Plame's job was to keep nukes from Iran

[it5five]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CBS_confirms_2006_Raw_Story_scoop_1020.html

Scroll down to 60 Minutes video at the bottom of the page.

I'd like to hear from all of the conservatives here that had previously dismissed Plame's job as being insignificant (who are most likely the same ones being hysterical about Iran). You can admit you were wrong any time.

[yg17]

You can admit you were wrong any time.


A conservative admitting they were wrong? Not gonna happen :D

[obeygiant]

Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation. ...

Three intelligence officers confirmed that other CIA non-official cover officers were compromised, but did not indicate the number of people operating under non-official cover that were affected or the way in which these individuals were impaired. None of the sources would say whether there were American or foreign casualties as a result of the leak.

What is "non-official cover"?

Also are these the same intelligence people who were wrong about WMDs?

[Ugg]

I'm pretty sure swarmy was convinced that she was just female window dressing at the CIA. His response, or lack thereof will be very revealing, but probably not surprising.

[Badandy]

A conservative admitting they were wrong? Not gonna happen :D

Any politician admitting they were wrong? Not gonna happen :D

[hulugu]

What is "non-official cover"?

Also are these the same intelligence people who were wrong about WMDs?

NOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-official_cover) is the kind of cover often popularized in spy movies, such as Mission: Impossible. Remember the "Knock List?"

Non-official cover means you take on another profession, such as a foreign journalist, in order to move about the target country unnoticed. This is different from Official Cover, in which CIA agents pose as some kind of US official, but not as a spy.

Furthermore, the CIA's 2002 report wasn't markedly different from their previous reports. Saddam Hussein was known to have some chemical weapons on hand and before 1990 was working towards a nuclear program, but the CIA merely continued this same analysis. Rather, it was the administration, hoping to invade Iraq, who created the reasoning that Iraq had become a clear and present danger. After all, it was Rice who made the omnimous statement (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/) "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
This phrase didn't come from the CIA.

[solvs]

Of course it's backfiring on them. When you do something like this, you're already shooting yourselves in the foot. But they were trying to stop this disastrous war from happening, and the administration couldn't have that. So they did the only thing they could. Attempted to destroy the messenger since they couldn't do anything about the message.

Anybody else still bothered though that this was actually treason? Like... real, actual treason. Releasing the name of an undercover CIA agent. Especially for political reasons, as this obviously was. She can't say who, but there were also contacts who were made public. Possibly (likely) some were even killed because of it, as she's alluded to. Not to mention the obvious fact that they turned out to be right, about almost everything, whereas the administration has been proven completely wrong. Kinda makes you wonder why they went so far out of their way to find the things that did support the invasion, while not only ignoring, but going out of their way to silence those who could prove what didn't.

I'm also looking forward to seeing what the excuse for this will be, if we'll even get one, since there really isn't any.

[SMM]

<... snip ...>

After all, it was Rice who made the omnimous statement (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/) "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
This phrase didn't come from the CIA.



It did not come from Rice either. Everyone disseminating the WH sales pitch was using the phrase eventually. The right-wing quickly picked up the phrase and FOX employed it to great effect. The actual author was WH speech-writer Michael Gerson (now a columnist with the Washington Post).

[mactastic]

What is "non-official cover"?

Also are these the same intelligence people who were wrong about WMDs?
NOC means if you get caught, the CIA will not admit to running you as an agent. You're on your own. It's the kind of thing that can get you executed in many countries.

What we're talking about here is treason. Deliberately outing an undercover agent of the US government who was working on WMD proliferation in Iran - the place we're told WWIV will likely emanate from.

And as of yet, no one outside the Agency knows the extent of the damage done to Plame's network. There is a distinct possibility that people may have been imprisoned or killed as a result of a political smear job.

[solvs]

Outed spy: I'm not going away (http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/10/28/outed_spy_im_not_going_away/)

Still can't believe anyone is trying to justify what was done to her, and why, especially given the outcome.

Seems they see it happening again too, and would like to try and stop it, or at least make people more aware.

[Iscariot]

If any agents were killed as a result of Plame's ousting, it should be easy enough to track if any anonymous stars made the wall. With a little digging I came up with this:

An anonymous star was added to the wall between named stars that can be dated to deaths on February 5, 2003 and October 25, 2003. The anonymous star thus fits the timing of the Plame leak. Wayne Madsen, a reporter and former NSA employee, has claimed, "CIA sources report that at least one anonymous star placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor at its Langley, Virginia headquarters is a clandestine agent who was executed in a hostile foreign nation as a direct result of the White House leak."

But I'm having a hard time verifying it with 100% certainty. There are some photos floating around on the internet that supposedly display the star in question, but I've no frame of reference for comparison.

[solvs]

In interviews, when asked, she always gets quiet for a second and says she can't talk about it, but alludes to the fact that it has lead to compromises and death. She's also said there's probably more than she's even aware of. It would be naive to think there were no negative consequences. Other than what we already know of course

[Iscariot]

In interviews, when asked, she always gets quiet for a second and says she can't talk about it, but alludes to the fact that it has lead to compromises and death. She's also said there's probably more than she's even aware of. It would be naive to think there were no negative consequences. Other than what we already know of course

Certainly, but if I'm going to speculate I'd prefer it to be as substantive as possible.

[solvs]

Certainly, but if I'm going to speculate I'd prefer it to be as substantive as possible.
I'm sure she'd like to, but can't say anything. Ironically to protect the secrecy that's already been blown by those who still haven't been held accountable. She was on the Daily Show, and they were showing her book, which was highly redacted. Again, she implied what I said above, and that it really didn't have to be redacted as much as it was. But that also, ironically, proves those who say she wasn't undercover wrong. Not that they were ever right about that, and they know it, but as we know, they can repeat the lie enough and it somehow becomes a reasonable excuse. She also made a statement I wasn't aware of before, that she actually did think there were WMDs, but wanted to prove it first. It was only after that that they began to fight the administration, who didn't even want to wait. Looking at the situation now, we know who was right.

I'm guessing, from the lack of responses lately, some people would rather just not think about it, and like the administration, kinda hope she'd just go away. Not likely if they keep doing the same things with Iran. As she's said, she's still pretty pissed they ruined her life and got away with it.

[SMM]

When a field agent is compromised, a damage assessment is done. This can range from an easy, straight-forward (and quick) analysis, to a very complex process.

In Valerie's case, one would expect those who leaked her identity were not privy to the top secret detail information in her work. That would be confined to a very select group. The wide range of possible scenarios will take a considerable amount of time to unravel. Even though this is a high-profile case, it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out, or if it does, it will not be for many years.

She was involved with this work for many years. If she has developed a group of agents, it is quite possible some will just be left alone, believing they were 'missed'. In summary, what happened to Valerie is something the entire Country should be ashamed by.