CIA head Michael Hayden agrees that Plame was a covert agent.

Lex, what's your best reason that Fitzgerald didn't prosecute, or even indict anyone for the crime of "outing" her? If Fitz is no longer pursuing this, does that mean that no crime was committed?

Covert from whom? She was listed in 1999 Who's Who as Valerie Plame. Everyone knew she was Joe Wilson's wife. Any agent worth their salt could probably easily find out that she worked at CIA, though they probably wouldn't know exactly what she did there.

SouthernRoots:

what's your best reason that Fitzgerald didn't prosecute, or even indict anyone for the crime of "outing" her?

Fitzgerald said that there is a cloud over the VP's office. He said that since Libby perjured himself and obstructed justice, Fitzgerald has no case against Libby's superiors.

If Fitz is no longer pursuing this, does that mean that no crime was committed?

Of course not. That's a naive question. Consider that Al Capone's prosecutor pursued a tax evasion charge, knowing full well that Capone was guilty of murder and racketeering.

Covert from whom? She was listed in 1999 Who's Who as Valerie Plame. Everyone knew she was Joe Wilson's wife. Any agent worth their salt could probably easily find out that she worked at CIA, though they probably wouldn't know exactly what she did there.

First, you are saying you understand the import of Plame's lost cover better than Hayden does. That's either very impressive, or maybe something else.

Second, sure, an investigator could have determined that Plame was in the CIA, as is the case with many CIA agents. The point you are missing is that no one had heard of her before Novak outed her.

Hayden admits that she was a covert agent, and we know she worked on WMD issues under the cover of a fake arms firm. The CIA referred the Novak incident to Justice. Who are you to say that this is not significant for our national security? You are blinded by partisanship.

Actually, Lex, it would be nice if you were clearer in your first statement. Right now, all that is known is that Waxman states that Hayden agrees and Hayden has not testified to that under oath. As such, this is just second hand gossip per the standards those on the left apply to anyone on the right who remains skeptical on the subject.

Now, let's consider the verbiage of Waxman's opening statement. First and foremost, the accusation since Novak's column has been that Plame was covert as defined by the IIPA, which Waxman's opening statement only infers by using the word "covert" at the end as a conclusion. But the arguments put forward only show that Plame's employment was classified pursuant to Executive Order 12598, which is not the IIPA and is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. (By the way, Tom Maquire notes Waxman is wrong here it should be Executive Order 13292 which superseded it in 2003 before the disclosure: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/his_silence_was.html)

The games people play with words and definitions are legendary. It has made this 'scandal' a soap opera. You just add to it by appealing to Waxman's opening statement as authority in the argument here and it doesn't wash.

As for your rebuttal of Southern roots, in it you say, "Second, sure, an investigator could have determined that Plame was in the CIA, as is the case with many CIA agents. The point you are missing is that no one had heard of her before Novak outed her."

Sure, I hadn't heard of her and you imply you haven't heard of her. But Andrea Mitchell had said (paraphrasing) it was well know in the some circle of reporting. Plame noted in testimony under oath (paraphrasing) it was not well known in the cocktail circuit. Her employment cover was a company that did not exist at the address indicated. Her status was compromised in the 1990's by being left in a report sent to the (IIRC ) Swiss consulate in Havana. Lastly she had walked into the CIA building for, what, the last four or five years every morning for work?

The point in my noting the above details is that it isn't important, per se, that the CIA, et al, work to keep her identity secret from us, because we don't care to know because we will fall into the category of not knowing if the CIA works to keep it secret from those who do care. And those who do care ply every source, opportunity, and person that might give those who do care information to identify covert agents.

What happens if the only people (i.e., people who care) that believe Plame's identity is secret are the people who work at the CIA?

The real story here is not that Plame's identity was classified, but that the CIA is dysfunctional. As Fred Thompson said just a few days ago, (paraphrasing) 'The CIA is better at politics than it is at spying.' Insightful.

Lex,
"You are blinded by partisanship.".
I am no more blinded by partisanship than you are.

My concern over this matter is that the various facts of the case were swept under the rug due to partisan grandstanding and calls for the "frog marching" of Rove.

From the first, Fitzgerald nor any other "official" has actually come right out and stated that the IIPA law was broken by anyone. There have been a lot of weasel wording and "hemming and hawing", but no such simple statement as, "The IIPA law was broken by the individual or individuals that released the name of Valerie Plame to the press." If Plame was indeed covert and covered by IIPA, I would have expected such a clear and positive statement. Point me to the actual quote by Fitzgerald where he specifically states that the IIPA law was broken.

Since Armitage was the first one that provided Plame's name to reporters and Fizgerald knew that from the beginning, his refusal to indict Armitage speaks volumes to me.

During Judith Miller's time in jail, several media outlets filed "Friend of the Court" briefs claiming that Plame did not qualify under IIPA, though they had spent considerable time reporting that she did in order to "frog march" Rove. So, when it was convenient to try to bring down an administration, she was "covert". When it was inconvenient that the press could possibly be charged with a crime, suddenly Plame wasn't covert at all. Am I more partisan than those media outlets?

