CIA seeks probe of White House


Agency asks Justice to investigate leak of employee’s identity

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/2ebefc7104d681/www.msnbc.com/Site_Elements/CLEAR.GIF

EXCLUSIVE
MSNBC AND NBC NEWS



WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

THE FORMER ENVOY, Joseph Wilson, who was acting ambassador to Iraq before the first Gulf War, was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to investigate a British intelligence report that Iraq sought to buy uranium there. Although Wilson discredited the report, Bush cited it in his State of the Union address in January among the evidence he said justified military action in Iraq.
The administration has since had to repudiate the claim. CIA Director George Tenet said the 16-word sentence should not have been included in Bush’s Jan. 28 speech and publicly accepted responsibility for allowing it to remain in the president’s text.
Wilson published an article in July alleging, however, that the White House recklessly made the charge knowing it was false.
“We spend billions of dollars on intelligence,” Wilson wrote. “But we end up putting something in the State of the Union address, something we got from another intelligence agency, something we cannot independently verify, in an area of Africa where the British have no on-the-ground presence.”

WHITE HOUSE DENIALS
The next week, columnist Robert Novak published an article in which he revealed that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction. “Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate,” Novak wrote.
The White House has denied being Novak’s source, whom he has refused to identify. But Wilson has said other reporters have told him White House officials leaked Plame’s identity.

NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell reported Friday night that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether White House officials blew Plame’s cover in retaliation against Wilson. Revealing the identities of covert officials is a violation of two laws, the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act.

ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE CLAIM
When the Niger claim first arose, in February 2002, the CIA sent Wilson to Africa to investigate. He reported finding no credible evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.
The CIA’s doubts about the uranium claim were reported through routine intelligence traffic throughout the government, U.S. intelligence officials said. Those doubts were also reported to the British.
The Niger report included a notation that it was unconfirmed when it was published in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the classified summary of intelligence on Iraq’s weapons programs.

The CIA had the Niger claim removed from at least two speeches before they were given: Bush’s October address on the Iraqi threat, and a speech by U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte.
As the State of the Union address was being written, CIA officials protested over how the alleged uranium connection was being portrayed, so the administration changed it to attribute it to the British, who had made the assertion in a Sept. 24 dossier.

By MSNBC.com’s Alex Johnson with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_infobeat.asp?/news/937524.asp

Subj: Ambassador Joe Wilson on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" This Monday
Date: 9/28/03 12:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: MORRIS434

Hi All,

We need to try to get on C-SPAN (C-SPAN can be viewed on BBC Parliamentary Channel) this Monday at 4:45 AM on the west coast and at 7:45 AM on the east coast of the USA (live) when Ambassador Joe Wilson is on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program (as we need to mention the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons and www.nowarforisrael.com as Ambassador Wilson is also very much against the Neocons as we need to call to give him an opportunity to discuss them):

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=204&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=15&ShowVidDesc=

Robert Fisk: Lies, mischief and the myth of Western intelligence services- Syria:

http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/1648859.php

A truly unimpeachable source.

/sarcasm off

as if your groundless parroting of spoon fed propaganda could compare

hey - ya' got something from the NSA for me again ?

Fisk? A good source?

Sure...if you hate America as much as he does, I suppose.

That you belive his tripe says volumes about you, Hex.

> his tripe

you've pulled this crap before - tried to trash his stories

go ahead, go down that little path again and see what happens

...you prove I'm anyone else besides who I say I am.

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.


I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

...without Oracle's "Disinformation" rant.

As if it proves anything.

Except his willingness to lengthen threads unnecessarily and waste bandwidth.

His ass is hanging out the window. He's so far to the left he makes Chumpski look like Bob Dole.

You need to look at his website to see where reality and delusion diverge.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams.

as if anyone couldn't see this for themselves.

"At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist," yesterday's Washington Post reported. "The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy 'yellowcake' uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11208-2003Sep27.html

I've been keeping an eye on this story since July, when it first surfaced in the left-wing press. But I haven't commented on it, because I haven't been sure what to make of it. I'm still not sure what to make of it, since I've heard only part of one side of the story; the administration has not made any substantive comments, and what I've heard from its accusers has been far from complete. But now that the story is getting attention outside the fever swamps, I thought I'd review what is and isn't known so far.

At issue is the following passage in syndicated columnist Robert Novak's July 14 column:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

Two days later, The Nation's David Corn published a column that laid out the allegation at the heart of the Post story:

"The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. . . .

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent."

