which began on 1 January 1997, included monitoring Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council directives.

The coalition partners of the United States, United Kingdom, and Turkey provided approximately 45 aircraft and more than 1,400 personnel to support Operation Northern Watch. The joint U.S. forces of some 1,100 US personnel, included sailors, soldiers, as well as sorties from every arm of the Military of the United States, with the exception of the paramilitary United States Coast Guard.

The original mandate from the Turkish government allowed the operation to continue for 6 months. Turkey subsequently approved two 6-month extensions, but indicated that it would not become a permanent mission.

The final combat air patrol occurred on March 17, 2003 (from the Incirlik Air Base). Six weeks later, the Operation concluded with an official stand down on May 1, 2003.

More:

Review this site also. It contains the text of the UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq: November 8, 2002, along with a letter to General Al-Saadi which reiterates that:

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

So I guess targeting operations within the no-fly zones with AA constitutes that Iraq was ensuring the safety of such operations. Yea Right.

"Sorry Craig - no apology 4U."

The last words I plan to ever read from whatsisname. It's actually a nice feeling!

I suggest it to others. You don't miss out on anything skipping a name-caller like that.

Trrll, good point. Of course, you can't really tell if it was an accident, or a trick, so I tend to just ignore it - though in this case, I suspect it might be true, as it was first leaked by some others in the middle east.

Just as we now have witnesses we'd rather not have coming out saying the US was stomping on Zarqawi.

That they took him out of the ambulance; as they stomped on his chest, demanding he identify who he was, blood would come out his mout and nose. That went on for some minutes. Dunno if it's true, but don't think we planted that story. And I think it's pretty inexcusable if true.

Craig,

Let's not talk about the following from your previous post. I will just point out some interesting things that you failed to:

Craig Said:

Bull. Wikipedia lists some of the reported hundreds of civilian casualties:
Baghdad says more than 300 civilians have died in these attacks, with the some of the most serious incidents being:
* 2001 20 January: Six killed in raid in southern Iraq
2000
* 6 April: 14 civilians killed and 19 wounded
1999
* 28 July: Eight killed and 26 injured in northern Iraq
* 18 July: 14 civilians killed in raid on southern Iraq
* 13 May: 12 killed when planes hit residential area in the north of the country
* 28 February: Oil exports cut after attack damages pipeline in Mosul
* 25 January: About 20 dead in attacks on Basorah region

Would you mind posting a link to the Wiki article? I can't seem to find it. On the other hand, I did find the BBS article - and imagine this - it says what you say Wiki said. Maybe you were just confused. But in addition to the list of "deaths" you quoted - based on numbers from Baghdad who we know would never have lied back then - there was another paragraph you left out:

The US and British air forces have disputed some of these figures, and insist they never target civilian areas.

Imagine that - at the bottom of an MSM article they put in a qualifier that what they presented might not be true. Wow.

You might also want to check out Wiki's article on the AUMF. It has some interesting points - like:

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Now - Craig - with all your superior intellect, maybe you can inform someone as lowly as me as to why so many official government and UN documents refer to the no-fly zones you say were not ever authorized.

I don't care if you answer Craig. I can make just as much of a fool of you without your participation. LOL. What a maroon.

Here's how good Craig is:

As reported in the Times of London:

Once the soldiers had established the man was not a threat, they started to kick him in the chest, said [Ali] Abbas and an Iraqi policeman also there. “They kept kicking him, shouting, ‘What’s your name?’, but the man only moaned and said nothing,” said Abbas.

Same story in NYT:

Another person who identified himself as a witness to Mr. Zarqawi’s final moments, interviewed Sunday on Al Jazeera satellite network, made no mention of soldiers striking the man and suggested that American soldiers tore open his clothing in what appeared an effort to revive him.

“The Americans came afterward, they took him out of the ambulance, put him on the ground, and ripped his dishdasha,” the witness, Ali Abbas, said in the interview on Al Jazeera. “They were pressing on his chest, wanting him to speak or to respond, and they brought a bottle of water but he didn’t take it.”

So who do we believe? The neighbor Ali Abbas, or the other witness Ali Abbas? Get a grip Craig. You might try also looking up the reports on the autopsy which showed no signs of any sort of beating.

well....missed a closing blockquote I guess. But this is way too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Craig's favorites from the Rules of Disinformation

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Wow, 5 posts or so to skip from whatisname namecaller. He doesn't take a hint, does he.

Just rudely keeps on posting after being told the discussion is over.

Looks like he killed the thread pretty well, and folks are making a good choice to skip his posts.