Hayden admits that she was a covert agent, and we know she worked on WMD issues under the cover of a fake arms firm. The CIA referred the Novak incident to Justice.

Covert when? In July 2003? Covert as defined in IIPA? In order for there to be a case against Libby's superiors a law would have to have been broken. The only law that I have heard that applies is IIPA.

Was the law absolutely and positively broken? If yes, why does Armitage skate free? If no, then Plame wasn't "covert" under the law and any further pursuit on this issue is political hackery and a waste of time.

Dusty: Actually, Lex, it would be nice if you were clearer in your first statement. Right now, all that is known is that Waxman states that Hayden agrees and Hayden has not testified to that under oath. As such, this is just second hand gossip per the standards those on the left apply to anyone on the right who remains skeptical on the subject.

Waxman said this in front of the entire House, and you say it's second hand gossip? Absolutely ridiculous. Show me where Hayden issued a correction.

Andrea Mitchell had said (paraphrasing) it was well know in the some circle of reporting.

A quotation made on the House record is "second hand gossip," yet this is what you bring to the table.

What happens if the only people (i.e., people who care) that believe Plame's identity is secret are the people who work at the CIA?

I'm not attesting to the competence if the CIA. The CIA referred the Novak matter to Justice, so in their minds national security was compromised. I guess you know better though.

SouthernRoots: I am no more blinded by partisanship than you are.

You refuse to believe that this administration did anything wrong, when it could not be more clear. Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the Plame leak. That was a lie. He said he'd launched an internal investigation. That was a lie. So he obviously believed the Plame matter was worth addressing, unlike you, yet hypocritically he didn't actually care. Yet you are utterly convinced that nothing untoward happened. That is blinded by partisanship all right.

Fitzgerald nor any other "official" has actually come right out and stated that the IIPA law was broken by anyone.

Apparently he believes it doesn't apply or that he can't make it stick in court. You're repeating yourself. Again, this proves nothing. The larger question is, did the administration out a covert agent for political gain? The answer is unequivocally yes for anyone who looks at the facts.

refusal to indict Armitage speaks volumes to me.

This is the third time you've trotted this out. As I said the first time, everyone knew Capone was guilty of murder.

Was the law absolutely and positively broken? If yes, why does Armitage skate free? If no, then Plame wasn't "covert" under the law and any further pursuit on this issue is political hackery and a waste of time

For the love of all that's holy, prosecutors don't make a case when they don't believe they can prove the charge. Surely you know this. You can repeat your one point as many times as you want, it does not now and will never prove anything.

The head of the CIA agreed that she was covert, yet somehow you discount this to mean nothing. You say maybe she was not covert under the law? You are splitting hairs. If the CIA considered her covert, it was a terrible thing to reveal her identity, whether or not it was strictly against the law. And the CIA seems to believe it was against the IIPA. It's rich that you accuse me of being blinded by partisanship.

Lex, I watched much of the hearing and I can not say: "If the CIA considered her covert, it was a terrible thing to reveal her identity,..." Waxman submitted his opening remarks. CIA chose to not change HIS reference to Plame as covert. That is not prima fascia proving your point whether she was covert. Only that they chose not correct Waxman's statement.

And, "... whether or not it was strictly against the law." is exactly the point. If an act does not meet the elements of a law it is not a crime.

CoRev: CIA chose to not change HIS reference to Plame as covert. That is not prima fascia proving your point whether she was covert. Only that they chose not correct Waxman's statement.

Why did they choose not to correct Waxman? I can give you a good reason why Hayden wouldn't come out and say she was covert -- people in the CIA feel strongly about this.

Why did the CIA refer the case to Justice? Why did Bush say he'd fire anyone involved with the leak? Why did Bush say he'd launch an internal investigation?

And, "... whether or not it was strictly against the law." is exactly the point. If an act does not meet the elements of a law it is not a crime.

Not at all. You could arguably call it treason, among other things. Just because the IIPA is narrow doesn't mean that blowing Plame's cover was okay. She was an operative on WMD issues for heaven's sake.

The only reason why you won't condemn the administration blowing her cover is out of partisanship.

You refuse to believe that this administration did anything wrong, when it could not be more clear.

I do not spend every waking moment looking for any and all ways in trying to force out an administration – that is true.

Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the Plame leak. That was a lie. He said he'd launched an internal investigation. That was a lie. So he obviously believed the Plame matter was worth addressing, unlike you, yet hypocritically he didn't actually care. Yet you are utterly convinced that nothing untoward happened. That is blinded by partisanship all right.

Maybe – just maybe – he didn’t fire them because he believed nothing illegal was done. It was worth addressing – if anything illegal had taken place. I’m sure you would have had no problem with Ashcroft or Gonzales investigating this. I don’t know exactly what happened, but before joining in demands to fire Cheney, fire Rove, fire Bush, fire Laura, fire the Chef, etc. ad naseum, proof that a crime was committed needs to be presented.

Apparently he believes it doesn't apply or that he can't make it stick in court. You're repeating yourself. Again, this proves nothing. The larger question is, did the administration out a covert agent for political gain? The answer is unequivocally yes for anyone who looks at the facts.