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823

A couple of caveats are in order here. First, it remains unconfirmed that Plame was in fact working covertly for the CIA. Novak described her as a CIA "operative," but not an UNDERCOVER operative. Wilson and the CIA both imply that she was an undercover operative, but they employ various circumlocutions to avoid actually saying so. Thus Corn:

"Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career."

The Post, likewise, says "the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."

In addition, no one in a position to know has publicly fingered the alleged leakers. Wilson himself has said he would like "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," and various anti-Bush conspiracy theorists have latched on to the Rove theory. But this seems to be pure speculation, and possibly wishful thinking. Bush-haters, after all, would love to be rid of Rove, a great political asset to the White House.

The Post's main source narrows the field somewhat:

"A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. . . . The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls."

One question that arises is how the Post's source knew that the alleged leakers were "top White House offiicials"--a category that is more specific than Novak's description of "senior administration officials." It's possible is that the Post's source is someone at the CIA who had knowledge of journalists' inquires to the agency about the leaks. Perhaps one or more of the journalists used the more specific description. But the Post account suggests that the source has even more specific knowledge. "The official would not name the leakers FOR THE RECORD," (emphasis mine), the paper says, implying that he did name them off the record. How would he know? Did one of the reporters betray his sources?

Then there's this, also from the Post account:

"When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. . . .

Novak said in an interview [Saturday] night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

If the revelation of Plame's name was such a serious breach of national security, why didn't the CIA make a stronger pitch to Novak to withhold it? Indeed, as blogger Donald Luskin asks, why did the CIA answer Novak's questions at all?

"Instead of saying "Valerie WHO? We've never heard of anyone named Valerie" or simply that "We don't answer media inquiries about CIA personnel"--the CIA itself confirmed [her identity], and in so doing THE CIA ITSELF LEAKED IT (emphasis mine)."

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_09_28_chronArchive.asp#106481688926238042

Then there's the question of motive. Why would Novak's administration sources blow Plame's cover, assuming indeed that they did so? Wilson told Corn the revelation "is intended to intimidate others who might come forward." But this doesn't make sense. An ordinary reader of Novak's column had no way of grasping the purported significance of the revelation. Novak didn't make explicit that he was blowing Plame's cover; what he reported seemed to be more an accusation of nepotism. (Not a very convincing accusation, we might add, since Wilson was not paid for his sojourn to Niger, which is not exactly one of the world's leading vacation spots.) In order for the revelation to have the kind of deterrent value Wilson claims, it would have to be clear to an outsider that Novak had reported something truly damaging--and that couldn't happen without the leakers themselves being incriminated. And in any case, how many administration critics are married to CIA covert operatives?

The Post's source's theory is that "it was meant purely and simply for revenge" against Wilson. Human nature being what it is, one can't rule out such ignoble motives. But as a political matter, taking such action would have been, as the Post's source puts it, "a huge miscalculation." What could have been in it for the administration, or for the leakers? Why risk creating the Bush White House's first-ever scandal over the yellowcake kerfuffle, an issue that no one cared about outside the Beltway and the Bush-hating left? It doesn't sound like something Karl Rove would do.

Anti-Bush partisans are really piling on thick over the purported scandal involving the "outing," supposedly by White House officials, of Valerie Plame, who may or may not have been a covert CIA operative, and who is married to a critic of the administration named Joe Wilson. Josh Marshall blogged himself into such a frenzy yesterday that he almost matched Glenn Reynolds's output on a slow day. One random left-wing blogger sums up the tone of the attacks: "Conservatives have a long history in America of resorting to traitorous acts to further their own private agendas." I'm half-expecting the bestseller lists to feature a book called "Leaks and the Leaking Leakers Who Leak Them."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/index.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_09_28_dneiwert_archive.html#106493942821840150

But it's not clear if there's anything to this at all. The whole thing got started in July, when Robert Novak published a column mentioning that Plame was a CIA "operative." Then, as I noted yesterday, various left-wing journalists, apparently egged on by Wilson, started claiming that Plame was a covert operative--and therefore that blowing her cover was potentially illegal--even though neither Novak nor Wilson nor the CIA has identified her as such.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

Yesterday on CNN's "Crossfire," of which he is a co-host, Novak had this to say:

"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington, I do not reveal confidential sources.

When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis, who is--he is a former Clinton administration official. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/29/cf.00.html

That last sentence is the key: If Novak's source is telling the truth, then there's no crime, and the "scandal" is utterly phony.

The Washington Post has a useful backgrounder on the law in question, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, enacted in 1982 after former CIA agent Philip Agee (who now lives in communist Cuba) published a book and various articles revealing the names of undercover CIA agents in an effort to sabotage U.S. intelligence activities. Even if Plame does turn out to be a covert agent, revealing her identity wouldn't automatically be illegal:

"The law enacted to stop Agee and others imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for the unauthorized disclosure of covert agents' identities by government employees who have access to classified information.

