Covert or Not Covert? She said yes under oath! Others still say no. Is there no way to prove it?

[cyberpj]

I mean, now that it's all out there --- who would have the final, definitive answer?!?!

Tenet?

I am SO tired of arguing this point with my family!

[HRC_in_08]

1. I thought the CIA Director approved a statement...

at the hearings saying she was covert. That is the final word, I believe.

[babylonsister]

3. Here's some proof they should believe:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3165789

[cyberpj]

14. That's JUST what I needed. Thank you. nt

Trying to educate them when father is WWII vet and cousin is in Iraq is just about impossible though. The bottom line is they've written me off as an old hippie. That's why I was looking for a link to the Hayden statement or something concrete to show them.

[LondonReign2]

2. Yes. Just look at the CIA statement

The statement Waxman read out, authorized by Hayden, is ironclad that Plame was covert.

The you can ask your familiy if they think the CIA doesn't know if Plame was covert or not.

Edited to add Hayden's (via Waxman) statement:

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

[EST]

16. Not only that, but the claim by that incorrigible harridan, the

inimitable Ms. Toensing, that the CIA was at fault because they did not forbid the publication of her status is utterly bogus.
The CIA does not go about blatting classified information and Ms. Plame's status was classified. They could not, under force of law, reveal that classified information and could only respond to Novak's declaration that he was about to complete the treason that Cheneybush had put in motion with a plea for restraint and an indication that they would be unhappy should that occur.

[WinkyDink]

27. I KNOW!! "You must not say anything about Valerie Plame. And anyway, we don't even know who she is.

But make sure you DON'T MENTION HER NAME."

What maroons.

[htuttle]

4. Tenet's replacement Hayden already gave the definitive answer

He said that she was covert. Can't get any more clear than that.

[niyad]

5. her BOSS, gen hayden, said YES. that should be the end of it. ask your family if they think that

others, who don't even work for the agency, would have more information than her BOSS.

[krispos42]

6. I'm sure that if she lied under oath...

The local US Attorney (perhaps under prodding from the White House) would have asked the CIA if it was true or not. And if she lied, she'd be on trial for perjury.

Since all we're hearing is *crickets* about this, I'd say she was telling the truth.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Ah but the freeps say she DID perjure herself and that TPTB will let it slide because it

is in their favor.

[emulatorloo]

22. THEY ARE IN DENIAL. She was covert per head of CIA. enough with Freeps already

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/

<snip>

CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’
During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

[emulatorloo]

20. THE HEAD OF THE CIA, HAYDEN SAID THAT SHE WAS COVERT

Waxman read a statement from Hayden that said she was covert.

She was not lying under oath.

Wingnuts are nuts and in denial.

[BuyingThyme]

7. No authoritative source says, "No." Toesucker, who seems to be

the ultimate false authority, is a liar who never had anything to do with writing or forwarding any law which had anything whatsoever to do with determining who in the CIA is or is not considered covert.

This is the only thing they have left -- the lie. The Toesucker lie stands between the reality of treason, and being a good Puke.

[IWantAChange]

8. If Hayden says 'Yes' and Repukes still ?? it you might want to question their IQ level.

If the CIA Director tells the Chairman of a Congressional Committee unequivocally that she was and Repukes still question it then I guess anything not said by a Repuke is suspect of being true?

[cyberpj]

12. Oh believe me, I've questioned their IQ level for years.

Trying to educate them when father is WWII vet and cousin is in Iraq is just about impossible though. The bottom line is they've written me off as an old hippie. That's why I'm looking for a link to the Hayden statement or something concrete to show them.

[BOSSHOG]

10. Because they are ignorant and WAY TOO PROUD

to admit they are and have been wrong all along. Ms Plame's husband proved that their hero, the drug addicted military deserter is a big fat ugly liar and they just can't abide that.

Please conservatives, would one of you worthless pricks answer these two very easy questions?

- If she were not covert, why did her status HAVE to be revealed?
- If there were no underlying crime, why did libby HAVE to lie?

Mr and Mrs Wilson are patriots. Anyone who considers otherwise is worthless trash who believe rush limbaugh is honest and ann coulter is attractive.

[Janice325]

11. There's really nothing to prove, IMO.

Perhaps you should just stop arguing the point with your family. It sounds like it's not worth it in regards to the emotional toll it's taking on you. They might never accept the truth.
I'm not trying to be an ass (or get flamed!!), as I'm speaking from experience. My gf's 90 year old not-hurting-for-money Repub has been living with us for 3 years. He votes Rethuglicon because he "hates the Democrats," and calls them "Communists." Every time he brings up politics, race, or whatever, my blood pressure goes waaaay up, and I try to keep my mouth shut and not fall for his "bait," as my gf says. It's not worth it. He just continues to read the newspaper and watch the news. He questions many of their stories, but does he bring up Republican crap??? On, nooooooo. Just Democratic scandal,murder,drugs,immigration... I could go on and on. He has no clue as to the widespread access and timeliness of the internet.
Many times I just choose to keep my mouth shut,leave the room, and go into my bedroom after closing the door.:cry:
Sorry for the rant.
I really feel for you.
Take care of yourself. :hug:

[Solo_in_MD]

13. testimony and facts can be two different things

People testify to what they believe, which can often be wrong, just ask Gill Grissom.

