RAW STORY: State Dept memo made clear info 'shouldn't be shared' (WSJ)

[emulatorloo]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Wall_Street_Journal_enters_Rove_fray_State_Dept._memo_made_clear_info_shouldnt_be_shar_0719.html

<snip>

Wall Street Journal enters Rove fray: State Dept. memo made clear info 'shouldn't be shared'
RAW STORY

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document, the (paid-restricted) Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday. Excerpts follow.

<snip> (following from WSJ article)

The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.

According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. It isn't known if President Bush has seen the memo.

<snip>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

More at daily Kos, including samples of how this letter designation works:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/19/134031/241

<snip>

This sort of classified government document generally has the classification of each paragraph marked in a parenthetical at the beginning of the paragraph: (U) for "Unclassified", (C) for "Confidential", (S) for "Secret", (TS) for "Top Secret", and (TS/SCI) for "Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information". Each page bears at the top and bottom of the page the classification of the most highly classified paragraph on the page. And then the whole document is prominently marked with the classification of the most highly classified paragraph in the document.

It would be virtually impossible for someone who actually viewed the document not to see that it is classified.


by lysias on Tue Jul 19th, 2005 at 05:54:42 PDT

<snip>

----------------------------------------
Early morning DU thread on WSJ article here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1939115&mesg_id=1939115

[BrainRants]

1. Hmm...Where does Powell fit in all this?

If State is leaking documents one has to wonder whether Powell might be pulling strings to out the bastards.

He already sold his soul, maybe he's trying to get part of it back?

Just sayin'

[dogday]

5. It is said Powell had this document in his possession

when he boarded AF1. Now here is where it gets sticky. Who showed who? who said what to who? and who was called from AF1?

[CorwinB]

2. Perhaps...

... the memo was using the (DSSB) designation ? (Double Super Secret Background)

[catlawyer]

3. Another link to the story (free WSJ)

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB112170178721288385-IRjgoNjlah4opyobXqHaq6Hm5,00.html

[Ian_rd]

4. CYA

I certainly hope people are vetting all of these leaked memos. If the newly-awakened press doesn't watch their butts, we'll end up with another That memo Dan Rather obtained was a fraud, therefore proving beyond a doubt that Bush's selection for the Texas National Guard was perfectly legitimate PR coup by the White House.

[Starfury]

7. Exactly - there may be more than one State Dept. memo - read this:

From Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo:

(July 18, 2005 -- 04:28 PM EDT // link // print)

This point is admittedly very deep in the weeds. But if you're playing the Rove/Plame/Niger sleuth game like many of the rest of us, it's a significant point.

Much now turns, you'll remember, on this classified State Department memo, which seems likely to have been the source of the information about Joe Wilson and his wife that was circulating between reporters and White House staffers in early July 2003.

A couple days ago the Times reported that "the memorandum was dated June 10, 2003." That squares with what we know about the administration's concerns (or 'interest' if you're the gullible type) dating more than a month before his Times oped.

Today, however, Bloomberg reports that it was "prepared by the State Department on July 7, 2003."

Big difference.

Originally posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=140699&mesg_id=140699

------

Edit: Hmmm, this may just have been careless reporting by Bloomberg....

[yurbud]

6. Is there any legit reason for Rove to see this memo?

I can't think of one.

I have trouble believing Colin Powell would play any part in this, even if they asked him to.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Rawstory is quoting WSJ?

The world is getting very, very strange.

[emulatorloo]

9. WSJ News and WSJ Opinion are two very different animals. . .

News = Decent Reporters
Opinion = Frothing Wingnuts