The statute includes three other elements necessary to obtain a conviction: that the disclosure was intentional, the accused knew the person being identified was a covert agent and the accused also knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19699-2003Sep29.html

In order to violate the law, in other words, one must disclose a genuine secret. Was Plame's association with the CIA a secret? As I said yesterday, the CIA's blasé attitude toward Novak's inquiries suggests not. Bolstering that inference, Clifford May writes in National Review Online that Plame's CIA connection "wasn't news to me. I had been told that--but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of."

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

The Justice Department has now undertaken an investigation of the matter, the Associated Press reports, so eventually things will become much clearer. Don't be surprised, though, if this purported scandal ends up amounting to nothing.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/09/30/identity_leak/

Geez, if you guys are gonna apologize for the acts of these scumbags, at least do it CONCISELY...

Here's the deal; some high up shitheal in this administration leaked this info simply as revenge against Wilson....didn't care about him, her, her family, or anybody who might have been compromised. It has the stink of Roverer all over it. There is some meat here that will come out...and it ain't gonna be good for da shrub (especially after shitting all over the intel community in his rush to war).

In the past, da shrub and Little Dick got all hot n bothered over leaks...ya'd think that outing a CIA operative would be the kinda thing that would get them all hot n bothered..

....but instead we get a tepid response...hmmmm....wonder why?

....I think there is blood in the water now....

Of course you do. All the libs do. Goodness, after floating trail balloons and throwing darts to see what might stick for 3 years now, and coming up empty handed everytime, you gotta hope for something.

You got these libs now trying to twist words, making this woman to be some "secrent agent" that she never was, trying to claim the White House was sending a "message" to others, all sorts of over-the-top theories about this. Frankly, it makes the Dems look like exactly what they are, a bunch of desperate, mud slinging fools.

This is going to turn out to be nothing, except another embarrassing attempt by the "Get Bush At Any Cost" haters to try and make something stick.

Ffutal, I appreciate your reports. Out of everyone who posts here, you're the only one who completely documents everything you say. More people should follow your example.

Columnist Robert Novak weighs in with more details on the Valerie Plame kerfuffle:

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why [Joseph] Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. . . .

A big question is her duties at Langley [CIA headquarters]. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered"--working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

Former CIA man Larry Johnson, however, claims otherwise in an interview with PBS's "NewsHour":

"This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

If Johnson is right that Plame has been undercover for three decades, she must have been quite a prodigy. A Washington Post profile of Wilson says his wife is 40 years old--though I suppose it's not unheard of for women to be "covert" about their age. Putting aside the question of timing, it's possible that both Novak and Johnson are right--that Plame was undercover when Johnson worked at the CIA but was a mere analyst at headquarters by the time Novak wrote about her. This may explain why the CIA asked Novak not to use her name, and also why, as he has said, "it was a very weak request."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25492-2003Sep30

In any case, there's ample reason to be suspicious of Wilson's motives in all this. The Washington Post quotes him as saying of his wife: "We were just discussing today who would play her in the movie." It doesn't sound as though he's really all that upset.

OK -

How can a comment in regard to Wilson's wife's CIA connections made during a "long conversation" with a senior White House official, a conversation about her husband, be classified as "offhand"? Novak is obviously full of shit here. Either that or he is a complete rube.

Novak also says: "The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."

How does he know this? How does he know that the administration didn't shop this story around to six reporters? He doesn't. And it is obvious that Novak is a willing pawn, as his past will attest. It ain't like Novak hasn't been a mouthpiece for this adminsitration and others before.

Novak also said this: "He asked me not to use her name, saying ...that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

What the fuck did he think the euphamism "difficulties" meant? She wouldn't get a seat at Felix in Kowloon? He must think his readers are idiots (and judging from the comments so far, he is right).

Here is another funny part; Johnson wrote this: "She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst."

Ffutal wrote this: "it's possible that both Novak and Johnson are right--that Plame was undercover when Johnson worked at the CIA but was a mere analyst "

That is flat out a mistatement of the quote you presented. It is quite obvious by Johnson's statement that he did not think Plame was an "analyst", your claims of the opposite are bogus.

Then you have the gall to cast aspersions on Wilson's motives...motives for what, trying to find out who destroyed his wifes career, and possibly broke the law while doing so? What a scoundrel! Let's forget about the obvious pettiness of attacking the man's wife, it is HIS motives that must be questioned...

You're pathetic!


Well, instead....let's forget your convaluted three card monte game and get back to the despicable facts;


Do you deny-

-that a senior WH official outed what Novak described as a CIA operative working on WMD's/terrorists?

