Let the coal raking begin... Joe Wilson on 60 Minutes Sunday.

[Taco John]

JOE WILSON, HUSBAND OF THE UNMASKED CIA AGENT VALERIE PLAME, SAYS THERE HAVE BEEN THREATS AGAINST HER – “60 MINUTES” SUNDAY
Fri Oct 28 2005 20:56:07 ET

Former CIA Colleagues say the Unmasking of Plame Could Cause Harm to Other Agents

Joe Wilson, whose wife’s unmasking as a CIA agent is at the center of the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation, said today that that his wife, Valerie Plame, has been threatened. Wilson talks to Ed Bradley in his first interview since Fitzgerald announced the indictment of I. Lewis Libby. It will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday Oct. 30 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

“There have been specific threats [against Plame]. Beyond that I just can’t go,” Wilson tells Bradley. Wilson says he and his wife have discussed security for her with “several agencies.”

Former CIA colleagues say that by revealing her identity, harm could be caused to the CIA’s agents and operations. “If a CIA agent is exposed, then everyone coming in contact with that agent is exposed,” says Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA agent who trained with Plame at the top-secret Virginia facility known as “the Farm.” “There is a possibility that there were other agents that would use that same kind of a cover. So they may have been using Brewster Jennings just like her,” said Marcinkowski, referring to the fictional firm the CIA set up as her cover that also came out when journalists, including Robert Novak, disclosed it.

Marcinkowski also points out, “[Plame] is the wife of an ambassador, for example. Now, since this happened…they’ll know there’s a possibility that the wife of a U.S. ambassador is a CIA agent.”

Another friend, once a covert CIA operative, says people who say Plame wasn’t in a sensitive position need to understand how intricate a cover story is, regardless of what an agent is working on. “Cover is…for a clandestine officer, can be different things at different times. We change cover. We modify cover based on how we need it. But that cover is linked together,” she tells Bradley. “If you start to unravel one part of that, you can unravel the whole thing.”

Rep. Rush Holt (D.-NJ), a former intelligence analyst and member of the House Intelligence Committee, agrees. “I think any time the identity of a covert agent is released, there is some damage -- and it’s serious.” Holt says it’s possible agents overseas could be arrested or even killed, but “if there were, and I’d been briefed on it, I couldn’t talk about it,” he tells Bradley. He did say he has been assured the CIA was mitigating the effects of the leak. “They have taken the usual procedures to protect the damage from spreading.”

Those procedures began the moment Valerie Plame learned her cover was blown. Upon finding out about the leak of her name, “she felt like she'd been hit in the stomach. It took her breath away,” said Wilson. Then she methodically went to work, he says, “making lists of what she had to do to ensure that her assets, her projects, her programs and her operations were protected.”

Wilson tells Bradley, contrary to reports that many knew Plame was in the CIA, that only he and three other people knew. “Well, very few people outside the intelligence community [knew she was CIA]. Her parents and her brother, essentially,” says Wilson.

Developing...

[Taco John]

It looks like the campaign to inform America just how serious these charges are begins right away...

[the Talking Can]

It looks like the campaign to inform America just how serious these charges are begins right away...

I've read reports that the CIA has a damage assessment of her "outing". One of the reasons, people speculate, that Fitzgerald got a judge to jail a reporter was the seriousness of information in that damage report.

We do know, though, that company she worked for lost it's cover as a result of this...and by extension everyone else who worked there.

Serious stuff.

[the Talking Can]

Fitzgerald also made of point of saying that her status was not common knowledge. That is why he had FBI agents interviewing people in her neighborhood.

Another Republican talking point, as he so elequently said, "that won't fly."

[RP_McMurphy]

You Liberals with your faux outrage over this is so funny. These are the same people that didn't want background security checks on staffers in the Clinton White House because they knew they couldn't qualify for any type of clearance much less a Top Secret.

[KC Jones]

You Liberals with your faux outrage over this is so funny. These are the same people that didn't want background security checks on staffers in the Clinton White House because they knew they couldn't qualify for any type of clearance much less a Top Secret.

