Share this
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Blogmarks
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Dear God grant me patience. This virtue is essential if you try to employ logic and reason with the right wing crowd who insist that Valerie Plame Wilson was not undercover and was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). But here goes.I received the following message today from one Tom Maguire, who is a self-proclaimed "Plameologist". I never cease to be amazed at the chutzpah of some folks who lack experience and knowledge, but insist they have the grasp of secrets that folks who have actually worked on the issues do not. Maguire is at the head of the class in this regard. This clown has never worked at the CIA in any capacity, he has never held a security clearance, he's never been a prosecuting attorney, but he insists he is qualified to judge whether Valerie was undercover. His methodology? In his ignorance he identifies supposed "errors" and then proclaims his "secret" truth. He repeats the same tired phrases over and over, apparently in the belief that the quantity of repetition translates his foolishness into pure gold at some point.
Here's Maguires latest crazed ranting with my comments following:
LC: I expect the arguments are way too subtle for you, but Fitzgerald has stepped in it. I'll recap it, secure in the knowledge that you'll never follow a quick or long explanation anyway.As is typical of Maguire he is prone to error and has trouble getting even simple facts correct. For example, he refers to "Onsleee". The Congressman in question is Jay INSLEE, who introduced the Valerie Plame Relief Act.
1. Per Onsleee's (sic) comments in the Valerie Plame Relief Act introduced in Jan 2007, the CIA HR Dept tracks Ms. Plame's "service abroad" for purposes of calculating her pension - in fact, she had a bit more than 6 years service abroad in her 20+ years of service.
2. Oddly, there is "no mention"of this in the recent unclassified summary presented in Fitzgerald's filing. Possible explanations:My initial urge is to wonder if Maguire is retarded. But that would be an insult to the mentally disabled. Just because there is "no mention" in the unclassified summary, Maguire leaps to the conclusion that Patrick Fitzgerald is just making shit up. Let's start with the term, "summary". A summary is not a complete record. A summary highlights critical points. Here is another so-called "possibility" that apparently eluded the dull mind of the twit Maguire--the CIA did not mention Val's time overseas prior to January 2002 because it still insists that Valerie's cover remains intact and cannot be lifted. Since the CIA was giving Fitzgerald an unclassified summary it could not include classified information. If I'm going too fast here, just speak up.
a) the CIA personnel people went through her classified personnel file and never noticed that it tracked her service abroad, because they are oblivious to pension benefits and unaware of their own rules (Possible - you were CIA once, right?)
b) The CIA mentioned to DoJ / Fitzgerald that Ms. Plame has credit for service abroad in 2002 (or after June 1998, really, since the IIPA has the 5 year rule) but Fitzgerald never mentioned it in his summary even though it would have strenghtend his presentation. Uh huh.
c) Ms. Plame never got credit for service abroad after she came home in 1997, so the CIA and / or Fitzgerald fought like fury to keep her records out of court and concealed that fact in her summary.
Tom, you moron! You wouldn't recognize water in a swimming pool if you were chained to the bottom (which, come to think of it is a nifty idea).
So what did the CIA summary actually state?
- Valerie worked in the Directorate of Operations in the Counter Proliferation Division (CPD) and was Chief of the component handling weapons proliferation issues on Iraq.
- Valerie traveled overseas while working at CPD at least 7 times and visited at least 10 countries. She always, REPEAT ALWAYS, traveled undercover. (Note: This means that she had no acknowledged relationship with the U.S. Government. Sometimes she used her real name and real affiliation with Brewster Jennings. Other times, she used an alias. That means she traveled under a different name.)
- The CIA was taking "affirmative measures" to protect Valerie's identity when her name and affiliation were published on 14 July 2003 by Robert Novak. (Note: "Affirmative measures" means the CIA was trying to protect her identity. They did not consider her "just a desk jockey".)
Tommy-boy Maguire also has a tough time with simple, basic English. Was Valerie covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? Yes. No doubt. Here's what Patrick Fitzgerald wrote on p. five of the sentencing calculation memo:
At the time of the leaks, Ms. Wilson in fact qualified as a “covert agent” within the meaning of the IIPA. See, e.g.l, the “Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilson’s CIA Employment and Cover History” (a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A), which makes plain, among other things, that “Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. (Note: Fitzgerald also says he reviewed the classified file as well.)So far we have the CIA saying in a document submitted to the Federal Court that Valerie was undercover and worked in a covert job. Current CIA Director, Michael Hayden, approved a memo for Congressman Waxman in April that stipulated the same points. Patrick Fitzgerald, in a separate court filing, states as fact (not opinion, but fact) that Valerie was undercover and was covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And then you have the public testimony of four former CIA officers--Jim Marcinkowski, Brent Cavan, Mike Grimaldi, and me--who entered the CIA with Val and spent a year with her in training. Multiple, sworn documents and eyewitnesses.
