Okay. So there was nothing wrong with releasing Plames name because

[rpannier]

scrubbie declassified it.
Okay. I can handle that...except for one thing.
If there was nothing wrong with it then why didn't they tell us this three years ago? Why the denial? Why play stupid for three years? Why allow millions of tax dollars to be spent on an investigation into something that was not a crime? That they knew wasn't a crime? Why didn't scrubbie just step up and say he okayed it?
If what they did was totally legal, ethical and there are no problems... Why didn't they admit it three years ago?

[magellan]

1. I've been asking that too

So have others here. I guess what matters is the corporate media won't ask.

Hmmm...how about sending the question to Helen Thomas?

[ClintonTyree]

2. Because they didn't think of that "defense"....

if it can be called a defense, until well after the fact. It took months of "brainstorming" (which in the Bush White House amounts to a gentle breeze) to come up with this pitiful "defense". It's the only thing they've got, it was the last chance attempt to clear themselves of any wrong doing. They didn't want (or couldn't) use it immediately knowing that it's pure bullshit. Now they have to use and sell it, and as we can all see, it's a tough sell.

[anniebelle]

3. Because we're living in bizzaro world where white is black and

day is night and if you question that, you're against the troops or un-American or whatever the talking point of the day is. This gang of thugs has taken our country away and hit us with a swift boating if we dare question his idiocy and traitorous themes of his regime.

[Tennessee Gal]

4. It was a crime .................

It is my understanding that no one can declassify a CIA covert agent's identity.

According to Steven Aftergood, editor of Secrecy News, a newsletter published by the Federation of American Scientists: There are several specific categories of classified information that are protected by statute -- communications intelligence, identities of covert agents, nuclear weapons design information, and some others. Those statutes are binding on the executive branch as well as on everyone else.

And also: From Executive Order 13292

Sec. 6.2. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act.

(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.

(c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, officers, employees, or agents. The foregoing is in addition to the specific provisos set forth in sections 3.1(b) and 5.3(e) of this order."

(d) Executive Order 12356 of April 6, 1982, was revoked as of October 14, 1995.

link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Then an excerpt from the National Security Act of 1947 as ammended:

TITLE VI - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES

SEC. 601. <50 U.S.C. 421> (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

[Karmakaze]

5. No - Bush never declassified it or authorised its leak...

You are falling into the Republican trap. They WANT you to keep pushing this line because they can easily prove you wrong, which destroys your credibility.

Libby did NOT testify that he leaked Plame's identity.
Libby did NOT testify that Bush authorised the leak of Plame's identity
Libby did NOT testify that Bush declassified Plame's identity.

If you keep claiming he did, you WILL be proven wrong, and look like a fool. Don't fall for it.

What Libby testified to was not a crime on Bush's behalf, but it was a betrayal of the public trust. That is what you should focus on, because the Repugs can't disprove that, and thus THEY will lose credibility, not you.

[Tennessee Gal]

6. Exactly right.

Had Bush told Libby to disclose Plame's identity, it would have been illegal. But he did not do that. He only gave permission to selectively disclose the NIE, which was not illegal. It was wrong and the righties can disagree all they want, but it is so obvious that it was a partisan political move. It was also disingenuous because they did not disclose the entire NIE, only the parts that helped them. It was a betrayal and part of their larger plan to lie our country into war.

Never forget this:

"F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.

[sundancekid]

13. excellent reminders of the traps and the rovian chaos of disinformation

the point remains that Fitz had the whole picture long ago and far away, and he's pulling in these little fishies (scooter included) with such legal deftness that it is leaving the bigger fishies (scrubbie and ching-chiney and condasleeza and hannah and bolton etc..) in a swivet; the real point of scooter's lawyers requesting such outlandish document discovery is nothing more than a fishing expedition to see how NEKKED all these other barracudas really are...don't bite on republikkkan bait!

p.s. read Fitz's brief arguing against scooter's latest motion and you will get the BIG picture too!

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2006_04_06_governments_response_to_third_motion_to_compel.pdf

[no_hypocrisy]

7. The disclosure blew the lid off a multitude of covert operations set up

in several countries, operations that took years in some cases to set up. By not explicitly naming Valerie Plame, the disclosure still allowed for simple extrapolation, leading to the same result. If the CIA wanted to close their operations, it certainly wouldn't have made a public announcement about who was involved.