-that the CIA itself has requested an investigation?

-that it was done as retaliation against her husband?

Do you condone this activity?

Gee, what happened to all the barking?

Desperately hoping this dies down, huh?

Don't bet on it....

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations notes a key limitation in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the 1982 law that Robert Novak's sources supposedly violated by revealing that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA: An employee of an intelligence agency is a "covert agent" for the purposes of the statute ONLY if he "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." This makes sense; after all, the CIA isn't supposed to spy in the U.S.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot2oct02,1,1927312.story

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/426.html

Does Plame qualify? It's not entirely clear, for both the CIA and her publicity-hungry husband, Joseph Wilson, have revealed little about her professional history. But here's what we do know:


- According to Wilson's biography on the Web site of the Saudi-funded Middle East Institute, which lists him as a "media resource," his last overseas assignment, as political adviser to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces in Europe, ended in 1997, six years ago. (Wilson's bio, by the way, lists his wife's supposedly secret maiden name.)

http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html

- Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Wilson and Plame have three-year-old twin sons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25492-2003Sep30


- Maureen Dowd reports that Wilson and Plame met at a Washington cocktail party six years ago.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/opinion/02DOWD.html

Wilson's bio says he worked for President Clinton as a special assistant between June 1997 and July 1998, which means he was based in Washington when he met Plame. If their kids are three years old, they would have been born in 1999 or 2000, and it seems reasonable to surmise that she was not stationed overseas as an expectant or new mother. If she has been stationed overseas during the past five years, then, the Wilson-Plame romance would have to have been a long-distance one at least during its first two years. So far as I am aware, no one has asserted that it was.

Andrew Sullivan calls it "kind of perfect Washington storm--about something that will never formally become much more than nothing." But journalists are doing their best to gin up the Valerie Plame kerfuffle into a scandal. Today's New York Times reports that "deep political ties between top White House aides and Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer." Pretty sinister, huh? Not until the 15th paragraph do we learn that the investigation will be carried out by career Justice Department lawyers, not political appointees.

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_09_28_dish_archive.html#106507097080771468

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/politics/02ASHC.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

The Washington Post's effort is even more absurd. "Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday," the paper reports on the front page. Here are some of the findings of the poll:

- 81% of those polled think this is a "serious" matter.


- 72% think it is "likely" that someone in the White House "leaked this classified information"


- 69% favor the appointment of a special counsel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29560-2003Oct1.html

The Post's article, however, makes no mention of the second question, which is the most important at all:

"The U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether someone in the White House broke the law by identifying a former diplomat's wife as an undercover CIA agent. The former diplomat claims this was done to punish him for criticizing U.S. policy on Iraq. Have you heard or read anything about this situation, or not?"

Only 68% of those polled--less than all the percentages cited above--had heard or read ANYTHING about the situation, and one suspects comparatively few of those are following the story closely enough to have a well-informed opinion. That means the answers to the poll questions are largely based on information supplied by the pollsters themselves, in questions that are quite one-sided. For example, in the question above, we learn what "the former diplomat claims" but not that it remains in dispute whether in fact his better half was an undercover operative. This poll seems more an effort to keep the story going than to gauge public opinion honestly.

Predictably enough, lots of people are using the W-word: Republican chairman Ed Gillespie " was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Tuesday evening whether the potential crime involved was worse than Watergate," the Associated Press reports. The Guardian quotes David Corn, the left-wing journalist who first published the claim that Plame was undercover: "Unlike Watergate, this starts with people who are close to the president." And yesterday CNN's Wolf Blitzer, interviewing fellow TV host Bob Schieffer, said, "We're talking Watergate maybe"--though Schieffer said: "This is not Watergate."

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/6913586.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1053934,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/01/wbr.00.html

Some Bush foes seem downright gleeful about the prospect of "another Watergate," and this is of a piece with quagmire lust--their tendency to hope every war, most recently Iraq, turns out to be "another Vietnam."

What's going on here? Most Americans view Vietnam and Watergate as national tragedies, products of an era that befouled America so much that we endured four years of Jimmy Carter as penance. But for a generation of journalists and liberal activists, Vietnam and Watergate were triumphs, not tragedies. In their worldview, the good guys spoke truth to power, stopped a war and brought down two corrupt presidents, forcing LBJ to retire and Nixon to resign. For partisan reasons, many of these people stopped their scandal- and quagmire-mongering while Bill Clinton was president, but with a Republican in office there is little to inhibit them from trying to relive their glory days.