Who are the liberals? TJ? - he's a libertarian and if I'm not mistaken he voted for W and initially supported the Iraqi war (based on falsified evidence). Vlad? He's pretty much the definition of a moderate and is just as disgusted by the extreme left as he is the extreme right. It's just that the left is powerless and the right is ****ing our country over something awful right now. Me? Well, I used to be a liberal years ago but I've long since moved to the middle. I still have an innate distrust of many republicans and unfortunately it's been well deserved given the current administrations actions.

There is no reason to support the Plame outing other than being loyal to your team at the expense of the law and our nations interests.

[the Talking Can]

You Liberals with your faux outrage over this is so funny. These are the same people that didn't want background security checks on staffers in the Clinton White House because they knew they couldn't qualify for any type of clearance much less a Top Secret.

hey, Kotter, what's up?

[Mr. Kotter]

Holy crap, TJ....now you went and done it: using figurative speech in your thread title! WTF could have possessed you man?! We only deal in the LITERAL around here!

:cuss:

Vlad, nychief, PittGorilla, and NewChief will be along very shortly to chastise you severely for such a disgrace. :shake:

I mean, when we tune in to 60 Minutes after the late games on Sunday, there had BETTTER be some "coal raking" going on....or there will be HELL to pay, mister.

;)

[patteeu]

Who are the liberals? TJ? - he's a libertarian and if I'm not mistaken he voted for W and initially supported the Iraqi war (based on falsified evidence). Vlad? He's pretty much the definition of a moderate and is just as disgusted by the extreme left as he is the extreme right. It's just that the left is powerless and the right is ****ing our country over something awful right now. Me? Well, I used to be a liberal years ago but I've long since moved to the middle. I still have an innate distrust of many republicans and unfortunately it's been well deserved given the current administrations actions.


It's funny how liberals so often try to paint themselves as centrists. I can understand how we don't like to broadly generalize by using labels like "liberal," but I find your assessment of TJ and Vlad just as far off as you might find my assessment of you.

[KC Jones]

It's funny how liberals so often try to paint themselves as centrists. I can understand how we don't like to broadly generalize by using labels like "liberal," but I find your assessment of TJ and Vlad just as far off as you might find my assessment of you.

My assessments of TJ and Vlad could be way off, but I know where I stand on different political issues and you do not. Your assessment of me would be based on ignorance of my political beliefs and the evidence that most of my posts on this forum are indicative of my disgust with the far right. I have no idea really where you stand other than you are a very loyal republican. My only real point was that it's more than just liberals that think the outing of Mrs. Wilson was wrong. I haven't seen any conservatives on this board speak out against the administration but I know several in my personal life who share my views on the subject. I honestly can't think of one good reason to excuse the administration for their actions in this case. I haven't seen any good arguments for excusing them either. Feel free to make one.

[Taco John]

You Liberals with your faux outrage over this is so funny. These are the same people that didn't want background security checks on staffers in the Clinton White House because they knew they couldn't qualify for any type of clearance much less a Top Secret.



I wasn't one of those people. I don't even know what you're talking about.

As far as Clinton went though, I will admit that I thought it was stupid that we drug his sex life in front of every kid in America. But then, I guess since kids now know what blow jobs are by the time they reach the fifth grade, the underage pregnancy rate has fallen dramatically. We can thank Republicans for that.

[Taco John]

Who are the liberals? TJ? - he's a libertarian and if I'm not mistaken he voted for W and initially supported the Iraqi war (based on falsified evidence).



In the interest of correcting the record, I didn't vote for Bush ever. I did, however, get on board with him after 9/11. I was on board with the Iraqi war prior to Colin Powell's speech despite some early reservations, hoever the Colin Powell speech put me over the line and I was solidly behind this war. At one point in time I even proposed the question on whether or not Bush would qualify for Mt. Rushmore the way things were going for his presidency. Of course, that was back when I believed the Iraq war would be no longer than a year affair like they were selling.