“Apparently he believes it doesn’t apply…..” Meaning, no crime? List your “facts”.

Was Joe Wilson totally honest in his attacks on the administration? Is Joe Wilson pure as the driven snow, everything he accuses the administration of being the gospel truth? Was Joe Wilson just a media whore shopping his story around? If Plame did send an email recommending Joe for the Nigeria job, should this information not have been made public?

This is the third time you've trotted this out. As I said the first time, everyone knew Capone was guilty of murder.

I agree with you, Bush should fire Capone.

For the love of all that's holy, prosecutors don't make a case when they don't believe they can prove the charge. Surely you know this. You can repeat your one point as many times as you want, it does not now and will never prove anything.

What was your position when the Clinton’s were accused of all those crimes? Was it the same as now – “they committed the crimes, we all know they did, we just aren’t able to prove it – but they’re still guilty”?

The head of the CIA agreed that she was covert, yet somehow you discount this to mean nothing. You say maybe she was not covert under the law? You are splitting hairs. If the CIA considered her covert, it was a terrible thing to reveal her identity, whether or not it was strictly against the law. And the CIA seems to believe it was against the IIPA. It's rich that you accuse me of being blinded by partisanship.

Hayden chose not to correct Waxman’s opening statement. Have him testify under oath as to Plame’s status. Hayden has been in his position for a while now, why didn’t he make this statement to Fitzgerald and why didn’t Fitzgerald ever come right out and say , “Ms. Plame was covert. The law was broken. We just can’t nail Bush, Cheney, or Rove for it - dammit.”?

Are you as mournful for the other leaks that have come out? NSA, CIA prisons, Terrorist financing? Should those leakers be pursued as diligently as you want Plame leakers pursued?

Why was Joe sent to Nigeria? Why was Plame involved at all? Why didn't Joe have to sign a secrecy oath about his trip - surely it was sensitive stuff. Why was Joe able to talk to so many reporters about his trip? Why did the 9/11 commission disagree with Joe's statements in his NYT article?

Aside from knowing that Plame worked at CIA, did any of the "leakers" actually, positively know of her supposed covert status? Are Joe and Valerie Democratic operatives? Is this the covert status everyone is upset about being exposed?

Southern: here's a good portion of your "argument" which is irrelevant:

looking for any and all ways in trying to force out an administration

Is Joe Wilson pure as the driven snow

I agree with you, Bush should fire Capone.

What was your position when the Clinton’s were accused of all those crimes?

Are you as mournful for the other leaks that have come out?

I will address the following points:

Maybe – just maybe – he didn’t fire them because he believed nothing illegal was done.

Bush said flatly that he would fire anyone involved in the leak. In of itself that assumes that outing her was unacceptable, and undermines your entire argument.

“Apparently he believes it doesn’t apply…..” Meaning, no crime? List your “facts”.

I think it's very bad to out covert CIA agents, whether or not it's specifically illegal. As I said above is arguably treasonous. If they didn't know she was covert, they damn well should educate themselves better. Bush's statements show that he agrees, Bush '41 agreed, the CIA agrees. You are of course free to judge these things however you wish.

Hayden chose not to correct Waxman’s opening statement.

What's the obvious conclusion from this?

Lex, "Hayden chose not to correct Waxman’s opening statement.

What's the obvious conclusion from this?"

There are many. You are citing one. OK, now what?.

Lex,

As usual, you haven't completed your argument. What is the law specifically with IIPA? DO you know? I suspect that you do not. One of the requirements is that the government must be actively protecting the identity of the "covert" agent. How do you explain Harlow and Grenier? You can't. Harlow told Cathie M, and Novak that Plame worked for the CIA. Not much in the way of protection there. Both Plame and Wilson met with a reporter in May where Wilson told the reporter all about the Niger trip. He was with his wife, who was in his bio, and in Who's Who. Why didn't she stop her husband, lyin Joe, from spilling classified info to a reporter? She donated money to Kerry's campaign under her CIA front company 's name. How did this protect her identity. And to boot, Plame did not claim that she was "covert" during the hearings. Instead she said that she had acted as a covert agent at some point in time. Then she went on to talk about a general always being a general. Not the case with "covert" though. Once covert does not mean always covert. She did not fit the IIPA requirements as covert - and I dare you to prove different. You can't and you know it. You just keep spouting FDL and KOS talking points, just like a good brainwashed leftist. Prove your point. Use the law and not opinion. Then maybe we can listen to you.

Specter --

Here's you proving that the US casualty rate is dropping in Iraq:

using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36.

Until you can understand the problem in that reasoning I have no reason or obligation to engage you.

You all know, Lex has effectively hijacked this comment thread. The question before us all: what is the viability of the time line suggesting that Plame was outed by Wilson? I for one find it compelling!

Lex,

Dipstick. I challenged you to redo your numbers for the last five months (incl. Feb.). The trend line is down. I see you haven't responded to that. So much for honesty - you show none whatsoever. Are you related to Nifong by chance?