Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I have said all along that Cheny would be recievin the Target letter

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 06:24 AM
Original message
I have said all along that Cheny would be recievin the Target letter
Rove and Libby were never code-word cleared which means someone told them about Plame.....only 30 or so people have code word clearance The VP certainly wouls.... Andy Card would...NSC/CIA/DIA/FBI/DOD senior leadership would certainly have it....we Know Rove did not and that Lobby even COS for Cheney would not typically been given access.

Fitz would have a hard time making a case that these guys knew they were outing a top secret operative.


They can always get them on Perjury and Obstruction...but he wants to geth them to flip on Cheney for telling them state secrets they had no business knowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Loge23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bigger fish
It's all just hopeful speculation right now however my guess is also that Fitzgerald is looking for bigger fish. It sure seems that a volcano is brewing here. But then, I was pretty excitied the day before the election too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatever4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. But
But I have a very difficult time believing they didn't realize they were "outing a top secret operative". I mean, really, in their positions, if they didn't realize the identity of a CIA operative was potentially quite damaging...then what was the point of leaking it in the first place?

They knew it would be damaging to her, and through her, her husband. It is why they leaked her name in the first place; it was intended to do damage. They knew it would be damaging to the career of a CIA agent. I'd think that would be enough, it speaks to intent, even if they weren't "sure" that the name of the CIA agent provided to them was a "top secret operative", they seemed to have a pretty good idea that just sharing her agent status would do damage. Why would they think it would do her damage if she WASN'T covert?? What good would have sharing her name have been if she WEREN'T covert? Seems like outing her was the only point of the exercise, and they could have not have known it would be effective unless they knew something about her job.

Because if she'd have been just a secretary at the CIA, outing her wouldn't have done a damn thing. Right? That was almost the original story, that she wasn't' "that" important, which later turned out to be untrue. Rumors I've read have said this action of their cost lives of operatives. More than one life. These people got OUR people killed, in those rumors, got our most trusted, valued, life-risking loyal spies dead. I mean this quite seriously, and just because there isn't proof or links for it yet doesn't mean it isn't true. They cost lives, and did damage to whatever real national security we have. They busted it. All for dirty politics.

It just doesn't make sense; I refuse to believe they went to all the trouble to out her with no guarantee of a payout. In short, if they didn't know, why did they do it?? The nature of her job was the ONLY reason to have targeted her, and so, I cannot believe they had no understanding of the damage their outing would do. If our leaders were willing to share her identity with people who had no "need to know", just to do her damage, I cannot believe they'd hold back why. There wasn't any reason not to tell them, when it was going to become a news story anyway. And, remember, these people aren't stupid. Crazy, but not stupid. They do this politics stuff for a living, they know a HELL of a lot more than we do in average America.

They didn't know? I cannot believe they had no idea why they were leaking the name of this CIA agent. Purpose was to do damage. It could only do damage if it damaged the CIA, and THAT just isn't acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. My suspicion is that it was not nearly as maniacal as some would think
It may have been less retribution than it was a lashing out without considering impacts,

I think that is the US attorney's biggest proble with moving forward on the outing charge. You have to prove intent and I suspect purposeful intent and that Burden is pretty heavy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. If they claim she wasn't that important in the CIA...
then they shouldn't have spread the rumor that SHE got Joe Wilson his Niger gig. Out of one side of the mouth they say things like "oh, she was just an unimportant desk jockey." Out of the other side they say, "She had such major influence she could snap her fingers and get the CIA to send her husband."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC