In Saturday's radio address, (Larry) Johnson (a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000) said he was "stunned" by government officials' "ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of the nation."

He strongly responded to some Republican allegations that minimized Plame's role in the CIA. "We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover," he said.

"Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson."

"We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot focus its efforts on attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth," Johnson added.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/23/dems.radio/

This is not going away,

Impeach them all!

Keith’s Barbeque Central

I mean, how can you hold a praise and worship session for Bush under THESE conditions?

:toast:

a) pick your name (well maybe I didn't ID her by her CIA registered maiden name>>>>>lameO problemO

b) identifying her is identifying her

c) I know the next book I'll write. "Dumb political word games for Dummies."

That could be anybody. Welcome to DU ShockediSay

:hi: :toast:


Keith’s Barbeque Central

Archives
http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=45

:)

Swamp Rat: that animation KICKS ASS!!!

:rofl:

Has the media finally grown a new set of teeth? :D

You do good work!

Former CIA analysts, Larry Johnson, center, with former analyst and case worker, Col. W. Patrick Lang (ret.), left, and Jim Marcinkowski, right, testifies on Capitol Hill before a joint Senate and House committee, Friday, July 22, 2005, in Washington. The Democrats of the Senate Policy Committee and House Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the CIA leak and the national security implications of disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)

Excellent hearing...being re-run on C-SPAN all weekend for those who missed it.
http://www.c-span.org/

I greatly respect Johnson. Perhaps he was trying not to shock others with his remarks. Particularly Bush supporters.

But the sentence below needs correcting, if only among ourselves.

Johnson: In Saturday's radio address, (Larry) Johnson (a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000) said he was "stunned" by government officials' "ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of the nation."

"Stunned" is fine. "Ignorance" is incorrect.


"Ignorance" would be when someone spouts totally untrue information because they don't know what the f*** they are talking about.

"Lying" is when someone spouts totally untrue information when they know perfectly well what they are talking about.

"Perjury" is when someone spouts totally untrue information when they know perfectly well what they are talking about, and are under oath when they do so.

"Treason" is when someone spouts totally untrue information when they know perfectly well what they are talking about, and and our covert agents die because of it!

All that, lest we forget....

A word can have one definition in one context, and another one in a different context. It's been claimed that one law specifies its own definition of "covert": I'll assume the claim is true. I'll also assume that the CIA could easily have an operational definition at odds with that so. If so ...

Could Johnson *and* whoever is arguing that Plame wasn't covert *both* be right? Yep.

In any event, it's, as Chomsky would say, an empirical question. I'll let somebody work out the facts who actually has access to them, and not rely on sourceless, leaked classified information or sourceless, leaked grand jury information.

The CIA itself referred this case to the justice dept for investigation as a criminal matter because she was a covert operative. And I would believe the words of Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson who both speak for her before I would believe an administration lackey trying to misinform and muddle information about Plame.

(1) She's covert if the CIA has taken affirmative steps to maintain her cover *and* she's been posted outside of the country in the last five years.

(2) She's covert if the CIA has taken affirmative steps to maintain her cover.

So, what happens if two laws have different definitions, and the CIA has done (2) but not everything in (1)? It means for some purposes, she's covert. But for other purposes, she's not covert. "Is she covert?" becomes a fairly meaningless question without a context.

but surely there are scores of covert CIA agents who have not been posted outside of the US within the last five years, and if any common person would out them knowingly, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that they would be prosecuted for breaking the law. It may also depend on whether the CIA agent was posted at any time outside the US during the immediate five year period, and very possibly Valerie Plame would fall into that category.

law.

I'm ok with having a dozen laws under discussion as possibility having been broken, with a lot of complex definitions. But the upshot is that we have to make sure we match up definitions with the right law--otherwise all we do is waste time arguing about what "covert" must or mustn't mean.

And surely we have better things to be doing than arguing about which one definition is the only correct one.