But the tendency to see all wars in terms of Vietnam and all would-be scandals in terms of Watergate reflects a profound lack of historical perspective. Vietnam and Watergate are both singular events in American history--the only war the U.S. has ever lost, and the only scandal ever to force a president from office.

To be sure, each left a substantial legacy: For the quarter century after the fall of Saigon, American leaders were extremely averse to military casualties, while Watergate gave us campaign-finance "reform" and the late, unlamented (until recently) institution of the independent counsel.

I would venture to say that the attacks of Sept. 11 followed by America's military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have laid to rest a great deal of the Vietnam legacy. The post-Watergate era began its end with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, after which Congress let the independent counsel statute die. Today the New York Times editorial board twists itself into knots trying to explain its position on reviving that law:

"The leak investigation has already prompted calls from Democrats in Congress to re-enact the lapsed special prosecutor law, under which a judicial panel can appoint an independent investigator who cannot be fired by the attorney general. While this page has strongly supported that law, we have seen how tangled up an administration can get under the unrestricted power of an independent counsel, like the meandering Kenneth Starr during the Clinton administration. We do not believe that this case merits having Congress reopen now the issue of possibly resurrecting that law, an effort that would only lead to partisan fistfights and would delay an investigation that should proceed swiftly."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/opinion/02THU1.html

If the Plame kerfuffle ends up withering away because of its own insubstantiality, perhaps Watergate nostalgia will go out of fashion once and for all.

Again, let's forget your convaluted three card monte game and get back to the despicable facts, and you could save typing by addressing them;


Do you deny-

-that a senior WH official outed what Novak described as a CIA operative working on WMD's/terrorists?

-that the CIA itself has requested an investigation?

-that it was done as retaliation against her husband?

Do you condone this activity?

The President is the big Boss over everyone in the CIA.

This was just his way of firning that woman, because her spouse couldn't keep his trap shut.

Moral of the story: "If your spouse works for the Government, keep your political opinions to yourself."

This is a joke.

"many of these people stopped their scandal- and quagmire-mongering while Bill Clinton was president"

Dude, what planet have you been living on for the last 10 years?

"I would venture to say that the attacks of Sept. 11 followed by America's military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have laid to rest a great deal of the Vietnam legacy."

You could venture to say it...you could venture to say the the moon is made of green cheeze...but that don't make it so.


"Only 68% of those polled--less than all the percentages cited above--had heard or read ANYTHING about the situation, and one suspects comparatively few of those are following the story closely enough to have a well-informed opinion."

One suspects? How did one arrive at that? I mean, besides the normal Republican leaps of illogic. 68% had heard "anything", which by definition ranges from a very little to every detail. SIXTY EIGHT PERCENT! From that you deduce that "comparitively" few...a nicely weasled phrase...know enough to have a well formed opinion? Why is that....I tell you why, you believe their opinions are not well formed because they do not agree with you.

"Not until the 15th paragraph do we learn that the investigation will be carried out by career Justice Department lawyers, not political appointees. "

No shit, Sherlock. It ain't like Asscrack will be doing the investigation himself...the grunt work is always done by the grunts....but that is not who is making the decisions...oh, and you are sooooo SEXY when you play coy.....

Look, you are afraid os a special prosecutor...and you should be....your boy will have nobody to cover his ass. A special prosecutor is needed to make sure that the investigation will not be hampered. Your claim that this fear is not warranted is not born out by history or common sense.

"This was just his way of firning that woman, because her spouse couldn't keep his trap shut. "


...witness the moral backbone of th Republican party...


...you are pathetic....

>>"many of these people stopped their scandal- and quagmire-mongering while Bill Clinton was president"

>Dude, what planet have you been living on for the last 10 years?

That's not even debatable. The liberals made excuses for Bill Clinton and did everything they could to redirect inquiries and shut down the voices of those who brought up his indescretions and crimes. Had they been consistent, they would have demanded that Clinton resign from office in the same way they are demanding it today of Bush. Liberals are naturally two-faced, as KPC so clearly demonstrates everytime he posts.

I'm glad you're on the other side politically. And they can keep you. With people like you around, snake-oil salesmen need never worry about finding another sucker of which to make an easy buck.

"That's not even debatable." For once your right. It's not debatable that you are wrong. Clinton scandals gave birth to Cable News Talkshows....I have no idea what planet you have been on dude...but there is not debate that you are wrong.

And what are you talking about "sucker"....your the one who swallows every lie that this pResident tell you like it came from a burning bush....

....fuckin' rube....

You're laughable when you're angry. Actually you're laughable all the time, but especially when you're angry. Get used to it. You're going to be angry for a long time.

>but there is not debate that you are wrong.