Note by that statment, I am giving everyone the benefit of the doubt here and assuming all are testifying truthfully, which many disagree with.

[insane_cratic_gal]

15. Regardless, she was outed!

And all of those CIA agents that were affiliated with her, as well as god knows how many more because Cheney's a vindictive asshat.

Covert or not according to some stupid ass law written in the 50's at the development of the CIA determines whether or not its OK to out her?.. It was NEVER OK. And don't let them argue with you over schematics. Because of the VP has a hissy fit, lives were in danger and networks that were used to track WMD were rendered useless. That should be beaten into everyones head over and over again!

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Those "others" should cough up their sources

Seems that when the Director of the CIA says she was covert, that's a credible (possibly unimpeachable LOL!) authority on the matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. The DCI gave the definnte answer

saying she was covert.

It is all willful ignorance

[porphyrian]

19. Why would she lie?

What could she possibly gain from lying under oath about her covert status?

[emulatorloo]

21. CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/

<snip>

CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’
During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

Watch it:

<snip>

If the head of the CIA says she was covert, she was covert.

It does not matter what paid shills of the Bush admin say. They are paid to lie and confuse the matter.

It matters what the head of the CIA said. He would know. He said she was covert. End of story.

[merh]

23. How about Waxman's opening - what the CIA Director allowed

him to say about Plame's employment (given her position is classified).

REP. WAXMAN: (Sounds gavel.) The meeting of the committee will come to order.

Today the committee is holding a hearing to examine how the White House handles highly classified information. In June and July 2003, one of the nation's most carefully guarded secrets -- the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson -- was repeatedly revealed by White House officials to members of the media. This was an extraordinarily serious breach of our national security. President George W. Bush's father, the former President Bush, said, and I quote, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who expose the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors," end quote.

Today we'll be asking three questions: One, how did such a serious violation of our national security occur?; two, did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred?; and three, what changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of national security from occurring?

For more than three years, a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak for its criminal implications. By definition, Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation had an extremely narrow, criminal focus. It did not answer the broader policy questions raised by the release of Ms. Wilson's identity, nor did it seek to ascribe responsibility outside of the narrow confines of the criminal law.

As the chief investigative committee of the House of Representatives, our role is fundamentally different than Mr. Fitzgerald's. It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is our job to understand what went wrong and to insist on accountability and to make recommendations for future -- to avoid future abuses. And we begin that process today.

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session. I have met with -- personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to assure these remarks do not contain classified information. I have been advised by the CIA, and that even now -- after all that has happened -- I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests. But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 -- Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country. Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious affects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States. This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field, and to the CIA's ongoing work. Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point. Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably and we're confident she will uphold it again today.

Well, that concludes the characterizations that the CIA is permitting us to make today. But to these comments, I want to add a personal note. For many in politics, praising the troops and those who defend our freedom is second nature. Sometimes it's done in sincerity and sometimes it's done with cynicism, but almost always we don't really know who the people are. We don't know they're out -- we don't know who those people are that are out there. They are our abstract heroes whether they're serving in the armed services or whether they're serving in the CIA.

-snip-

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Plame_hearing_transcript_0316.html

[Atman]

24. Republicans don't care about "under oath" because they just lie anyway

And expect that honest people do, too. Oath's mean nothing to republicans, unless you lie about getting your knob waxed.

.

[Garbo 2004]

25. Simple really: her employer of public record was Brewster-Jennings. But she

actually worked for the CIA.

Ironically, Novak himself provided the proof in two columns in 2003: first outing her employment with the CIA and later revealing that her employer of official public record was Brewster-Jennings, a private firm not a public Federal agency. That means she was a NOC, a CIA officer operating under nonofficial cover. I.e., she was a covert employee of the CIA.

Additionally, confirmation was provided by General Hayden, head of CIA, by authorizing Waxman to read a statement in his opening remarks saying that she was covert: http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316172636-89494.pdf

[Lil Missy]

26. Either way, severe damage was caused to the intelligence community, and people died

I am appalled that they make such trivia over arguing the fact whether it actually fit under the best scenario of the law for talking points. It was a grave and serious deed that caused tremendous harm to this country, and many undercover operations.

AND! This administration is so accutomed to hubris that they didn't even pretend to investigate the matter! Outrageous! And arrogant!

[WinkyDink]

28. "Others" = Liars, knaves, and fools. "Others" say the earth is flat.

"Others" say "Watergate was just a 2-bit burglary." "Others" say John Kerry was a coward. "Others"....you get the point.

Maybe your father would like to know more about Prescott, whattaya think?