No, I don't buy it about the declassification and it was benign information "the public" was entitled to know. And this coming from the most secretive White House since Nixon!

[Minnesota Libra]

8. People all over DU are asking the same thing and the answer is............

....there is much more about this that we still don't know.:tinfoilhat: Personally, I think Plame and her husband were about to get all the goods on just how criminal the Bush bunch really is.:think: They were probably going to get the info from a source/s who had no idea who she truly was. That's the only possible explanation I can think of for completely outing her. If Bush/Cheney were simply pissed that her husband was criticizing the war they could have smeared his name from here to hell and back and had him taken care of.:shrug: But to go after both of them spelled more than her husband's disagreement with the Iraq war.:tinfoilhat:

If someone can prove me wrong then fine but this is my take on it until I get more info.:headbang:

[Jai4WKC08]

10. I agree that there is much more we don't know

But my personal theory of why they outed Plame was to punish Wilson by making him unable to serve as an ambassador in a future Democratic administration.

Any ambassador has to be able to take his wife with him. The social demands of the office are enormous. How could her safety be ensured? Which foreign wives and other social contacts would be willing to speak to her if either their own governments or various other organizations might assume they were passing secrets to a CIA operative? She would either be under constant suspicion and scrutiny, or she'd have to stay home. In either case, Wilson himself would be rendered ineffective.

Yeah, you're right that they could have just smeared Wilson. But would that have hurt him with a future Democratic president? Might have made him more of a hero and thus more likely to get a plumb assignment.

[Sparkly]

12. It was all about discrediting Wilson's report on the Niger claims

right after he published his article "What I Didn't Find in Africa." They needed to convince people that Saddam was a threat to justify their invasion of Iraq, and the yellowcake claim was central to that.

So they dug up various things about Wilson, things he'd stated in 1999 I believe, part of the NIE giving more credence to the Niger claim, and his wife's status as a CIA agent (oh but THAT part, we're supposed to believe, was Libby "freelancing" and they had no idea about it; and the rest was all above-board, even though it was done in secret).

The reason it mattered to them was all about the same ruse: cherry-picked Iraq intel. Since Wilson TOLD them the intel wasn't credible, and Chimpy said it in the SOTU anyway, they had to make Wilson look like the discredited one. So they hyped this story that his wife, working for the CIA, "SENT" him to Niger (she'd recommended him); that Wilson is a liar for claiming the VP directly asked him to go (he said the trip arose from a question from the VP which is true); that he's unqualified for such a trip or to make such a report, and he'd never have been chosen except that his wife "SENT" him ergo his info is unreliable; that her involvement shows favoritism, as she handed him a fun "junket"; and, in some circles, that it was all politically-motivated between the two of them.

In other words, they were defending against, "Well if he's such an unqualified, unreliable, politically-motivated liar, why was he chosen to go and provide his report in the first place? Why was he trusted then, only to have the report rejected when the administration didn't like what it said?" The answer is, "WE never would have picked him, his WIFE did that."

Also remember that BushCo has NOT been friendly with the CIA, "purging" them and so forth... So in a sense, this was also part of putting the blame back on "the intelligence community" and all its problems, making themselves the victims of "flawed intelligence."

[C_U_L8R]

9. This is Rove Strategy

The Turdblossum creates confusion by thowing out as much conflicting shit as possible.

Pay no attention... a good prosecuter like Fitz doesn't fall for cheap Rove stunts.

[Sparkly]

11. They aren't saying he declassified that

But since he can just snap his fingers (supposedly) and declassify anything, logic follows that they're saying he COULD have done just that and it would have been legal.

What was (supposedly) declassified was a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate, making it look like the Niger claim was correct. But it's not clear that that was actually declassified when Bush & Cheney told Scooter to leak it. (According to Scottie back then, that happened later.)

And if it was "instantly declassified," it was done without anybody else's knowledge. In fact it was done so secretly that Scooter had to be called a "former Hill staffer" and an unnamed "White House Official." And now they claim they just wanted to get the info out because it was in the public interest? And that they had NO idea it was Scooter who leaked, or that Scooter all on his own added Plame's outing to the package they told him to shop around to reporters??

It's all ridiculous.

But just be careful -- they haven't admitted declassifying Plame's name.