What a coinincidence. There's not a debate when you are ever right.

KPC, our own little member of the Angry Left. It so accurately describes you. You are motivated by emotion, not rationality, you cannot be reasoned with, and neither you nor your ideas will ever be taken seriously.

"You're laughable when you're angry."

I'm not angry...da shrub twisting in the wind make me laughingly happy happy! Be my guest if you wish to laugh along....

"There's not a debate when you are ever right. "

Yes very nice...but could you write that in English, please?

Now, what other tricks do you know...d'ya know fetch?

>Again, let's forget your convaluted three card monte game and get back to the despicable facts, and you could save typing by addressing them; ....blah, blah, blah

Attention eveyone. Attention.

Has anyone here ever seen Ffutal answer back anyone? He's been posting his comments on here for a least a year or more now. Has anyone ever seen his answer back? No. Will he ever answer anyone? No. That's obviously not why he posts here. He just states his comments and moves on. Obvious to everyone except Angry Left Poodle Boy KPC, that is. Unlike Angry Left Poodle Boy who has to answer every comment and get in the last word so he can feel like he's won.........something, whatever it is you idots think you're going to win. Angry Left Poodle Boy is so fucking typically unobservant it's never noticed that Ffutal just does his thing and moves on. Liberals, I give you your comrade KPC, once again showing why you dorks are constantly being steamrollered.

Hey, Angry Left Poodle Boy, since you didn't notice, Ffutal just posts and moves on. And even if he did respond, he ain't got time for liberal trash like you.

....you're fuckin pathetic......

"Won't"?

..or "Can't"?

I suspect the latter.

...now, isn't there some indefensible lie that you should be out defending....

...fuckin' dingleberry.....

"...now, isn't there some indefensible lie that you should be out defending.... "

No, that's your job, and you're not very good at it, Davis Lover!

"Won't"? ..or "Can't"?

Has he ever done it shithead? No. Guess what? That's not what he does. He just posts. That you can't figure it out says more about you than it does about him. You can suspect all you want. We could all suspect you're a fucking moron, but we don't have to, you prove it to us over and over again everytime you post.

.....fuckin Idiot.....

What are you, the Ffutal Defense Committee?

If Ffutal has fingers, let him defend himself..

....oh, that's right, your JOB is to defend the indefensible.....


OK...Bush....CIA...WMD....Niger....

...that should keep you busy for a bit.....

I got nothing to defend. You've got to attack. And given your inabilities, I haven't any reason to lose sleep. You keep floating those trial balloons and throwing those darts hoping something will stick like you have the past 3 years. The conservatives in power have legislation favorable to our side to pass into law. So, while you're distracted chasing your tail that's tucked between your legs, we'll be doing what we damn well please, just like we always do.

See, AngryLeftPoodleBoy, what you can't seem to grasp are the rules. Here are two of them:

1) He Who Has The Gold, Rules!

2) Money Talks, Bullshit Walks!

Until you figure out how that works, I mean really figure it out, cause your simple mindlessness hasn't even scratched the surface of understanding, you're going to continue to be the loser you are. And I'm going to continue to spit on you as you lie on the sidewalk hungry and cold.

Settle down Warren. You're getting too worked up.

Don't make us bitch slap you again...

What does this have to do with morals? Usually, it's you liberal Democrats that get upset with us Republicans when we start talking about "morals".

The woman was a CIA analyst and her husband was a mouthy Ambassador.

Take a look at the mission statement of the CIA:

"Our Mission
We support the President, the National Security Council, and all who make and execute US national security policy by:

Providing accurate, evidence-based, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence related to national security; and

Conducting counterintelligence activities, special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security as directed by the President. "


Basically, the woman got fired by her Boss. And I don't blame him a bit for doing it either. If her husband, who was a direct representative of the US Government, appointed by "a President", was attempting to politically undermine our leadership, then why should we trust that his wife was doing her sworn duty any better?

no clue, not a bit.
This women was doing the real business of the CIA which was not importing drugs or over throwing corporate unfriendly nations.
She was in the field with her now endangered contacts to determine the threat and provide intelligence towards materials that are a knife to the throat of the people of the U.S.A.
But as in the case of the warnings given to the intelligence agencies about 9-11 the purpose of this administration was not to protect the citizens but to allow disasters like this to happen in order to boost funding of special interests.
leadership?
this is criminal conspiracy or negligence.

"no clue, not a bit. "

You sure got that right, you don't have one.

"This women was doing the real business of the CIA which was not importing drugs or over throwing corporate unfriendly nations. "

Prove this. Go ahead, state your facts.

The truth is that this woman was an analyst. And that's all that she was, unless you count being a leech on the tax-payers as being something else.

