Libby Takes Fall For Bigger Mouth

Like the soldiers following orders from the White House at Abu Gharib Scoter Libby carries out the directives of his bosses. Sometimes it is unclear as to who calls the shots in the White House but it seems pretty clear in this matter of outing a CIA agent, that the Bush administration was trying to cover its butt concerning the lies it used to take America into the Bush War For Oil In Iraq. The corruption of this right wing group of corporate hacks is watching as the walls of their “invincible” fortress begin to crumble.

Just look who is running a good part of our govt. now. Many are RR crooks. Many right back at DOD or WH. Some one should put a list up on DU of all these people and where they work.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

There is no doubt Bush and Cheney were in charge of this smear campaign and as is the method those in power will attempt to divert attention from their problems in any way possible.

The nature of Plame's job is another way they are going to try to slime out of the act of treason. Naughty naughty Georgie and Dickie.

According to intelligence sources, Plame was an "undercover officer." In fact, she had NOC status, that is, nonofficial cover. NOCs are not ordinarily deskbound intelligence analysts who work inside C.I.A. headquarters. Mostly they operate abroad, frequently using fake job descriptions and sometimes fake names. According to a former senior C.I.A. officer, to blend in they often have to work two jobs: that of their "cover" and that involving their C.I.A. duties, which usually consists of handling foreign agents in the field, but can also involve recruiting them. NOCs have no diplomatic protection and so are vulnerable to hostile regimes that can imprison or execute them without official repercussions. A NOC's only real defense is his or her cover, which can take years to build. Because of this vulnerability, a NOC's identity is considered within the C.I.A. to be, as former C.I.A. analyst Kenneth Pollack has put it, "the holiest of holies."
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentar...o03d?print=true