Cheney and Bush established their own SAVAK/STASI/KGB branch in the White House, separate from the congressionally-authorized and funded intelligence branches.

The DOD’s Inspector General called this “inappropriate,” but some White House flunky (Gonzales?) got the DOD’s Inspector General to insert into his report that what Cheney and Bush had done wasn’t illegal because it was authorized (presumbaly by a Cheney and Bush “secret” executive order?).

Congress did not (at least not to my knowledge) establish or authorize Cheney’s and Bush’s SAVAK/STASI/KGB White House branch that was setup solely to “fix” the intelligence around Cheney’s and Bush’s highly partisan political (warmongering) agenda.

This utter disdain and lack of respect shown our congressionally-authorized intelligence branches by Cheney, Bush, and their SAVAK/STASI/KGB-like agents in the White House is what led directly to the outing of a covert CIA agent in 2003 and is ultimately behind the current Libby trial (and hopefully many more trials to come).

Thus, I don’t buy the idea presented in the Libby trial that the top-secret, classified information was declassified prior to when the White House SAVAK/STASI/KGB-like officials started blabbing about Joe Wilson’s wife to reporters.

In other words, evidence has emerged in Libby’s trial that these officials were already blabbing about Valerie Plame to reporters in June 2003 prior to the mid-July declassification of this information, in an apparent attempt to make the declassification retroactive to any earlier conversations these officials had with reporters…i.e. CYA by these officials.

And they’ve used the same rationale that appears in the DOD’s Inspector General’s report pertaining to this SAVAK/STASI/KGB-like intelligence operation in the White House, that although it may have been inappropriate to out a top-secret, covert CIA agent, it was legal because it was authorized (presumably through an executive order by Cheney and Bush).

And if one thinks about it, this is the entire basis and rationale of the Bush administration on one issue after another (Iraq, torture and renditions, diverting military resources from Afghanistan to prepare for war with Iraq, SCOTUS getting involved in 2000 presidential elections, the assault on U.S. citizens’ civil liberties, faith-based initiatives that violate the U.S. Constitution, etc.): it may seem inappropriate, but it is entirely legal (in their warped minds) because it was authorized (through an executive order)…by the worst and most corrupt administration in American history.

IMPEACH all the SAVAK/STASI/KGB-type officials out our our government NOW…especially Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.

If Plame was NOT in a classified position then all of the above could have simply obtained this information directly from the Public Information Office of the CIA.

Why can’t they tell us what Plame’s job actually was?

I think that they NYT is being utterly disengenous about this! They know that they were rebuffed decisively in a lawsuit to obtain this information. They know that Toensing was unable to obtain that information as well.

Yet they persist in publishing her utter nonsense that they know is false and devoid of factual content!
Why is the NY Times and Toensing so fixated on impairing this countries ability to protect those agents and sources involved in Counterproliferation Operations?

I thought you might find this Frontline Series tid-bit interesting (and I put it together in this post) about the “11 Questions” answered by the Victim Agency when making a complaint for an FBI investigation into the leaking of classified information.

Hmmm…would like to see the answer to #11 one day!

I thought that the wording of the referral should be posted for all to read…

Unauthorized Disclosure of
Classified Information
“11 Questions”

“1) Give the date and identity of the article disclosing the CLASSIFIED information?

2) Give specific statements in the article which are considered CLASSIFIED and whether the data was properly CLASSIFIED?

3) State whether the CLASSIFIED data is disclosed ACCURATELY?

4) State whether the data came from a specific document and, if so, the origin of the document and the name of the individual responsible for the security of the CLASSIFIED data?

5) Give the extent of official dissemination of the data?

6) State whether the data has been the subject of prior official releases?

7) State whether prior clearances for the publication or release of the information was sought from proper authorities?

8) State whether the material, or portions thereof, or enough background data has been published officially or in the press to make an educated speculation on the matter possible?

9) State whether the data can be declassified for the purpose of prosecution, and, if so, the names of the person competent to testify concerning the classification.

10) State whether declassification has been decided upon prior to the publication of the release of the data?

11) What effect does the disclosure of CLASSIFIED material have on the NATIONAL DEFENSE?”

this group simply set up an “alternative” intelligence agency in the Pentagon and trumped the CIA. That was “inappropriate”

Lying about Intelligence = “inappropriate”
Lying about a blow job under oath = Impeachment

We wonder why we have become the laughing stock of the world. And why people fear and hate us

Since Feith is not in jail along with Ledeen and the rest of the rwr (right wing radicals) they are free to repeat endless claims about Iran’s “alleged” nuclear weapons, feeding a potential confrontation with Iran.

All in the “Clean (bloody) Break Plans”

Frank–

I went back and re-read the Cousin It Byron York piece and I thought it was a tragic waste of dye.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01571.html

The whole point of it is to imply, as you say, that we don’t know her status–though of course we do, through the documents and testimony in this trial–by ignoring time and time again the point that this trial IS about perjury and obstruction of justice. He would rather keep pointing to the fact that it IS NOT about an IIPA violation, which he repeatedly and incorrectly suggests is the only possible illegality or impropriety that could be legitimate.

He seems to be saying, with enormous gobs of disingenuity, that it would be better if we actually had her status on record in the trial. Of course, it is the defense that wants that kept out at all cost, since a statement of fact as to her status that the jury could consider would put the nail in the motivation coffin.

Indeed! If Plame’s position at the CIA were simply that of some unclassified Secretary or Analyst bothe the defense and the media would have had access to that information…
just as they do when they requested that several NAMED CIA agents and their jobs be presented in the trial.

Libby himself pointed out that many CIA employees are in unclassified positions…but he knew this because they had told him (Plame did NOT…and “perhaps” he never bothered to check…AT BEST negligence relating to material that bore Secret/SCI on documents he received (and even stamped and secreted himself. But if he really knew…it’s an egregious breach of National Security.

Futhermore Fitz announced to Libby at his Grand Jury testimony that he was investigating a possible breach of the IAIP Act…a request forwarded to him by the CIA. If Plame’s status at the time have not qualified as “covert” they would not have requested investigation under that statute. Only AFTER Fitz’s investigation could the other elements of the IAPA be ascertained: intent, knowledge of her status by the leaker, conspiracy, etc.

Notice how the Defense even tried to exclude any statement that she worked within the CPD from being allowed as evidence…when they argued that the WINPAC association had not been shown by EVIDENCE and statements by the CIA to be shown false. Fitz showed the judge the CIA documents showing that “Wilson’s wife” was an employee of the CPD…and that Judith Miller’s notes, not the CIA’s, had this misattribution.

Hmmm…would like to see the answer to #11 one day!

One has to really wonder about Victoria Toensing’s agenda with the Libby trial. She has made every effort to undermine the process. I guess Toensing is not concerned when national security(Plame’s work following WMD’s )issues have been seriously undermined/destroyed! This just does not seem important to Toensing.

“According to former federal prosecutor Victoria Toensing – who helped craft the specific law in question that protects covert CIA agents – Karl Rove did not violate the statute. John Gibson of the Fox News Channel asked her the following: “Did Rove — if he said to Matt Cooper what he is reported to have said, did that constitute breaking this law?” And Toensing replied: “No. If he just said to Matt Cooper that the wife is CIA, that doesn’t give any fact to provide the prosecutor with the element that he has to prove Karl Rove intentionally gave up a covert agent with the knowledge that she was deep undercover. And this is very important — the CIA had to be taking the affirmative measures to keep her identity secret. They (the CIA) flunk that on about three counts.” Toensing further noted that, “they weren’t taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don’t really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them… But probably the worst thing that they did, John, was that, when Bob Novak called and said, well, I have got the name and isn’t she working for the CIA, they just kind of shrugged and said, well, you know, she probably isn’t going to have another overseas assignment anyway. Nobody from the top part of the agency called and said, you cannot print this name. They didn’t threaten him with criminal prosecution, as they have done with other reporters on matters that I’ve worked on. There was nothing to signal that this was important to the CIA.”

Byron York has an interesting op-ed in the WaPo today. It’s not as far-fetched as usual. His thesis is that, even now, we still don’t know Valerie Plame’s status at the CIA. The implication is that Plame might have just been a secretary, so this could all still be much ado about nothing.

I would also point out tht the CIA has been mum on Byron York’s relationship at the CIA…which could mean that Byron York is merely performing a mime act of being a journalist.

Even more sinister, York might be using that tried-and-true method of the double diversion. But acting like a White House clacquer/shill while pretending to be a “journalist” it could really deflect from the fact that he’s actually a double agent for the Israeli Mossad.