The only reason the CIA called for an investigation is because Ambassador Wilson and his pseudo-secret agent wife complained about her abrupt "termination" of employment. The Agency is just going through the motions, as it would be forced to procedurally do should anyone that work there complain.

Nothing is likely to come of it though.

OOO the shills are in a flurry to cover this one up.
And I'm not going to waste my time running around the tree to prove
anything to you, 'Max' because it is common knowledge about the real purpose of the CIA.
bulletin to the spooks on this board, you are going to have to do better then this.

I have a few links for the not spooks.
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment.

So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination.

These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists" [or these days "terrorists"] but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

— Steve Kangas
http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html

"http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html";


A website hosted from Liechtenstein as a reference.

That's credible.

You loony leftists are quite the conspiracy hounds.

HAR!

from:
Slinshot
Early Spring 1997
Berkely California
-------
The Real Drug Lords

A brief history of CIA involvement in the Drug Trade

by William Blum

1947 to 1951, FRANCE
According to Alfred W. McCoy in The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia,
CIA arms, money, and disinformation enabled Corsican criminal syndicates in
Marseille to wrestle control of labor unions from the Communist Party. The
Corsicans gained political influence and control over the docks -- ideal
conditions for cementing a long-term partnership with mafia drug
distributors, which turned Marseille into the postwar heroin capital of the
Western world. Marseille's first heroin laboratones were opened in 1951, only
months after the Corsicans took over the waterfront.

EARLY 1950s, SOUTHEAST ASIA
The Nationalist Chinese army, organized by the CIA to wage war against
Communist China, became the opium barons of The Golden Triangle (parts of
Burma, Thailand and Laos), the world's largest source of opium and heroin.
Air America, the ClA's principal airline proprietary, flew the drugs all over
Southeast Asia. (See Christopher Robbins, Air America, Avon Books, 1985,
chapter 9 )

1950s to early 1970s, INDOCHINA
During U.S. military involvement in Laos and other parts of Indochina, Air
America flew opium and heroin throughout the area. Many Gl's in Vietnam
became addicts. A laboratory built at CIA headquarters in northern Laos was
used to refine heroin. After a decade of American military intervention,
Southeast Asia had become the source of 70 percent of the world's illicit
opium and the major supplier of raw materials for America's booming heroin
market.

1973-80, AUSTRALIA
The Nugan Hand Bank of Sydney was a CIA bank in all but name. Among its
officers were a network of US generals, admirals and CIA men, including
fommer CIA Director William Colby, who was also one of its lawyers. With
branches in Saudi Arabia, Europe, Southeast Asia, South America and the U.S.,
Nugan Hand Bank financed drug trafficking, money laundering and international
arms dealings. In 1980, amidst several mysterious deaths, the bank collapsed,
$50 million in debt. (See Jonathan Kwitny, The Crimes of Patriots: A True
Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA, W.W. Norton & Co., 1 987.)

1970s and 1980s, PANAMA
For more than a decade, Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was a highly
paid CIA asset and collaborator, despite knowledge by U.S. drug authorities
as early as 1971 that the general was heavily involved in drug trafficking
and money laundering. Noriega facilitated ''guns-for-drugs" flights for the
contras, providing protection and pilots, as well as safe havens for drug
cartel otficials, and discreet banking facilities. U.S. officials, including
then-ClA Director William Webster and several DEA officers, sent Noriega
letters of praise for efforts to thwart drug trafficking (albeit only against
competitors of his Medellin Cartel patrons). The U.S. government only turned
against Noriega, invading Panama in December 1989 and kidnapping the general
once they discovered he was providing intelligence and services to the Cubans
and Sandinistas. Ironically drug trafficking through Panama increased after
the US invasion. (John Dinges, Our Man in Panama, Random House, 1991;
National Security Archive Documentation Packet The Contras, Cocaine, and
Covert Operations.)