And what "proof" does Mr. Tom Maguire offer for his delusions? Nothing other than heartfelt opinions and uninformed, grotesquely ignorant speculation.
Tom concludes his latest missive to me with the following:
Tough choices. I lean to (c), but if you want to go with (a) insist the CIA is stupid, you are certainly positioned to make the case. Let folks who understand the issues grapple with this, Larry.Congratulations Tom, you finally got something partially right. Yes, let people who understand the CIA, the law, and basic common sense grapple with these issues. You are so far over your head on these issues that you are a black hole of stupidity. The CIA, Tom, is not stupid. You are. And you show no inclination whatsoever to admit you do not know the basics of cover and CIA administrative activities. You are wrong on so many levels that the English language needs a new word to describe a vacuous twit like yourself. I'm open to suggestions.
To create link towards this article on your website,
copy and paste the text below in your page.
Preview :
Rightwing Nuts Stay Delusional on Plame
Tuesday, 05 June 2007
Tuesday, 05 June 2007
Powered by QuoteThis © 2008
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 2492
Comments (5)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
a guest
said:
 |
Thank you again brother Larry for keeping the record straight. Brother Larry Johnson, just today I called my representative to ask for assistance since we live in Texas and our Senators are Republicans, not senators and that we needed to start getting the record straight about both Val Wilson, and the Niger papers, especially the Gen. Nicolo Pollari-Hadley-Cheney connections. I expressed my dismay that even a citizen like myself can call Congress, CIA press office, and USDOJ to get documents that are public record now. Even I don't have to speculate a damn thing about this case because enough has been published to clearly show that Val Wilson was covert, covered, outed for political laziness and revenge, and then they lied, ditched and dodged it. I've been reassured by the House Oversight Committee that this investigation isn't over. I've called, and encourage others to call, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and others to ask... 1. "Why is it after all that has been published...Brit Hume at FoxNews, Byron York at National Review, and the cryptkeeper Robert Novak are still lying about Val Plame?" 2. " Why is Sen. Christopher Bond still allowed to be on the taxpayer's dole while openly slandering Valerie Wilson, an outed agent, by accusing her of giving false testimony even though the memo he cites clearly states someone else is initiating the suggestion?" 3. "Why isn't Cheney being focused on when we know he was the orchestrator of this operation?" 4. "When are you going to do your job and get the truth out there instead of following Paris Hilton to jail?" Bye Lewis Libby, I hope Walton gives you all you deserve. And Larry, see you around the web...thanks again Tom, i'll debate you any time you wish. |
a guest
said:
|
... This is just basic propaganda / nothing stupid; You can invent the biggest lie, repeat it over and over again, and "people" will believe it. Why? 1) "We" are funny animals, and "we" studied ourself, in order to find ways to manipulate others into Zombies, sorry, I mean "consumers" of everything, goods or a "democracy". "We" then called it "marketing" or "public relationships". The original name was "propaganda", but because "we" used it to vilify our enemies, who were applying the same techniques, Mr. Edward Bernays had to find a new name. So he came up with "public relationship", a term still used today, but meaning the same. => So, there are well known, accepted techniques, teaching how to manipulate people, everybody can learn and use, even maggots like Maguire. 2) Almost everything, on a daily basis, reminds us, that we are only "consumers". So, if we are consumers, then "we" must also propagate the idea of having "experts" or "producers". This is done by corporate media. So shit-heads like Maguire and similar, are only doing what others are doing, on a daily basis, exploiting the docile consumers / Zombies, humans reduced to parrots, unable to think, to reason and to act. => So, there is a substantial market for the above techniques. This is a known fact, one has to live with today. 3) Lunatics like Maguire wouldn't bother anybody ... if it wasn't for their supported media presence. Normally, lunatics are removed from the streets, if they become a threat to the public. Today, the elite is seeking and supporting figures like him, and just because of that, he gets mentioned here. => The enemy of public interest is not Maguire. Like Bush, he is just "a" facade. Finally, acting people are repressed with brutal police violence. The system doesn't care, if your acting is based on higher values, truth, higher ethical standards, etc... What counts are economic values and behind Maguire there are big economic values. So nobody can go out and just do the natural-thing, and beat-up all the fuckers, financially supporting this lying idiot. /ricky |
