The Rabbit Hole..Follow

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147669,00.html

Knowing that half of you wont read this because the words foxnews* is in the url, let me break it down for you.

The reporter is being supbeonaed and someone in the Bush administration is walking around with a very shriveled peepee.

Promise?

Condi, I'd imagine.

I'm torn. A free press is vital; however, what passes for the press in these latter days barely qualifies on so many levels. So that's one side of the conflict; the other side is, of course, wanting to see the bastards hang mixed with burning curiosity to see if my suspicion is right.

Two more words: Yes Please!


I actually have a copy of Deepthroat on tape; one of my roommates left it lyign around when I moved in. Took a quick look at it, but the picture was grainy and everyone (including the women) were hairier than grizzly bears

Now you've done gone and confuzzled me !

It, sadly, wasnt reported as a wrongdoing. The "deep-throat" merely outed the CIA agent as an active CIA agent. It was nothing more than a ploy to discredit an agent that went against the grain of the administration.

This kind of thing comes pretty effin close to home for reasons I obviously can't discuss. It just disgusts me to no end that some Washington politician tries to play hard-working agents putting their life and careers on the line for the country they love on puppet strings. There are many things a CIA agent can do to earn money. They chose to serve the country. The country should choose to honor that dedication, and when it doesnt, the wound goes deep.

Yeah I think that was more like it... But yeah, nasty shi[/u]t to do..

I hope she was at least an OC but if she was NOC then someones balls need to be ripped off with a pitchfork!

Interesting read:

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/04_Money/040628.plame.html

apparently she was NOC...

Edited, Tue Feb 15 19:33:11 2005 by Lefein

Hmmm... The article is a bit vague on a couple points, and I don't really feel like doing research atm.

I know about the Novak article. Apparently, he disclosed his sources, but in both cases, they were people who did not have direct access to a NOC list, didn't know she was a NOC (just that she worked for the CIA), and believed it was just common scuttlebutt.

What information was in the articles written (in one case) that these other sources revealed (and which the reporters are not divulgin the sources for)? Was this just more of the same? Or information about how the NOC info got leaked in the first place?


I'm on the fence on this one as well. On the one hand, protection of sources is a key component for the press to be able to keep tabs on what's going on in government. On the other hand, there's certainly a national security issue at stake here. If someone with direct access to the NOC list passed on that information, then they're a serious security risk, regardless of *why* they did it. Protecting a source in this case has no real value (or the value is overweighed).

In the case of Deep Throat, it didn't really matter who provided the information if the information was accurate. In that case, you had a source directly telling a reporter who was doing what that was wrong, and allowing that reporter to blow open a conspiracy. Ultimately, knowing the identity of Deep Throat wasn't that critical since the information the public had a right to know was already revealed.

In this case though, the sources are concealing a key half of the information. I'm assuming they are saying that someone deliberately released the NOC info in order to get back at Wilson, but without revealing *who* did it, the information does us absolutely no good (except to cast suspicion). It would be like Deep Throat saying that "someone" ordered the bugging at Watergate, but not telling the reporter who, or providing enough information for the reporter to figure it out. It's purely speculative at this point. Heck. For all we know, these reporters could have made up the information to spread doubt about the Bush administration during an election year (or simply repeated made up information).

There's simply no way to know. Was there a conspiracy? Did someone in the administration deliberately release Valerie Plame's status to get back at her husband? Or did someone else with access to the list accidentally reveal it at some earlier date for an unrelated reason and it just happened to come up at that time? Or did someone just make up the idea that she was a CIA operative and it just happened to be correct? Heck. Is it correct? It's not like the CIA confirmed her status or anything (or that they'd tell us truthfully anyway). For all we know, she was never on a NOC list at all, but since someone thought she was, and it was released publicly, everyone just assumes she was.


There are waaaay too many unanswered questions. At this point, we have nothing more then the fact that Libby thought she was a CIA operative, but had no idea it was supposed to be secret and told Novak. We also have two other reporters with related stories (which I'm assuming contain implications of deliberate leaking of the info as retaliation for Wilson's article), but without any person to point the finger at, and without knowing the sources, we're left with nothing but empty speculation.

Correct. But if someone wasn't a NOC, but someone wrote a story saying that she was, would the CIA confirm or deny it? We don't even know if the "leak" existed, since by definition, confirming that it was a leak by anyone with access to the list would be a violation of national security (and a hanging offense as you say).