1980s, CENTRAL AMERICA
The San Jose Mercury News series documents just one thread of the
interwoven operations linking the CIA, the contras and the cocaine cartels.
Obsessed with overthrowing the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua,
Reagan administration officials tolerated drug trafficking as long as the
traffickers gave support to the contras. In 1989, the Senate Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations (the Kerry committee)
concluded a three-year investigation by stating: "There was substantial
evidence of drug smuggling through the war zones on the part of individual
Contras, Contra suppliers, Contra pilots mercenaries who worked with the
Contras, and Contra supporters throughout the region.... U.S. officials
involved in Central America failed to address the drug issue for fear of
jeopardizing the war efforts against Nicaragua.... In each case, one or
another agency of the U.S. govemment had intormation regarding the
involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter....
Senior U S policy makers were nit immune to the idea that drug money was a
perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems." (Drugs, Law Enforcement
and Foreign Policy, a Report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and Intemational Operations, 1989)
In Costa Rica, which served as the "Southern Front" for the contras
(Honduras being the Northern Front), there were several different ClA-contra
networks involved in drug trafficking. In addition to those servicing the
Meneses-Blandon operation detailed by the Mercury News, and Noriega's
operation, there was CIA operative John Hull, whose farms along Costa Rica's
border with Nicaragua were the main staging area for the contras. Hull and
other ClA-connected contra supporters and pilots teamed up with George
Morales, a major Miami-based Colombian drug trafficker who later admitted to
giving $3 million in cash and several planes to contra leaders. In 1989,
after the Costa Rica government indicted Hull for drug trafficking, a
DEA-hired plane clandestinely and illegally flew the CIA operative to Miami,
via Haiti. The US repeatedly thwarted Costa Rican efforts to extradite Hull
back to Costa Rica to stand trial.
Another Costa Rican-based drug ring involved a group of Cuban Amencans
whom the CIA had hired as military trainers for the contras. Many had long
been involved with the CIA and drug trafficking They used contra planes and a
Costa Rican-based shnmp company, which laundered money for the CIA, to move
cocaine to the U.S.
Costa Rica was not the only route. Guatemala, whose military intelligence
service -- closely associated with the CIA -- harbored many drug traffickers,
according to the DEA, was another way station along the cocaine highway.
Additionally, the Medell!n Cartel's Miami accountant, Ramon Milian Rodriguez,
testified that he funneled nearly $10 million to Nicaraguan contras through
long-time CIA operative Felix Rodriguez, who was based at Ilopango Air Force
Base in El Salvador.
The contras provided both protection and infrastructure (planes, pilots,
airstrips, warehouses, front companies and banks) to these ClA-linked drug
networks. At least four transport companies under investigation for drug
trafficking received US govemment contracts to carry non-lethal supplies to
the contras. Southern Air Transport, "formerly" ClA-owned, and later under
Pentagon contract, was involved in the drug running as well. Cocaine-laden
planes flew to Florida, Texas, Louisiana and other locations, including
several militarv bases Designated as 'Contra Craft,'' these shipments were
not to be inspected. When some authority wasn't clued in and made an arrest,
powerful strings were pulled on behalf of dropping the case, acquittal,
reduced sentence, or deportation.
{etc...etc...} there is more

http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/970504.hist.html

I find it interesting that the author of this article calls him/her self "America Firster".

The America First Party is a relatively new political organization that is all about propaganda and psychological operations.

http://www.americafirstparty.org/

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/examples.americafirst.html

It's members call themselves "America Firsters". They claim to be for the cause of "putting America first", but in reality it is a Socialist organization.

When ya can't debate....discredit!

I mean, my GOD...it's from Liechtenstein...they talk funny over there.....

You miss the point. I mean, Jesus H. Christ KFC, you couldn't find a link to a domestic based anti-CIA website at least?

Of course you could. But you didn't even look for one. You loony liberals just Google your crap and spew whatever blather just so happens to fall close to the top that matches the conspiracy du jour.

Nobody even reads your blather KFC, why don't you just provide a link and just try communicating your own thoughts?

Maybe we could get a decent dialogue going on around here, instead of these all too frequent spam wars...

Whadda ya, dim? I didn't post the link, numbnuts....and what was posted is not a "conspiricy theory" but well known, and well documented SOP....

...anyway, this thread is about cowardly scumbags who would attack a woman to get at her husband....

...discuss.....

Prove it. I think you did.

"and what was posted is not a "conspiricy theory" but well known, and well documented SOP...."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

"anyway, this thread is about cowardly scumbags who would attack a woman to get at her husband...."

We're not talking about your love life here. We talking about an analyst's un-Patriotic husband that got her fired from her gubment job.

Too bad.

I gotcher proof right here, Min....

Stop playing with your privates, and go get me a bucket-o-chicken, Colonel Sanders...

Ya got the wrong guy, Min...Fido does the fetching around here....

This one's got legs! Turns out Asscrack has an association with Rove...time for a special prosecutor...

The Shills are running and hiding on this one - it has lots of legs.

Keep pushing it.

It shows just how really dishonest and petty the Bushies are.

Shills running and hiding? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's just such a non-item.

This thing is DOA. You just haven't realized how DOA it really is. Stick around. You will.

It will be fun to watch you shills try and make something out of nothing.

Take your meds and drink some tea.

This is gonna get hotter and hotter as the days go by....