I turned on Bush in March of 2004 when in a press conference he looked like the biggest fool on earth... uncertain... fumbling over his words... looking like the weak man that I have come to realize that he is. I now see him as the worst president in the nations history and believe the corruptness that is currently in the spotlight to be just the tip of the iceberg.

I voted for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party. While I"m just as likely to vote for the Libertarian candidate the next time around, I expect to vote Republican if either Guliani or McCain get the nod.

[Mr. Kotter]

"Coal raking," damn it.


I wanna see....

"COAL RAKING......"

Othewise, Jim is gonna be PISSED!

;)

[patteeu]

My assessments of TJ and Vlad could be way off, but I know where I stand on different political issues and you do not. Your assessment of me would be based on ignorance of my political beliefs and the evidence that most of my posts on this forum are indicative of my disgust with the far right. I have no idea really where you stand other than you are a very loyal republican.

My assessment of you is based on what you post here. If you're telling me that you don't post honestly then I'm completely in the dark about you. If, OTOH, your posts are an honest reflection of what you believe (as I presume they are) then my assessment is not based on ignorance. It may be based on an incomplete picture, but not ignorance. You yourself said that you have trouble trusting Republicans because of your liberal roots which tells me that you haven't completely shaken yourself free from that belief system. I'd be interested to hear how you'd label yourself if you had to pick something other than moderate (or any of it's meaningless synonyms).

I don't agree with everything that is considered conservative (e.g. Terri Schiavo, Patriot Act, War on Drugs, Hetero-only Marriage, etc.) but if someone calls me a conservative because I tend toward conservative solutions to social problems rather than liberal ones, I don't run from the label. Similarly, I don't agree with everything that is libertarian either (e.g. open borders, weak military, etc.) but I don't run from the libertarian label either. I'm not a Republican though, loyal or otherwise, although I did cast my first vote for a Bush in 2004.

My only real point was that it's more than just liberals that think the outing of Mrs. Wilson was wrong.

It seemed like a bad time to criticize someone for the use of the label "liberals" to me. the Talking Can is an unashamed (some might just say shameless) liberal and it's easy to mistake Taco John's Bush-hatred for that of a liberal even though he isn't. I'm not sure how Vlad got into the discussion. And I also don't think that RP_McMurphy made the case that ONLY liberals are upset, he was targeting his criticism at that subset though.

But in any event, I don't want to pick a fight with you. If you don't want to be called a liberal, I won't call you a liberal (unless I forget and do it at some point down the road).

I haven't seen any conservatives on this board speak out against the administration but I know several in my personal life who share my views on the subject. I honestly can't think of one good reason to excuse the administration for their actions in this case. I haven't seen any good arguments for excusing them either. Feel free to make one.

I've seen many CP conservatives say that they will wait to see where the facts take us and if the facts indicate an outrageous crime has been committed then those conservatives will be appropriately outraged. So far, no such facts have been forthcoming on the "outing" issue. The people getting outraged over the Plame outing right now are those who aren't waiting for all the facts. Several conservatives (RINGLEADER, mlyonsd, and Mr. Kotter come immediately to mind) have said that if an administration official committed crimes like obstruction and perjury that they should lose their jobs and be prosecuted. You've just missed them I guess.

I'm not sure what specific actions you are talking about or I'd give your challenge a try.

[patteeu]

In the interest of correcting the record, I didn't vote for Bush ever. I did, however, get on board with him after 9/11. I was on board with the Iraqi war prior to Colin Powell's speech despite some early reservations, hoever the Colin Powell speech put me over the line and I was solidly behind this war. At one point in time I even proposed the question on whether or not Bush would qualify for Mt. Rushmore the way things were going for his presidency. Of course, that was back when I believed the Iraq war would be no longer than a year affair like they were selling.

I turned on Bush in March of 2004 when in a press conference he looked like the biggest fool on earth... uncertain... fumbling over his words... looking like the weak man that I have come to realize that he is. I now see him as the worst president in the nations history and believe the corruptness that is currently in the spotlight to be just the tip of the iceberg.