a guest
said:
|
The liberal commentariat let it slide by too easily Today on NPR, the talking heads were going at it about Libby and etc. A dextro-apologist said Libby shouldn't go to jail, partly because "there was no underlying crime" and the phony bromide TP that she just had a "desk job." The liberal counterpart didn't snap back with the sort of points you are making about the CIA 's own reports, etc., but rejoined with a whiny mutter about "not everyone agrees about that" or similar. tyrannogenius |
a guest
said:
|
EVIDENCE FOR PLAME BEING COVERT EVEN BEFORE MR. FITZGERALD PRESENTED THE RECENT CIA FACTS TO THE COURT ANYONE WHO HAD AN INTEREST IN THE SINCERITY OF THE INVESTIGATION WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE LOGIC OF THE CASE PRESENTED HAD AT LEAST SOME STRENGTH. I STILL THINK ALL THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY THAT OF CIA LAYERS WHO REGULARLY CHECK THIS COVERT STUFF OUT, WAS IN FAVOR OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL. CIA NEW SHE WAS COVERT AND I AM SURE THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT FROM THE CIA FURTHER CHECKED THE LAW AND MADE SURE THE LAW APPLIED TO HER. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ASSISTANTS SURELY HAD IT LOOKED INTO BEFORE HE MADE HIS 2 TV REQUESTS FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF LEAKERS. IN ADDITION ASHCROFT PERSONALLY SUPERVISED IT FOR OVER 5 MONTHS BEFORE TURNING IT OVER TO THE SPECIAL COUNCIL AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE WASTED HIS PERSONAL TIME AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MONEY WITH OUT FIRST MAKING SURE MS. PLAME WAS COVERED BY THE LAW AT THE TIME OF THE LEAK. IT WAS HANDLED CAREFULLY. |
a guest
said:
|
Suggestions Larry, Glad to see you still making an impact. If Tom is such a twit, then why waste your time with him? Project much? Tom and the posters at JOM have been following this case since day one and have covered the minutiae in excruciating detail. That he/they reach some conclusions different than "professional" intel folks such as yourself should not be surprising. I've seen you make some critical comments regarding the military conduct of the war. How much time, exactly, have you spent in uniform? Not a fair criticism? Based upon your exacting standards wrt TM, I'd say we should dismiss any criticisms made by you not related to your area of expertise out of hand. What are your mental health qualifications? Somehow you were able to diagnose the reasons for a tragic suicide and attribute them to a Rove personality disorder. Remarkable. When nitpicking an argument, I'd suggest leading with a stronger criticism than "Onslee"-Inslee. You might have noticed the "I" and "O" keys reside adjacent to one another on a standard keyboard. As a highly trained intel specialist, surely you aren't attributing to to shoddy fact-gathering (or malice) that which could just as easily have been a typo. I expect better from someone with your pedigree. Your dismissal of Plame's status not being mentioned in the CIA summary is laughable. Your statement that she was undoubtedly covered under IIPA is unsupported by anything produced to date by Fitzgerald. But "he said so!" (in the sentencing phase). Please. Val couldn't/wouldn't even answer the question herself in front of congress. The CIA refuses to answer to this day. But if Fitz and you say so, well then, it must be so. Please answer a couple of questions. If she was/is covered under IIPA, then why is Richard Armitage not in jail? Novak? Why was no one prosecuted (let alone convicted) under the statute? The pursuit of Libby was a Potemkin prosecution and you know it. And I'm not a defender of the man. If he lied, he should be punished. But his conviction on a process crime in no way vindicates Val or your pal Joe Wilson. Or does the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence having branded him a liar in 2004 count for nothing? The question(s) raised by Maguire and others are legitimate. To my knowledge, no one on his site has ever suggested, for example, that it would be a good idea to drown people (American citizens) they happen to disagree with politically. Or criminalize political differences. Where do you stand on waterboarding KSM? Let me guess, your against it. But drowning TM? Nifty! You say the CIA is not stupid. I'm inclined to agree but there are numerous instances going back over 5 decades where they have been incredibly inept and wrong. That's just the nature of the business. But, thanks in large part to folks like yourself, the Agency is incredibly political these days. And wearing political blinders can lead to stupid acts, like publishing terrorist counter-measures on the front page of the NYT's. Where do you stand on that? |
Write comment