I voted for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party. While I"m just as likely to vote for the Libertarian candidate the next time around, I expect to vote Republican if either Guliani or McCain get the nod.


I think we have to question your judgement if the worst president in the nation's history could have fooled you into not only supporting a bogus war but into thinking his image belonged on Mt. Rushmore. ;)

[KC Jones]

My assessment of you is based on what you post here. If you're telling me that you don't post honestly then I'm completely in the dark about you. If, OTOH, your posts are an honest reflection of what you believe (as I presume they are) then my assessment is not based on ignorance. It may be based on an incomplete picture, but not ignorance. You yourself said that you have trouble trusting Republicans because of your liberal roots which tells me that you haven't completely shaken yourself free from that belief system. I'd be interested to hear how you'd label yourself if you had to pick something other than moderate (or any of it's meaningless synonyms).

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I do post honestly, although a lot of time I'm shooting from the hip and my current mood, prejudice for the poster I'm responding to, etc. will affect the tone and comments I make. As for ignorance vs. incomplete information - that was the defition I was shooting for but perhaps I should have used a different term. I'm just not nearly as prolific a poster as many others and I haven't posted my thoughts on a lot of subjects. As for my liberal roots - I certainly haven't lost the ability to empathize with others or my desire to make the world a better place. However I have changed my stance on a lot of subjects so it's hard for me to say the liberal label would still apply. I consider myself a pragmatist. I'd say that there's much of the traditional conservative philosophy I agree with but a few areas I still disagree strongly. The majority of republicans (like democrats) are decent upstanding Americans. I don't trust the religious right, because I think they believe installing their version of christianity as policy is God's will and should be achieved by almost any means. I also don't trust the GOP party leadership as I think a disproportionate number of them are in bed with industry leaders and their primary goal is to make money for their friends over making sound policy.

I don't agree with everything that is considered conservative (e.g. Terri Schiavo, Patriot Act, War on Drugs, Hetero-only Marriage, etc.) but if someone calls me a conservative because I tend toward conservative solutions to social problems rather than liberal ones, I don't run from the label. Similarly, I don't agree with everything that is libertarian either (e.g. open borders, weak military, etc.) but I don't run from the libertarian label either. I'm not a Republican though, loyal or otherwise, although I did cast my first vote for a Bush in 2004.

Well, then I was really wrong about you - I just took it from your recent activity on this forum you were in lockstep with the GOP faithful.

It seemed like a bad time to criticize someone for the use of the label "liberals" to me. the Talking Can is an unashamed (some might just say shameless) liberal and it's easy to mistake Taco John's Bush-hatred for that of a liberal even though he isn't. I'm not sure how Vlad got into the discussion. And I also don't think that RP_McMurphy made the case that ONLY liberals are upset, he was targeting his criticism at that subset though.

I suppose I have a tendency to believe that Bush supporters tend to lump everyone who is opposed to their policies into the 'liberal' label as an attempt to discredit them. Overreactive on my part I'm sure.

But in any event, I don't want to pick a fight with you.

Too bad - it's on now bitch! kidding :D

If you don't want to be called a liberal, I won't call you a liberal (unless I forget and do it at some point down the road).

It's okay for you to call me a liberal, but that doesn't make me a liberal. I support private gun ownership, school vouchers, military spending, reforming social security, restrictions on abortion, the Afghanistan invasion, an end to affirmative action, and plenty of other policies that most liberals probably wouldn't, but if it's the label you feel most comfortable painting me with go ahead and do so.

Ok, it's late on a Saturday night and I'm a huge nerd for sitting in front of my PC to respond. I'm quitting now.

Good night! :thumb:

[Mr. Kotter]

Lookin' forward to some COAL RAKING tonight....

Aren't you, Jim?

[jiveturkey]

How has Novak avoided jail?

[jiveturkey]

The 2nd storey is almost as disturbing.

Privacy is a word that may eventually be removed from the dictionary.